Voting reform comes slowly, so this is a first step, if this is knocked down I don't see any hope for my lifetime. AV isn't as good as some systems but is better than FPTP. The reasons why they didn't go straight for PR, my first thought is that it would need so much work and so much 'retraining' that it wouldn't be feasible. My cynical thought is that a certain party knew that AV would split the reform vote so have less chance of getting through, shutting the door for a while.
Again, taken from a lead off the site JJonas posted
it’s a question on which one needs to ask oneself, “which side are you on?” – for or against reform. People standing in the middle of the road, as Nye Bevin said, generally get run over. A no vote would scupper electoral reform, probably forever, whereas AV is a step towards potentially something like AV plus. Voting no would certainly not show that the British people want a PR electoral system. The comment on Jane’s blog that she mentions is particularly dunderheaded, but it is correct to say, as Sunny Hundal argues, that electoral reform tends to be incremental.
AV is better than FPTP. Vote Yes for electoral reform. That’s all I want to say on the topic now, otherwise my mental well-being will be severely tested soon.
Bleh, please don't vote on this based on party politics :( This benefits all the smaller parties, not just the lib dems. It will curb the power of the two big parties as wellQuote:
I'm going to vote no; anything that gives power to the Lib Dems has to be a bad move...
You'll have the power to stick to the lib dems in the local election and general election, whenever that is.
Yes, but it may have been different. The lib dems may have had enough numbers to party up with Labour instead, or more power if they had gone with the Tories.Quote:
So does anyone know if we would still have a "coalition" running the country if we had used the new voting system?
I'm not sure why Coalition is a dirty word anyway, it moderates the excesses of a single party having a massive majority. You can bet that the Tories would have ramraided through the NHS changes with little debate had they been the only party in power. Labour abused the hell out of it as well, trying to push through 96day detention without charge laws and ID cards.
Personally i see it making little to no difference im never going to vote tory at any price after what they did to south yorkshire last time they were in power, even if your area elects a green/other minority party candidate so what they get say 10 seats in parliment with which they can do what exactly?. Whatever system (without a complete overhall of politics which isnt going to happen) labour or the tories will win all that will change is how much they win by and wether they need a coalition partner or not
lets be fair, whoever gets in, by whatever measures, they are all the same at the end of it.
every party will promise the earth to voters and when they get in say "last government made a mess, we need to clean up first" and then spend the next 6 years taxing you and not giving anything back. it doesn't matter who you vote for, this will happen.
no party will come in and say VAT is 1%, we will raise state pension to £500 a week and give everyone a cash bonus for living here. they may all word it differently, but they will do the same
BNP will benefit is a Con bandied 'Fact'. The BNP don't want AV, which makes me want it more.Quote:
We do actually have some data on second preference votes for the BNP, for the London Assembly elections in 2008. You can find it on p8 of the House of Commons briefing notes. By my calculations, across the fourteen constituencies we have data for, an average of 4.93% of voters put the BNP down as a second preference. This would have been insufficient to win any of the council seats I mentioned above, even in seats where they polled 40% of votes in the first round.
It also depends on what you call marginal. That a party will have to get a real majority before gaining a seat? That alone will settle a lot of issues so well worth it.