Why you should vote YES to AV on Thursday:

[TechMonkey]

If you want it based on reforming this country, then surely that means making sure every party has an equal chance of winning an election, whether you agree with their views or not? By saying you want AV because the BNP don't means you aren't making an unbiased choice. If everyone said "I want AV to kick Labour/Tory, etc" then it is more out of spite you vote for it.

 

I knew I should have appended a bet on how long it would take someone to link those.

 

That isn't the reason for me wanting AV but if the system has a fringe party that gains seats through minority wins worried then it proves that it is a better system. Currently every party does not have an equal chance. Refering back to that article:

The three BNP councillors elected for the first time in Burnley in 2002 had an average vote share of 28.1%. This means that 71.9% of voters voted against these councillors, yet they were still elected.

 

Slightly OT I think the BNP is a good thing as it shows we are a democracy, I think they should win some seats as it would shock the voters into mobilising and it would show what the BNP really stand for.

[DrCheese]

Slightly OT I think the BNP is a good thing as it shows we are a democracy, I think they should win some seats as it would shock the voters into mobilising and it would show what the BNP really stand for.

Is what I've always thought. If you shutdown people's views instantly then they just go underground and will eventually boil over into something horrible. It's far better to have them out in the open and show just how bad they really are.

[PICNIC]

So 'Red Ed' got into power using the AV system? seems a good argument for voting NO....

 

As did 'Shiny head Cameron' =p

[teejay]

Or you could see it as one step on the road to reform. In fact if the difference is so marginal why not vote yes?

 

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.

 

Or you could see it as one step on the road to reform. - I don't see a need for reform to a PR or AV system, FPTP for me is fine. The reform I want to see is a 'none of the above' option.

In fact if the difference is so marginal why not vote yes? - Because I want to vote No?

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 - As I said, sit down and work it out rather than listening to the Yes/No campaigns. In our country, with two main parties with polarised voting patterns and a number of small parties (yes I include Lib Dems in this) it makes such a negligable difference that it won't have the affect you are after.

[Robz]

As did 'Shiny head Cameron' =p

 

Touché, but which one is it telling us to use such an important referendum to get back at our government? Anyone willing to ruin our country for a bit of childish revenge isn't worth listening to IMHO

[teejay]

Is what I've always thought. If you shutdown people's views instantly then they just go underground and will eventually boil over into something horrible. It's far better to have them out in the open and show just how bad they really are.

 

Agreed, the problem is you need a country that truly upholds the principle of freedom of speech, the UK is no longer such a country.

[Robz]

Agreed, the problem is you need a country that truly upholds the principle of freedom of speech, the UK is no longer such a country.

 

hear hear! I can't agree more, we have become a country where the minority are protected and the majority persecuted, I know of no other country that bans their country's flag from prisons (union jack and st georges cross) but allows all others!

 

nor do I see France bowing to the EU and saying "sure take control of our country", they tell them where to get off...

 

/(small)rant

 

back on topic.... I'll be voting NO for the simple reason we have no need to change and such a change shouldn't be tried whilst we are still a crippled nation

Edited May 4, 2011 by Robz

[TechMonkey]

Or you could see it as one step on the road to reform. - I don't see a need for reform to a PR or AV system, FPTP for me is fine. The reform I want to see is a 'none of the above' option.

In fact if the difference is so marginal why not vote yes? - Because I want to vote No?

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 - As I said, sit down and work it out rather than listening to the Yes/No campaigns. In our country, with two main parties with polarised voting patterns and a number of small parties (yes I include Lib Dems in this) it makes such a negligable difference that it won't have the affect you are after.

 

So you do want a reform? A none of the above is a reform. No reform means no hope of that at all.

So the marginality isn't what is making you vote no, you just want to say no.

I have. I thought about it long and hard. If you want us to stay as only 2 main parties with polarised views and a huge switch every so many years then that is fine and that is what we shall keep with the status quo. Well in fact we shall get more of the same, shoddy coalitions with a huge player ignoring the smaller party as voting gets fragmented across more and more smaller parties.

[teejay]

So you do want a reform? A none of the above is a reform. No reform means no hope of that at all.

So the marginality isn't what is making you vote no, you just want to say no.

I have. I thought about it long and hard. If you want us to stay as only 2 main parties with polarised views and a huge switch every so many years then that is fine and that is what we shall keep with the status quo. Well in fact we shall get more of the same, shoddy coalitions with a huge player ignoring the smaller party as voting gets fragmented across more and more smaller parties.

 

Claiming voting no the AV is going to affect future reform is rubbish. I would argue that voting no to AV will give us a biggeer chance of reform as we have rejected that system and now they need to figure out something we will accept.

Marginatlity is one of the main reasons, from looking at it in detail AV will make no effective change to the structure of our parliament, won't change our 2 party structure and won't make MP's any more accountable. It will probably make 5-10 seats more marginal, that's it. A much greater effect will be caused by the planned reduction in the number of MP's and changes in constituency boundaries.

So your suggesting that a small party should have more influence in a coalition than the main party?

[witch]

Claiming voting no the AV is going to affect future reform is rubbish. I would argue that voting no to AV will give us a biggeer chance of reform as we have rejected that system and now they need to figure out something we will accept.

Marginatlity is one of the main reasons, from looking at it in detail AV will make no effective change to the structure of our parliament, won't change our 2 party structure and won't make MP's any more accountable. It will probably make 5-10 seats more marginal, that's it. A much greater effect will be caused by the planned reduction in the number of MP's and changes in constituency boundaries.

So your suggesting that a small party should have more influence in a coalition than the main party?

 

Which is why we need PR

Don't get why voting NO will make them seek out a solution we will accept? Surely voting NO will just make them think that we are happy with things as they are?

If AV is so bad then why do the parties use it to elect their leader?

[TechMonkey]

Claiming voting no the AV is going to affect future reform is rubbish. I would argue that voting no to AV will give us a biggeer chance of reform as we have rejected that system and now they need to figure out something we will accept.

Marginatlity is one of the main reasons, from looking at it in detail AV will make no effective change to the structure of our parliament, won't change our 2 party structure and won't make MP's any more accountable. It will probably make 5-10 seats more marginal, that's it. A much greater effect will be caused by the planned reduction in the number of MP's and changes in constituency boundaries.

So your suggesting that a small party should have more influence in a coalition than the main party?

 

I'm sorry but if you think a no vote won't be spun to loudly proclaim that the public have spoken and loudly said they do not want any changes then you are naive. It will be taken as the majority want FPTP, that what we have is what the people want and we will not get another chance for a long, long time.

AV won't change anything except how we vote. But it is a small step to making people think differently, to start voting properly and a hope that future governments will have to listen more. Yes it is a hope, but a stronger one that with what we have now.

The studies I have seen have said AV could effect around 50% of safe seats. That's around 150! It could well go further than that if people change from their current tactical voting.

I'm not sure if it will make them more accountable but if an MP has to get a full 50% then I'm sure they will think long and hard about what they do & how it will effect them. Although that does mean voters will have to hold the MP accountable rather than always vote for that nice conservative man or voting for that man that I always do or even I like his name I'll vote for him.

[MK-2]

I'm sorry but if you think a no vote won't be spun to loudly proclaim that the public have spoken and loudly said they do not want any changes then you are naive. .

 

But on the flipside, why will voting yes make them think "we now have AV, lets now push for something else" rather than just "the public have spoken, they now have the voting system they want".

 

Neither result will probably end in major reform past just using AV, and to think anything other than THAT is naive

[TechMonkey]

Because by a majority saying they are open to change you are opening up the way for reform. I'm not saying overnight we will get all the reform we want but it opens the way. There is more chance of multiple small changes to get where we want then saying no to everything except the huge change you want.

 

Not saying it was the right way to do it. I've said elsewhere there should have been a referendum asking "Do you want voting reform?" to get a true result of what the country wants. That would have meant less politicising would be possible and if that was confirmed we can sort out the nitty gritty of what system we want however we like.

[teejay]

The studies I have seen have said AV could effect around 50% of safe seats. That's around 150! It could well go further than that if people change from their current tactical voting.

 

Please look at who comissioned and paid for these studies, they're just spin.

[TechMonkey]

Please look at who comissioned and paid for these studies, they're just spin.

 

Funnily enough one of them was on the No2AV myth busting section of their website. I was about to link but they have now changed the text. Funny that.

[Jamo]

I know that AV will not bring this but the reform I would like to see is this:

 

United Kingdom general election, 2005 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Percentage of seats won to actual country wide vote percentage???? Completely nuts!

 

AV is a step in the right direction, change will be good!

[teejay]

Funnily enough one of them was on the No2AV myth busting section of their website. I was about to link but they have now changed the text. Funny that.

 

Case proven

[TechMonkey]

So you are saying that using a fact from a website that doesn't want AV to show a plus for AV is bad?

[teejay]

No, I'm saying if it was on either the yes or no websites it's been erm, 'sponsored' shall we say and so shouldn't be relied on as fact.

[TechMonkey]

I would say that is even more valid as it was on the opposite website. That means before being sponsored the stats were probably higher so the percent up for grabs is higher.

[GrumbleDook]

People should not confuse a majority government and majority vote. The No campaign are avoiding some of the figures and the Yes campaign are twisting them. Spin on both sides.

 

A majority government (which the coalition is) is where the majority of seats are controlled by the government, and this is often forgotten. A majority vote for the governing party (when a single party) is always going to be rare in FPTP.

 

The only true way that AV will be stopped from having the political backbiting and backdoor deals is to have it as a staged vote. Have the voting run over many rounds, and in each round the one with the lower number of votes is eliminated. I know it sounds a tad X Factor, but it would allow for parties to be more open about when they are picking up sections of the manifesto of others when trying to win votes. It will reduce strategic voting on the day (allowing the groups which people aren't really interested in) to get through.

 

PR is not an option as far as I am concerned. It will be even messier than coalitions through AV.

 

As much as I know there is a need for change and that all views need to be considered, there are times when you just have to either accept that someone has to make decisions, or you just accept that it is all political spin and back stabbing ... so why not just go and let the Civil Service get on with keeping the country running without the meddling of politicians. They are not all like Sir Humphrey.

[Guest Guest]

Have the voting run over many rounds, and in each round the one with the lower number of votes is eliminated.

 

The problem with that though would be if parties changed their PR after each round... measures would have to be put in place to stop them from looking which party went out first and trying to snatch up their votes.

 

 

AV could end up with parties having their "main selling points" in order to get the first votes, but then having "catch all" policies in order to get the second and third votes... Would this would be a good thing as all parties would have to appeal to all people, or would this be a bad thing for the exact same reason?

[GrumbleDook]

The problem with that though would be if parties changed their PR after each round... measures would have to be put in place to stop them from looking which party went out first and trying to snatch up their votes.

 

But that is part of the beauty of it ... it becomes self-regulating. If Party Y drops off after a particular round then It is up to other Parties to think about whether they want to scrabble for the loose votes. However, if they change what they were originally touting in their manifesto too much they could lose some of their existing votes, but if they don't listen to what the public are saying then they won't pick up any extra votes. They might think "oh ... to be honest I wouldn't want to be associated with supporters of that Party anyway, and if the others make a play for them then that is ammo for why we are better!"

 

SyCo to run the electoral system? It could work you know.

[teejay]

Well, No it is then...

[Gatt]

Judging from the Slaughter of the LibDems.. guessing 1 of 2 things happened:

 

1) People voted NO because they didn't know enough about it

2) People voted NO because they don't like the LibDems...

 

Or both...

 

Oh well.. we're stuck with FPTP for ever know folks....