Av

[Ardiles]

I'm voting no because 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'

Please, please tell me you're joking.

[Samdy Gray]

I'm voting no because 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'

Also, I think FPTP is fairer. Peoples mention PR, but that way you will no longer be able to pick your constituent MP, and you will no longer be able to force out an MP you don't like (it's always funny when one of the Cabinet gets voted out at a General Election), as you will voting for a party instead

I'm pretty sure if you did a decent survey of the population, you'd find the majority vote for the party anyway rather than the individual.

[tans]

I blame thatcher for all this

The old cunt

[pauld]

I'm pretty sure if you did a decent survey of the population, you'd find the majority vote for the party anyway rather than the individual.

And if they did a referendum on the current system vs PR, it'd probably be a lot closer than this one will be. Which is, of course, why we didn't get that. Heaven forfend they should offer us a vote on something we might actually want. To (mis)quote a very wise man earlier in this thread it's like being offered a choice as to what type of shit you'd like on your cake.

[LucienSanchez]

I'm going to spoil mine, just because i've never done it before...

[Highland Robin]

I'm voting no because 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'

Peoples mention PR, but that way you will no longer be able to pick your constituent MP, and you will no longer be able to force out an MP you don't like .

Not necessarily true....Have just voted in Scottish Parliament election - you get two voting papers.  One elects a constituency MSP and the second elects regional MSPs on a 'proportion of the vote' basis.  So there were just 4 candidates for the constituency election and about ten for the region - and I could vote for two different parties - and, indeed the Greens did not stand for the constituency election because they knew they had no chance, but have candidates for the region on the basis that they could well get enough votes for at least one to be elected.  we shall see what the results actually throw up, but i quite like the idea.

[welshred]

I shall be voting Yes for the following reasons:

- The 2 big parties are going to have to be less complacent, and work hard for every vote, meaning they'll have to appeal to a wider audience.

- The AV system will crush extremist parties like the BNP.

- Any system which lets a Government be elected when less than half of the population wanted them is clearly flawed.

- There will be no need for spoiler votes. i.e. Wanting the Green party to win, but voting Labour purely because you don't want the Tories to get in. People can actually vote for the parties they want, no matter how small they are.

[Phil_S]

I shall be voting Yes for the following reasons:

- The 2 big parties are going to have to be less complacent, and work hard for every vote, meaning they'll have to appeal to a wider audience.

- The AV system will crush extremist parties like the BNP.

- Any system which lets a Government be elected when less than half of the population wanted them is clearly flawed.

- There will be no need for spoiler votes. i.e. Wanting the Green party to win, but voting Labour purely because you don't want the Tories to get in. People can actually vote for the parties they want, no matter how small they are.

I disagree... AV will help the BNP as it will help all fringe parties. Thats why most fringe parties are promoting AV. (Except surprisingly the BNP)

[thepeoplesgame]

I disagree... AV will help the BNP as it will help all fringe parties. Thats why most fringe parties are promoting AV. (Except surprisingly the BNP)

Nah, the BNP would still get the first choice votes they already get, but they'd be at the very bottom of every sensible voter's order of preference so would never get anywhere near the 50% support needed to get an MP.

[Ardiles]

I disagree... AV will help the BNP as it will help all fringe parties. Thats why most fringe parties are promoting AV. (Except surprisingly the BNP)

I think you've got that exactly the wrong way around.  The fringe parties, as fringe parties, would be the least likely to pick up second and third preference votes, so would drop out of the process very quickly if they got past the first round.

This also tells you why the BNP are voting against AV.  Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

[Phil_S]

I think you've got that exactly the wrong way around.  The fringe parties, as fringe parties, would be the least likely to pick up second and third preference votes, so would drop out of the process very quickly if they got past the first round.

This also tells you why the BNP are voting against AV.  Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

Why are the greens & liberals for it then ?

[oxford_fan]

1. I'm voting no because 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'

2. You're brought up under 'One Person, One Vote' but that doesn't apply in AV.

1. Jesus Christ!
2. Yes it does: AV does not give people extra votes. The system sticks to the principle of “one person, one vote”.

3. There will be additional costs if AV came in via longer counts (if the first count didn't get an absolute majority, they'll have to reallocate other votes meaning they'll have to count again) or machines to work it all out (whether it'll cost the money what the No camp says I do not know).

It's easiest to quote on this one:

Central to the No camp’s claim is that an AV system will need electronic voting machines, which would add £130m to the bill for an AV election. FactCheck previously proved this spurious.

There is no evidence that AV would require an electronic system. And as the Political Studies Association (PSA) points out, elections held under AV – and under the more demanding STV system – in Australia, Ireland and Scotland are all, in general, conducted using traditional paper ballots.

The AV referendum itself is estimated to cost £91m, regardless of the result. Subtract this £91m cost and the £130m from the No’s estimated £250m and you are left with a cost of £29m for voter education.

Aside from educating the voter, counting the votes would take longer than under FPTP. However, there are no estimates on how much this would cost.

The Cabinet Office has set aside £120m for the next general election; £10m more than the 2010 election (which cost £82m to run and £30m to deliver candidates’ election leaflets).

The PSA said: “Even if we suppose (unrealistically that the current cost of running an election (up to £90m) would be doubled by the introduction of AV, that implies an annual cost across a five-year electoral cycle of only around 30p per person. Clearly, this is a very small sum.”

[Ardiles]

Why are the greens & liberals for it then ?

Because, unlike the BNP, they are not universally offensive to just about everyone outside their core support.  And, therefore, they are much more likely to benefit from the redistribution of votes if they get past the first round.  AV is a nutter's nightmare.

[Samdy Gray]

Why are the greens & liberals for it then ?

Probably because they are more likely to be a second preference.

[magicroundabout]

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/downloads/What%20is%20AVweb.pdf

just to inform those who don't understand the AV process