Joensuu

Lord D, have to say that I agree entirely with that.

And your solution is? 1) Reverse devolution? (Pretty much unthinkable) 2) New layer of English parliament bureaucracy? (Because you'd love to see another tier of government wouldn't you?) 3) Full independence?

"You can never underestimate the stupidity of the general public." - Scott Adams

Quite right - so do you give them full independence from Whitehall, or do you add another layer of beuracracy and associated costs and form an English parliament (in addition the having a UK parliament?).

Nice tangent LD. Stick to the merits of FPTP vs AV please, and try not to sidetrack - I know it's not easy to make a case for FPTP without soundbytes and misdirection... (NB, nothing unfair about devolution, I'd have granted full indepedence myself, but devolution is a step in the right direction).

VFTT - if the no campaign wins the AV vote, the chances of us getting PR in the short or medium term are greatly reduced. It's a step in the right direction, while not what we want, its an improvement over the current mess, and the only sensible way I can see us getting a genuinely representative PR-based system in my lifetime.

Just to demonstrate my neutrality here. FPTP gave Scottish Tories 1.69% of the seats - despite them receiving 16.7% of the vote. How in any possible way can that be a fair system? Who knows whether AV would have increased the number of seats won by Scottish Tories - the chances are it would have, but not by too many seats (I'd guess c. 2-4 seats - certainly fairer, but not ideal). (Whereas full PR would have given the Scottish Tories the 9 or 10 seats their percentage of the vote warrents).

Yes, it's tried and tested - we know that it causses 40% of the population to be disenfranchised, we know that it causes over-representation of the larger parties, and under-representation of the smaller parties, we know that it stifles diversity, we know that causes endless damaging swings from left to right, causing untold damage to our economy, we know that it is fundamentally not very democratic. It is most definately not 'fairer' under any stretch of your imagination. Candidates under FPTP are frequently elected with only a minority of the local population supporting them. There are many consituencies where the incumbrent MP is actively disliked by the majority of the voters - but still FPTP allows the largest group to steamroller over the views of the others. It is less complicated - agreed. Marginally so, and much to the detriment of the overall system. It is also fractionally less likely to produce hung parliaments - although while hard to model, it is unlikely that any past results would have been altered. (Also I challenge the fundamental assumption you make that 'hung parliaments' are in any way weaker - in fact they are often far less erratic and extreme, and have countless examples of success in many countries). I anticipate a very low turnout, especially in London. I'm not being naive here. I disagree with the you. I can't see how it can be possible for any neutral assessment of the merits of FPTP vs AV could find the former to be preferable. It simply isn't. AV isn't perfect, but it does elect a closer proportion of MPs to the number of votes cast. How can any distortion of the actual number of votes that have been cast be fair? Wes, FPTP is an outdated system. Counties are moving away from it because it is fundamentally flawed. It is a long way from the democratic ideal of one-person, one-vote, FPTP is 'one-person, one-vote, but votes count for different things depending upon where you live, and a vote for anyone who isn't popular is a wasted vote - how dare you be different'. IMO 'Antiquainted' is perfectly acceptable term to use in this context. AV is most definately fairer (and PR fairer still). I'm not really sure why you can see that. But it is 'broke' - FPTP does not elect MPs in proportion to the number of votes that are cast - how, if we are all equal, can that possibly be considered to be fair? Yes, I intoduced this red-herring to counter the 'No' campaigns even bigger red herring of 'which countries currently have AV' (which of course is an attempt to belittle the 'Yes' campaign, without having the address the fundamental flaws of FPTP - dirty politics IMO. Of course! All those potty tin-pot western democracys must have it wrong, while the fully trouble-free collection African countries who still have FPTP and have spent years assessing its merits must have it right. I have to assume that countries who still have FPTP, only do so because it favours the parties who hold the power in those countries. Certainly, nobody (now) would chose it as a model to base a democrasy on. Yup. History shows winners and losers. Adopting FPTP now would be like adopting Communism - both are flawed relics. Lets not ignore the history. Agreed. This also needs to be addressed. Addresssing this without a fairer voting system would however be disasterous for England, as the Tories would get at least a decade to do what they want without any opposition. We need to first make all votes equal, and count proportionally before we can consider West Lothian. How can it be right that a vote in say New Forest East is worth a fraction of a vote in Eastleigh? Yes, in the first election, this is probably how AV will work. But five years later, and you will see more people voting for the parties that they feel best represented by. Gone will be the feeling that you are wasting your vote if you don't cast it for red or blue - suddenly you can vote for the party that best represents you, without fear of chucking your ballot away. As such, far more votes will be cast for minority parties (left, right and centre) as such within a decade or so the range of parties who stand a chance of winning will diversify, the range of options provided to th electorate will increase, and all sees will end up electing a representative that the majority finds palatable. This is a marked improvement over the current. How can it possibly be fair to have a system that elects MP's who have as little as 29.36% of the vote (c.f. Norwich South)? Who knows whether the other 70% of the constituency find this an acceptable or totally unpalatable choice?

Nope - I won't be voting Clegg that's for sure. I honestly don't see anyone worth voting for who is standing in my constituency, which really is a sorry state of affairs, considering I actively want to vote, have strong opinions, but have no sensible options. I'm a liberal, but not a Liberal Democrat, and am only debating this, because I honestly belive AV will help to improve the quality of our democracy.

Not 'more to do with' - but what you say certainly has merit. The biggest problem with FPTP is that the election is decided in c. 50-100 seats. If you live elsewhere your vote IS almost worthless. In the past I've voted in seats that have massive Labour and massive Conservative majorites - irrespective of who you chose to vote for, your vote is wasted in these seats. FPTP massively benefits parties who get more than 30% of the vote, and massively penalises parties who get less. The biggest problem with FPTP is that the number of votes cast has no direct relationship with the number of MPs elected - and that is a crippling flaw. BTW, I agree that equal sized constituencies, and a seperate English parliament would be good measures to help improve our democracy (I say seperate English parliament, but obviously you can't have a UK parliament without full UK representation, as such, either an additional English parliament would need to be established (with the associated additional costs an beuracracy), or full independance would need to be granted to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Agreed, entirely. Lets improve the voting system (as this is what is currently on the table), then press for further reform asap.

Wes, are you still trying to avoid tackling the issue head on? Come on, stop avoiding the subject. On what possible grounds is FPTP better than AV? Anyhow, I don't think it's as clear cut as you make out. I think that if you evaluate the pros and cons for the two systems from a neutral perspective, it is very hard to come to the conclusion that FPTP is the better system. However, if you allow personal party politics to bias your conclusion, then I can fully understand why you might conclude that FPTP helps your chosen party gain more seats than would be a representative share of the votes case, and as such, have a personal reason for chosing FPTP. I feel antiquated is a correct word to use. This is not just because it is old, but moreso because it is loosing popularity. In recent decades, how many countries have switched to FPTP? How many countries have switched away from FPTP? I'm sure you will agree, that this is an indication that the system is old-fashioned, or antiquated , and not merely 'old'. Having looked at the list of countries who still retain FPRP, I'm sure that many retain it simply because they haven't got around to fixing it: probably because the parties who are currently elected by their FPTP systems benefit from having the results skewed in their favour. Power corrupts. Agreed. FPTP is a largely British system, which was adopted around our former colonies. Many of these countries still have bigger problems than voting reform to tackle. Many politicians in these countries like the bias that the FPTP system grants their party. Many of the more stable former Bristish colonies have moved away from FPTP, because they have become stable enough to consider what is best for their own democracies and recognised that FPTP is not a fair method of running an election (cf. New Zealand, South Africa etc). I also agree that 'we have been a beacon of democracy in World political history' - with an emphasis on 'have' and 'history'. Unfortunately, these days are long past. Let's get this straight. I'm arguing for an improved electoral system. If this is AV, great, if this PR, perfect. Currently I'm not discussing PR, I only want to evaluate the relative merits or AV and FPTP. Partially agreed, because with AV voting patterns would be allowed to change - voters won't be handcuffed into deciding between voting for Labour/Tories or chosing to waste their vote on a no-hoper. With AV, the smaller parties won't be a wasted vote - and as such, voters will be able to (for the first time) vote for the real party of their choice, without wasting their vote.

Wes, obviously I must have overlooked something. I'm not sure what, but obviously their must be some benefit that FPTP has over AV. Althought, I can't for the life of me think what it might be. FPTP Pros: Strong link between MP and constituency. Cons: No absolute link between the number of votes cast for a party and how many seats it gets in Parliament. Parties can rule on a minority of the country's votes. Massively biased results for minor parties. Not as proportial as PR AV Pros: Strong link between MP and constituency. Majority support at the local level, not just nationally. Cons: Not as proportial as PR. Tiny increased chance of hung parliaments (however, AV wouldn't have changed any election results in the past 30 years). Have I missed something? Or is it indeed transparent that (putting party politics to one side) AV is overall a far better system than FPTP? I certainly see no evidence to the contrary. The current system has been barely acceptable. It is biased to the large parties, and I would argue has caused the constant swings from left to right which have crippled our country as successive governments reverse the policies of their predecessors. IMO, FPTP has NOT served our democracy well, it has made a mockery of it. Some nice myths here to bust. 1) Yes AV is only used in a handful of countries - almost all of the sensible countries have looked at FPTP seen it's massive flaws, looked at AV realised that it is a better system, but not much better than FPTP, so opted for PR instead. This 'handful' countries nonsense is a non-argument; aside from Canada, South Korea and India, take a look at the other countries stuck with the antiquated FPTP system (hardly leading lights of democracy are they?): Antigua and Barbuda Azerbaijan Bahamas Bangladesh Barbados Belize Bhutan Botswana Canada Dominica Ethiopia The Gambia Ghana Grenada India (Proportional representation in upper house) Iran Jamaica Kenya Kuwait Lebanon Malawi Malaysia Mexico Federated States of Micronesia Morocco Nepal Nigeria Pakistan Palau Papua New Guinea Philippines Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa Singapore Solomon Islands South Korea Swaziland Tanzania Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tuvalu Uganda United Kingdom Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe (where might you ask are all the other leading democracies? Are they not FPTP too? No, they've mostly opted to leapfrog AV and go straight for the much fairer PR option, well certainly that's the case for: Austria, Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portungal, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland) 2) Complicated. - Yes AV is a slightly more complicated system. This is a minor thing. 3) Expensive - No. This is an argument based on the Austrialian system, which doesn't take into account the vast cost of holding any elections across such a large country. Were Australia to have a FPTP or a PR system, they would also cost 3 times as much as the same system would cost to run in the UK. This is a negative argument, used to scaremonger.# 4) Weak governments - No. AV is only fractionally more likely to produce hung parliaments than FPTP. It wouldn't have changed the outcome of any UK general election in the last 30 years. And that's before considering whether hung governments are weaker - they work well in many countries, and generally have helped to remove the damaging swings from left to right to left.

If Skinner votes No, he will be placing party before country. If Denham votes Yes, he will be risking his own career security, for a fairer democracy. A very honorable move IMO.

IMO this is a good way for the Labour party to separate the careerists like Reid from the backbenchers who became MPs to improve our country.

As reforming the voting system to allow the number of votes cast to more accurately reflect the number of MPs elected is something that will reduce the number of MPs that both of the two 'big' parties get into the Commons, it is unlikely that there will be another opportunity to get a fairer voting system for a long time. This is an example of 'power corrupting' - why would an average MP undermine their own gravy chain, by assisting a fairer electoral system? I don't want to smite the intellect of 'no' campaigners (as it is transparent that the argument for FPTP simply doesn't stack up vs AV), therefore I must conclude that 'no' campaigners do so out of self interest - i.e. I assume that all 'no' campaigners must be putting their own party politics or self interest before improving our democracy. As such, the decision facing voters is simple: Vote 'No' if you think that the Tory/Labour party winning is more important than having a (slightly) more representative democracy. Vote 'Yes' if you think a fairer democracy is more important than party politics.

Is this the BBC research you refer to? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8506306.stm

I'm just disappointed (but not surprised) that the debate seems to have focused on soundbites and personality, rather than discussing the actual benefits of voting reform. If people were to vote on nothing but the pros and cons of AV vs FPTP, it would be a landslide win for AV.

Are you comparing the Tories to the Gestapo?

Why put the race or religion into the thread title? (would you do the same if this were a caucasian 'gang'?)

Your descendants will be so proud. "Oh, look, not only was great-great-uncle Dune's spelling not up to much, but he was obviously a racist who was unaware of the history of UK immigration" Dune, for the record, what's your definition of being indigenous to the UK? Only those of Homo heidelbergensis stock? Too early? How about exclusively Homo neanderthalensis "we don't want those sapians sorts around here" ?

Thank goodness for our yoof eh?

Saving a country who want to be saved is a legitimate use of force. If we do engage in Libya, the conflict is likely to be both faster and more successful than either Iraq or Afghanistan. The difference is that the country would largely back the foreign intervention (at least at first). It would be a legitimate conflict, undertaken for the right reasons – unlike Iraq. And I say this as a liberal leftie.

Yup, UKIP gained of 1,200 votes... (wonder how many of those defected from the BNP, who lost 1,900 votes?). Tories lose 4,300 votes. Lib Dems lose 5,300 votes. Labour lose 2,700 votes. Turnout dropped by 20% All in all a demonstration of ambivalence by the electorate, highlighting one of the weaknesses in our FPTP system - irrespective of who you support, why vote at all when the seat is going to end up as a safe win for Labour? Should the votes of the people of Barnsley count for less than people who live in a contested seat? (on second thoughts... don't answer that!)

Absolutely. This is evidence that Clegg made the wrong decision in putting his self before the views of his party by teaming up with Cameron. Unlike Labour/Tory voters, liberals won't continue to vote for people who have let them down.

Burchill has a class-centric chip on her shoulder. The real 'middle class, left of centre' view is that each case needs to be evaluated on it's merits. No-one with half a brain believes in Burchill's half-baked 'paint chart politics' nonsense - it doesn't matter what races or religions are involved, the abused are to be supported, the abusers to be resisted.