AV referendum

[Joensuu]

Because there are a lot of thick people in his party who don't understand what being a minority partner in a coalition government entails.

 

You'd think they would have a clue given they've been advocating PR for decades.

 

Trousers, what makes you think that the Lib Dems should have sold out their manifesto and beliefs to enter coalition - how would Labour or Tory voters have felt had those parties have entered into a coalition with one another. What you need to do is work with other parties to pass sensible legislation, not sell out all your beliefs simply to gain a chair in the cabinet.

[Lord Duckhunter]

We are not used to coalition politics in this Country, so many people will blame Clegg for propping up the Tories. There was always going to be a squeeze on them, because the rely on Labour votes in Tory areas and there's no point in that now. My mate is Labour through and through yet votes Lib/Dem in Poole as Labour will never win. He'll never vote for them again and they'll lose some support because of that.

 

Clegg was in a bit of a corner because although closer to Labour, he always insisted that he would deal with the biggest party (vote wise), he also had to go into coalition because not to have done so, after advocating it for so long, would not have made sense. For me Clegg never thought he would have to go in with the Tories and always thought it would be an outright Tory win or a Lib/Lab pact. I think Cameron wanting a coalition throw him a bit, and he's never really recovered.

 

I do honestly believe that unless we get some sort of PR, his party will take a generation to recover from this coalition and we'll be back to Tory or Labour.

[Joensuu]

so, libe dems would rather NEVER getting anywhere near power (which is the case) than get a siff, put in a few ideas and curb the tories like they do now.

 

they came 3rd...and in most elections by a long bloody way...did they really expect to come into this, dump trident, dump tuition fees, let out prisoners, let in all the illegals...etc etc..

 

they are the nearest to power they have ever been...they are getting their voice heard and getting a couple of policies in yet, that is not enough for a small 3rd place party

 

they have their PR now..yet, that is seen as selling its soul.....

 

Not at all. Lib Dems would rather have their opinions reflected in government, than be associated with the policies of a party they didn't vote for. Clegg traded with Cameron, and settled for personal gain, and nothing tangible whatsoever to further the liberal cause. Do you really think liberal voters are satisfied with having a measure of power, without having any affect on policy? What we want is to improve the country, not just provide a vehicle for careerist politicians like Clegg, who put their own legacy before what they claim to believe in.

 

The Lib Dems did indeed come third, some 3 million short of Labour - but still with 6 million votes. Over the last 100 years, what proportion of legislation has been liberal? Is it as high as 20%? If not, a large proportion of the population isn't being represented in our system.

 

PS, nobody has 'their PR now'.

[Thedelldays]

well...then this will be the last time in all our life times the lib dems will have to influence real decision in our country....

[Joensuu]

We are not used to coalition politics in this Country, so many people will blame Clegg for propping up the Tories. There was always going to be a squeeze on them, because the rely on Labour votes in Tory areas and there's no point in that now. My mate is Labour through and through yet votes Lib/Dem in Poole as Labour will never win. He'll never vote for them again and they'll lose some support because of that.

 

Clegg was in a bit of a corner because although closer to Labour, he always insisted that he would deal with the biggest party (vote wise), he also had to go into coalition because not to have done so, after advocating it for so long, would not have made sense. For me Clegg never thought he would have to go in with the Tories and always thought it would be an outright Tory win or a Lib/Lab pact. I think Cameron wanting a coalition throw him a bit, and he's never really recovered.

 

I do honestly believe that unless we get some sort of PR, his party will take a generation to recover from this coalition and we'll be back to Tory or Labour.

 

Yes, but I'm sure the country will learn to get used to coalitions.

 

Liberal voters are often forced to vote for other parties too, it's not just your mate in Poole who reluctantly has to vote tactically. AV should help this situation, and your friend will get a fairer deal.

 

Clegg had a third option - which people seem to overlook. He couldn't sensibly go with Labour, there weren't enough seats. He would destroy his party if he went with Cameron. He could have instead opted to stay out of any coalitions. This would have allowed Cameron to try and form a minority government (which may or may not have worked). Irrespective, the Lib Dem voters would have then stayed with the party, and legislation that was passed would have required concensus from parties - meaning that often liberal views would have been represented (pretty much for the first time in 100 years). Clegg opted for personal prestige over the views of his electorate, and is suffering for it.

[Joensuu]

well...then this will be the last time in all our life times the lib dems will have to influence real decision in our country....

 

And yet, they actually have no real say. What liberal concessions has Clegg exacted from Cameron? I can't see anything whatsoever that this coalition has implemented that would appeal to a liberal voter.

 

Question is, where will the liberal votes go? Will they go to Labour? In some areas I guess so. Naturally, liberals are going to be far more inclinded to side with the Greens, so you might expect to start seeing a large increase in green voters perhaps?

[Saintandy666]

First past the post is a sham.

 

Does anyone remember when the Lib Dems steamrollered into the lead during the general election campaign on share of vote, albeit briefly... They were still 3rd in number of seats won.

 

SHAM.

Edited 19 February, 2011 by Saintandy666

[bridge too far]

This, on opinion polls re AV, is interesting:

 

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

[pedg]

Clegg had a third option - which people seem to overlook. He couldn't sensibly go with Labour, there weren't enough seats. He would destroy his party if he went with Cameron. He could have instead opted to stay out of any coalitions. This would have allowed Cameron to try and form a minority government (which may or may not have worked). Irrespective, the Lib Dem voters would have then stayed with the party, and legislation that was passed would have required concensus from parties - meaning that often liberal views would have been represented (pretty much for the first time in 100 years). Clegg opted for personal prestige over the views of his electorate, and is suffering for it.

 

If everything was hunky dory with the world at the end of the last election then I suspect the libdems would have stayed away from the Tories and watched what happened in the hope that another election soon after might see them get more seats. However I think what Clegg did was brave as I think he realising that given the state of the economy etc it was not the right time for several months of weak government with the likelihood of another election always on the horizon. Given joining with labour would have also been a week government as other smaller parties would want their pound of flesh to join in and could easily leave his only real choice was to join with the Tories. As a lifelong Libdem voter (and for the first time EVER managed to actually vote for the winning candidate) I can understand why he did it but it still leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I suppose the question we will never know the answer to is how much worse would the current government be if the tories had got a majority in the election.

[aintforever]

I think AV is probably fairer, with the current system someone can win with 30% of the vote whilst being hated by the majority of the electorate.

 

AV would be fairer if you didn't have to list all 5 in order, you should be able to just vote for your first choice if you want, otherwise you will get meaningless votes counted.

[Saintandy666]

I think AV is probably fairer, with the current system someone can win with 30% of the vote whilst being hated by the majority of the electorate.

 

AV would be fairer if you didn't have to list all 5 in order, you should be able to just vote for your first choice if you want, otherwise you will get meaningless votes counted.

 

You can vote for just one if you want.

 

I repeat, you do not have to list all candidates if you don't want to, so really if you still just want to vote for one candidate it's easier... one line instead of two!

 

Edit: and it will very rarely go down to beyond peoples 2nd choices.

[Joensuu]

If everything was hunky dory with the world at the end of the last election then I suspect the libdems would have stayed away from the Tories and watched what happened in the hope that another election soon after might see them get more seats. However I think what Clegg did was brave as I think he realising that given the state of the economy etc it was not the right time for several months of weak government with the likelihood of another election always on the horizon. Given joining with labour would have also been a week government as other smaller parties would want their pound of flesh to join in and could easily leave his only real choice was to join with the Tories. As a lifelong Libdem voter (and for the first time EVER managed to actually vote for the winning candidate) I can understand why he did it but it still leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I suppose the question we will never know the answer to is how much worse would the current government be if the tories had got a majority in the election.

 

I agree pedg, we can never know how other options might have turned out. I voted lib dem - not that it counted, and I can see what Clegg thought he was doing, but I don't think he exacted anything tangible from Cameron. A deal with the Conservatives was always going to put liberal backs out of joint, and only a major concession would have made it acceptable. STV was the only thing I could see being acceptable - no referendums or unwhipped votes. As it is the Lib Dems are being associated with all of the cuts and mistakes of Cameron's government, without having achieved anything. For me it's not about voting for the winner, it's about having policies you feel will better the country being proposed an passed. The only condem policies I have agreed with entirely are the scrapping of some of Labour's more authoritarian measure - ID cards etc.

 

Perhaps you are right, and Clegg sacrificed the Lib Dems for the good of the country, that would be a positive way of interpreting events. I can't shake the feeling that he did it for himself rather than his party though - bet when the Lib Dem share of the vote disapears in 2015, Clegg is ousted and quickly finds himself on a the after dinner speaker bandwagon with Blair, Major and Brown. Will the cash he will bring in soften his having undermined his party? Sure, by refusing to join either party, the government would have been weak - but the measures passed would have had cross-party concensus, and as such would have probably been in the best interest of the country, rather than in the political benefit of left or right. If this 'weak' government had fallen, another election would have probably brought in a majority.

[Joensuu]

You can vote for just one if you want.

 

I repeat, you do not have to list all candidates if you don't want to, so really if you still just want to vote for one candidate it's easier... one line instead of two!

 

Edit: and it will very rarely go down to beyond peoples 2nd choices.

 

Absolutely, so someone like Dune would benefit from selecting only the parties he actually would like to see in power, in the order he would like to see them win the seat, without fear of wasting his vote, e.g. 1) BNP 2) UKIP 3) NF 4) Engish Democrats 5) Conservative, would allow Dune to ensure that he is voting for the party he agrees with most, but with the saftey net that if they are eliminated before receiving 50% his vote won't be wasted, and will carry over to another party who he would find acceptable. Eventually, if all of his first 4 choices are eliminated before the seat is won, his vote might tip the Conservatives past the 50% mark, and win them a seat. At no time is Dune forced to put a number against a party he can't stand - so, Dune won't need to put say a 6 against Labour, and a 7 against the Greens.

 

NB, the order in which 'Dune' would vote in the scenario is entirely hypothetical.

[Thedelldays]

well, we shall see if enough people want change

[Joensuu]

well, we shall see if enough people want change

 

Yup. I do hope that people vote on the actual change, and not on the sound bites though. It worries me that the way that the change is explained can influence the outcome. In btf's link above, it seems that when people consider what the change actually means they are very much more in favour of it, whereas when it becomes clouded in sound bites and party politics people seem far from certain.

 

I guess we just have to hope for fair impartial debate... Oh...

[dune]

If the Liberals are in favour then I'm definitely voting against.

 

I hear you mate.

[aintforever]

I think the Tories are against it because more people hate them whereas Labour and Lib Dems will get a lot of 2nd votes of each other's supporters.

[solentstars]

That's voting for all the wrong reasons. This rigging of the seats in parliament HAS to end.

 

FPTP works very well in a 2 party system. We no longer have that. The 'main' two parties got just 66% at the last election, down from the 95%+ they used to get 30 or 40 years ago when FPTP was reasonable. This system just excludes everyone else now. It's not right.

 

i agree and it will get more people involved with voting and stop us being played by the die hard tory and labour zealots because they will not to have massive majority's on 36% of the vote.

Edited 20 February, 2011 by solentstars

[Verbal]

I hear you mate.

 

Did you hear that Grandad? You're allied with dune. Sorry to ruin your Sunday.

[solentstars]

Did you hear that Grandad? You're allied with dune. Sorry to ruin your Sunday.

 

haha being linked with dune has got to being the biggest insult he could get:p

[Shandy_Top_89]

Voting yes.

 

AV is a small step, but a correct one. FPTP is practically rigged under the current boundaries, I do fear that people will wrongly derail it due to it association with the Lib Dems though.

 

Unless we move to AV during this referendum all chances of further reform will go out the window, Westminster will only accept electoral reforms one step at a time. Hopefully we will be able to sort out the undemocratic farce that is the House of Lords before too long, and eventually move the Commons to a PR sytem or at least AV+. Even if there is a lot of hate towards the Lib Dems right now its hard to ignore their point, its worth noting that under a PR system they would be achieving more seats with their current dire poll rating (10%/ 65 seats) than they achieved in last years election (57 seats) with 23% of the vote. Shows how much of a joke FPTP is.

 

Also the NO campaign is being shown up as a bit of a sham from what ive been reading, more interested in smear tactics than factual analysis.

[Whitey Grandad]

Did you hear that Grandad? You're allied with dune. Sorry to ruin your Sunday.

At my age you get to be even more selectively deaf.

[Whitey Grandad]

haha being linked with dune has got to being the biggest insult he could get:p

 

Some people would see it as a compliment.

[Joensuu]

Some people would see it as a compliment.

 

Of course, but not the sort of person anyone sober would happy invite round their house.

[trousers]

Boris Johnson is God....

 

"AV was a last gasp from Gordon Brown's bunker – and it's a gigantic fraud

 

I hope I will be forgiven if I indulge in a few tasteless comparisons between the crazed and increasingly blood-soaked tyrant Muammar al-Gaddafi and former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown. After all, the two men look vaguely similar; they both appear to believe in the efficacy of Grecian 2000; they both favour long and rambling speeches on socialist economic and political theory, with Col Gaddafi's efforts perhaps having a slight edge in logic and coherence. And even if most fair-minded people would say that they were very different political personalities, there is one essential point in common between Tripoli in 2011 and the dying months of the last Labour government.

When a regime has been in power too long, when it has fatally exhausted the patience of the people, and when oblivion finally beckons – I am afraid that across the world you can rely on the leaders of that regime to act solely in the interests of self-preservation, and not in the interests of the electorate.

That is why Labour continued to spend and borrow and bribe right up to the wire, desperately hoping to hang on, and racking up such huge debts that Treasury Minister Liam Byrne left a note to his successor gloating that there was "no more money left". And that was why in February last year the doomed Gordon Brown performed his breath-takingly cynical U-turn, announcing after a lifetime's opposition that he was a convert to the Alternative Vote system for parliamentary elections. Why did he do it?

 

What was behind this mad last roll of the dice? It is a bizarre feature of the AV referendum that it was actually proposed by neither of the parties who won the 2010 election, and who now form the government, but emerged as a last gasp from the bunker of the man who lost. "

 

More... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/8351442/AV-was-a-last-gasp-from-Gordon-Browns-bunker-and-its-a-gigantic-fraud.html

[Joensuu]

Distinctively Boris. Illogical, dotty, and always sounding half-cut.

 

Brown did indeed try to save his ass with AV. It wasn't suggessful.

 

Thankfully, the current move towards AV has nothing to do with Brown. I'm sure there are few people who actually want AV: people are divided between wanting a fair system (PR), vs those who put self-interest before democracy, and want to skew the number of votes cast in favour of bigger parties (FPTP). AV is a compromise which nobody is campaigning for, but it's a compromise that's better than the current mess.

 

Brown's cynical attempts to cling to power, and Boris's eccentric waffling are irrelevant.

[scotty]

If the Liberals are in favour then I'm definitely voting against. That lot have never come up with any sensible ideas. Apart from that, I want to know who I'm voting for.

 

Up to now, they havent needed to. It will be interesting to see what policies they put forward at the next election now theyve had a sniff of power and actually been able to implement some of their policies. They havent had that distraction before in my lifetime.

[bridge too far]

The BBC is running a series of articles on this subject, representing all views. Here is today's offering:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12486153

 

I do take on board what the article says about the LibDems being the permanent 'kingmakers' - of course, it doesn't necessarily have to be the LibDems. It could be the BNP FFS!

 

My objection to AV is that small, insignificant parties could end up with a disporoportionate amount of power in the event of a hung parliament by prostituting themselves to one major party or another.

[thefunkygibbons]

I will vote for sure

 

And I will vote no to AV

[GenevaSaint]

The BBC is running a series of articles on this subject, representing all views. Here is today's offering:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12486153

 

I do take on board what the article says about the LibDems being the permanent 'kingmakers' - of course, it doesn't necessarily have to be the LibDems. It could be the BNP FFS!

 

My objection to AV is that small, insignificant parties could end up with a disporoportionate amount of power in the event of a hung parliament by prostituting themselves to one major party or another.

 

So, the current scenario then ;-)

 

I must admit I might well vote against AV as I actually want full PR, this half hearted attempt could well indeed be worse than FPTP. I guess I ought to read the artice....

Edited 8 March, 2011 by GenevaSaint

[hypochondriac]

I will be voting against.

[trousers]

I'm with Winston Churchill on this one: "Alternative vote would mean that elections were decided by the most worthless votes for the most worthless candidates"

[Shandy_Top_89]

In some constituencys the MP is standing with roughly 30% of the vote. AV ensures that 50% is required and gives the voter a greater impact on the outcome. I fail to see how this could be a bad thing. For those that dont want to vote for those other than their main choice, you dont have to rank you can just pick one.

 

Also the level of impact it will have on parties such as the BNP and UKIP is greatly exaggerated. Also while it may slightly increase the chances of a coalition, individual parties are full of factions that have to strike deals between each other anyway so really there isnt much difference, majority governments arent the be all and end all anyways I mean look how divisive the Thatcher and Blair governments have become after they effectively had free reign over the Commons.

[Verbal]

In some constituencys the MP is standing with roughly 30% of the vote. AV ensures that 50% is required and gives the voter a greater impact on the outcome. I fail to see how this could be a bad thing. For those that dont want to vote for those other than their main choice, you dont have to rank you can just pick one.

 

Also the level of impact it will have on parties such as the BNP and UKIP is greatly exaggerated. Also while it may slightly increase the chances of a coalition, individual parties are full of factions that have to strike deals between each other anyway so really there isnt much difference, majority governments arent the be all and end all anyways I mean look how divisive the Thatcher and Blair governments have become after they effectively had free reign over the Commons.

 

Well put, but you know you have no chance now that trousers has gone and quoted Churchill.

[dune]

This, on opinion polls re AV, is interesting:

 

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

 

I wouldn't take Polls at this stage too seriously. There has been little campaigning and once the main players (Labour and Conservative parties) indicate their stance in a campaign we can take more notice. I'm hoping that both the Labour party and the conservative Party campaign against AV because clearly AV isn't good for either of them, nor is it good for those who want a strong majority government.

 

Despite being a member of UKIP (who are in favour of AV) i'll be voting NO because i'll put my country first and hopefully keep the system that usually gives us strong majority governments.

Edited 8 March, 2011 by dune

[bridge too far]

In some constituencys the MP is standing with roughly 30% of the vote. AV ensures that 50% is required and gives the voter a greater impact on the outcome. I fail to see how this could be a bad thing. For those that dont want to vote for those other than their main choice, you dont have to rank you can just pick one.

 

Also the level of impact it will have on parties such as the BNP and UKIP is greatly exaggerated. Also while it may slightly increase the chances of a coalition, individual parties are full of factions that have to strike deals between each other anyway so really there isnt much difference, majority governments arent the be all and end all anyways I mean look how divisive the Thatcher and Blair governments have become after they effectively had free reign over the Commons.

 

I don't like coalitions because they can lead to weak government and, quite frankly, I'd rather have a strong Tory government that I can rail against than a weak coalition one. Although, obviously, I'd rather have a strong Labour government

 

My objection to AV is that it is more likely to lead to a coalition but, more importantly, it will give disporportionate weight to small parties who may only have a few seats in parliament. That's hardly democratic, in my view.

[scotty]

I don't like coalitions because they can lead to weak government and, quite frankly, I'd rather have a strong Tory government that I can rail against than a weak coalition one. Although, obviously, I'd rather have a strong Labour government

 

My objection to AV is that it is more likely to lead to a coalition but, more importantly, it will give disporportionate weight to small parties who may only have a few seats in parliament. That's hardly democratic, in my view.

 

Do you really think that the current coalition government is weak in the sense that they cant get their policies through, or weak in the sense that they are having to take the views of another party (who they chose to go into coalition with) into account? I personally wish that the Thatcher era had been some sort of coalition rather than a free run at privatising everything that stood still in order to make her city friends rich. I also wish blair hadnt had such an easy time of railroading us into iraq.

[bridge too far]

Do you really think that the current coalition government is weak in the sense that they cant get their policies through, or weak in the sense that they are having to take the views of another party (who they chose to go into coalition with) into account? I personally wish that the Thatcher era had been some sort of coalition rather than a free run at privatising everything that stood still in order to make her city friends rich. I also wish blair hadnt had such an easy time of railroading us into iraq.

 

Sorry - I didn't make myself clear.

 

My FUNDAMENTAL objection to AV is the potential for small parties to have a disproportionate influence and power relative to the their number of MPs. That is the bit I find undemocratic.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Even supporters of pure PR should be against this measure. It is hardly any difference than FPTP, but if approved will kill the chances of any other move towards a more proportional system for generations. It'll be just like the EEC Referendum, the major parties will say, "you've had your vote" and that'll be the end of it.

 

AV is the worst of all worlds, it wont change a thing, but will make voting a damn sight more complicated.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I don't like coalitions because they can lead to weak government and, quite frankly, I'd rather have a strong Tory government that I can rail against than a weak coalition one. Although, obviously, I'd rather have a strong Labour government

 

My objection to AV is that it is more likely to lead to a coalition but, more importantly, it will give disporportionate weight to small parties who may only have a few seats in parliament. That's hardly democratic, in my view.

 

I disagree I think the coalition keeps the Torys in check when it comes to cuts.

 

As it happens the AV referendum will probably be fought based on the cost of it and what a waste of money in these difficult times.

[Shandy_Top_89]

Even supporters of pure PR should be against this measure. It is hardly any difference than FPTP, but if approved will kill the chances of any other move towards a more proportional system for generations. It'll be just like the EEC Referendum, the major parties will say, "you've had your vote" and that'll be the end of it.

 

AV is the worst of all worlds, it wont change a thing, but will make voting a damn sight more complicated.

Alternatively I'd say a no vote would kill any chance of PR in our lifetimes. Westminster will only accept electoral reform step by step, av is the stepping stone to further reform. Also is it really that hard to say 1,2,3,4.

[Minty]

Alternatively I'd say a no vote would kill any chance of PR in our lifetimes.

 

This is what I've been wondering. I agree, almost word for word, with Joensuu's interesting posts on this thread, but I also agree with much that Lord Duckhunter has written too. Very few people 'want' AV... PR is the way to go for most who want reform. But assuming that is the ultimate goal, what is the best way of getting there?

 

Joensuu thinks to vote 'yes' for AV, Lord D says vote 'no'. What is likely to happen in each scenario?

 

My gut says to vote 'yes' as a step towards proper reform.

[bridge too far]

In the interests of balance, here's the BBC's offering from the 'Yes' campaign

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12554401

[Lord Duckhunter]

In the interests of balance, here's the BBC's offering from the 'Yes' campaign

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12554401

 

 

 

"A system that has let them enjoy jobs for life in safe seats. A system that has bred the complacency we all saw in the expenses scandal."

 

I'm sorry but this is total ********, talk about dishonest politics. If the "complacency" of the FPTP system led to the expenses scandal, then I presume the PR system used for European elections accounts for the expenses abuses in the EU. If people think Westminister expenses were bad they are nothing compared to what the EU get up to.This women cant have it both ways, if she going to claim FPTP led to expenses scandel in UK, then PR has led to it in Europe.

[solentstars]

Even supporters of pure PR should be against this measure. It is hardly any difference than FPTP, but if approved will kill the chances of any other move towards a more proportional system for generations. It'll be just like the EEC Referendum, the major parties will say, "you've had your vote" and that'll be the end of it.

 

AV is the worst of all worlds, it wont change a thing, but will make voting a damn sight more complicated.

 

sorry the present system is worse,i live in a solid labour area so its a waste of time for me voteing for anyone else even thought he majority voted against the sitting mp.

its just going to lead to more people not bother voteing if their vote is just going to be wasted.

[solentstars]

Alternatively I'd say a no vote would kill any chance of PR in our lifetimes. Westminster will only accept electoral reform step by step, av is the stepping stone to further reform. Also is it really that hard to say 1,2,3,4.

 

i agree and it would be nice to have mps or councillors elected by over 51% of voters rather than 34% winner takes all method of the current failed system..

[Lord Duckhunter]

sorry the present system is worse,i live in a solid labour area so its a waste of time for me voteing for anyone else even thought he majority voted against the sitting mp.

its just going to lead to more people not bother voteing if their vote is just going to be wasted.

 

Most would stay the same under AV, if you're in a solid Labour area, it'll remain so. The electrol reform Society produced some research into what Parliament would look like under AV and it was a coalition, with the Tories having a handful of seats less. The only way for your vote to mean anything in a solid Labour area is under a purer form of PR and that is not on the table.

[solentstars]

Most would stay the same under AV, if you're in a solid Labour area, it'll remain so. The electrol reform Society produced some research into what Parliament would look like under AV and it was a coalition, with the Tories having a handful of seats less. The only way for your vote to mean anything in a solid Labour area is under a purer form of PR and that is not on the table.

 

i agree but the present voteing system is worse and its got to be a big improvement on that unlike now areas where alot mps of all parys get elected with 34 % of the votes at present and they would need to widen the fanbase of electors.

[pap]

I'll be voting yes.

 

It's not all the way there, but it is a start.

 

It can't be right that your elected representative goes into power without a majority mandate to do so. As for the BNP getting more of a look-in, won't happen with AV. Perfectly possible under say, the party list system or STV ( as we saw in the Euro elections ). AV is the first logical step to representatives that actually reflect the will of the electorate.