The AV referendum

[solentstars]

so, one person could get 3 cracks at the vote...another gets 1..

 

not very fair is it.....what IF...in a place where someone had just scraped 51% but everyones 2nd vote would have meant someone else would have got 52%...?

 

if he has got 51% has happens under the present system he has won, i suggest you read your av leaflet has it seems to me you do not understand how av works.

[solentstars]

But isn't this reason that the libs are pushing for AV and PR. It will enable them to have a much greater (and probably disproportionate say in running the country). Labour support it because a) to get up DC's nose and may damage the coaltion and b) the chances are they will sweep up a lot of the liberal second votes so they stand to gain a lot more that the tories. I am willing to bet my life, wife and mortgage that if the FPTP system benefitted the libs over the other parties, they would be less keen to promote such noble ideas as PR.

 

All the parties couldn't care less about the democratic rights or wrongs of the system, they are just interested in the method that will deliver them the greatest chance of power.

the libs want pr not av but the torys will only agree to av .

[solentstars]

That really depends on the system I guess. Here in Australia you have Full Preferential system for the lower house where you have to rank ALL of the candidates in order of your preferences (hence why most people vote in order of their least disliked or even just preferencing candidates randomly because they can't be bothered). If it is optional preferencial voting then, like you mention if you don't like a candidate then you won't choose them so you are only voting the ones you like. In this situation there is a good chance that any one candidate still doesn't get 50% of the vote then they have to look to each voting card that is not fully preferenced and the candidates with the first preference will dictate the remianing preferences. In essence the cadidate can ultimately decide who gets in, and not the people. This is quite scarey.

 

I'm not saying that, given the UK is a first past the post system, the AV system is worse or less democratic, I just do not believe it is the resolution to the issues people have with the current voting system and from my experience in Australia, it really is not any better and if anything it is more complex for people to understand. This AV system does not win more seats for the smaller parties (the Greens, who typically poll similarly as a percentage ot the Lib Dems have won their first seat in the lower house).

 

The upper house here [Oz] is done based on proportional representaion and I think the Lords should be overhauled to this system. This way the upper house could fully represent the people when voting on bills and legislation.

 

Finally the bigger issue the UK has is turnout. If people don't bother voting then you are never going to have a true representation of the public regardelss of the voting system.

 

i agree but i think with pr we might see people who have different views like the greens who might vote for what they believe in ,rather than staying at home believing their vote will be wasted under the current fptp or voting for a candidate just to stop the other lot getting in .

[Shandy_Top_89]

You could argue if AV is so good why doesn't labour use it for their leadership election.

 

Out of interest how does the liberals elect their leader?

 

 

Erm..... they do.

 

Lib Dems use STV which is their preferred voting system. But like many have said, you wont get STV without getting AV first because the Commons will only accept change in small stages.

[hypochondriac]

Will never get voted through anyway so this discussion is largely irrelevant.

[hypochondriac]

Will never get voted through anyway so this discussion is largely irrelevant.

[Minty]

Not irrelevant at all if it helps get the issue discussed and educates people about it (which clearly some people need).

 

I really do think it needs stating clearly however that everyone's vote is counted the same number of times. If delldays votes Tory and others' votes are discounted because their candidate has the least votes in the first round, then in the next round, delldays' vote is counted again, and so on, until either his candidate is elected or eliminated.

[Wes Tender]

It is one person one vote. It used to be called instant run off voting. It is just a way of running the election as if the bottom ranked candidates didn't run so as to see which candidates is preferred by most people with in a constituency. It actually gives every MP a majority and so a mandate to actually do what they wish as opposed to a plurality which is dogey at best when deciding who has absolute power. If you go to a shop and someone had asked you get me a mars bar, but if not get me a galaxy, you still at the end of it only get one chocolate bar.

 

Yes and it is not your first choice, it is your second choice, therefore a disappointment. And there is also the possibility that you might have to accept a biscuit instead.

 

So why should the electorate not have the services of the candidate who received the most votes and be foisted with the one who was second or even third choice? Besides, this talk of having a mandate is also bunk, as the elected MP will be voting on a number of issues and cannot reasonably claim to have the support of his constituents on every issue, especially if he wasn't even elected by the majority of them as first choice. And even then, he is a part of a government who might favour a different stance on certain policies to that taken by any one individual MP.

 

The only truly democratic government would be one which had referenda on all of the major issues, one person, one vote. But that isn't going to happen, as every government considers that it knows what is best for us.

[Chez]

what ever happened to PR? I thought that is what the lib dems wanted a referendum on? How have we found ourselves voting on the adoption of AV?

[Wes Tender]

All this talk of a dirty campaign by the No lobby, gutter politics, etc and it appears that the Yes campaign aren't exactly covering themselves with glory and able to take the moral high ground.

 

I have received a grubby little leaflet from them through my door.

 

For a start, it is headed "Fairer Votes Referendum"

 

Who says that the existent system is not fair, or that what might replace it is fairer?

 

It then goes on to say that a Yes vote is a vote for change which will mean:-

 

All MPs working harder - (can this be proven? Will they add on several hours to their working days?)

A vote that counts - (does the vote under the current system not count? Do some of them get flushed down the toilet, or disappear by other methods?)

Tackling the "jobs for life" culture at Westminster. - (so when an MP is elected, he has that job for the rest of his life? I thought that it was only guaranteed for 5 years and even then only if he did nothing to force its termination by taking the Chiltern Hundreds or some such)

 

Whereas a vote No meant:-

 

More of the same - (Yes, the status quo. The system that has served us well these past centuries.)

Your voice not being heard - (Presumably they have not heard of MPs surgeries where any constituent with a problem can discuss it with their local MP)

MPs in the Dock

Expenses scandal

 

 

These last too are just too funny for words. The AV system is going to mean that no MP is ever again going to end up in court on any matter. No further stories regarding MPs caught on a London Common with rent boys, no sordid affairs, no dirty videos claimed on expenses, etc. People like Elliot Morley, Geoffrey Archer, Jeremy Thorpe, Mandelson, etc, simply wouldn't have been elected had AV been used in the past, would they? AV is squeaky clean and MPs elected under that system will be paragons of virtue, FPTP MPs end up in court or fiddle their expenses. Its as simple as that.

[dune]

what ever happened to PR? I thought that is what the lib dems wanted a referendum on? How have we found ourselves voting on the adoption of AV?

 

The Conservatives stitched the Liberals up.

[Shandy_Top_89]

what ever happened to PR? I thought that is what the lib dems wanted a referendum on? How have we found ourselves voting on the adoption of AV?

 

The Conservatives would only go as far as to allow a referendum on AV in the coalition agreement as they are bitterly opposed to any electoral reform. The Lib Dems had to make do, because obviously out of government they wouldnt get any shot at electoral reform at all.

[Minty]

All this talk of a dirty campaign by the No lobby, gutter politics, etc and it appears that the Yes campaign aren't exactly covering themselves with glory and able to take the moral high ground.

 

It was always thus. Everything in politics seems to be conducted in the same way and if you want to actually learn about anything, find out policy, or explanations about things like AV, the best thing to do is avoid anything official and do your own research across the board.

 

It also means discussions like this one and up and down the country, often use these propaganda items as tools to recruit or argue, so it's no wonder apathy rules... most people would like a simple explanation, with examples, and to then make up their own mind, and are fed up with being told x or y is right or wrong, when it's usually neither and a matter of opinion and personal belief.

 

Some of the comments and claims from both Yes and No camps are ridiculous and most logical people can see right through it. The problem is that a lot of people aren't logical and can't think for themselves, so such propaganda carries weight with them. They make up their minds through false arguments or based on pre-conceptions or secondary issues and the net result is that style triumphs over substance.

 

I find it all rather disappointing - I would like to hear coherent and respectful arguments from both sides, but it'll never happen.

[dune]

The problem is that a lot of people aren't logical and can't think for themselves, so such propaganda carries weight with them.

 

I think you're wrong. Most people know exactly what the implications of AV are - it benefits the Liberals and harms the Conservatives currently, but after the constituency changes could possibly harm Labours chances. Forget all the arguments, this is what it all boils down to. It's a choice between a system that invariably gives strong majority governments and a system that makes coalitions (with the Liberals switching two and fro) more likely.

[Minty]

Thank you for illustrating my point nicely dune.

 

You *think* you know what the implications are, but actually you do not, and cannot. Thus you seem to make assumptions based on your political leanings and your perceptions of voting patterns. You MIGHT be right, but it is only one possible scenario, and in order that people make informed choices, they need more than just your personal example.

[dune]

Thank you for illustrating my point nicely dune.

 

You *think* you know what the implications are, but actually you do not, and cannot. Thus you seem to make assumptions based on your political leanings and your perceptions of voting patterns. You MIGHT be right, but it is only one possible scenario, and in order that people make informed choices, they need more than just your personal example.

 

At the last election, and using exit polling carried out for the benefit of comparing fptp and av, it was found that under av Labour would have done slightly better, the Liberals would have achieved something like 80 seats and the conservatives would have done worse. Labour would have been the party that formed a coalition with the Liberals. It's also been suggested (by the BBC) that in 1992 Labour would have won and Margaret Thatcher would not have won every election.

 

What I *think* is always based on research and instinct and i'm usually right.

Edited 20 April, 2011 by dune

[Shandy_Top_89]

I think you're wrong. Most people know exactly what the implications of AV are - it benefits the Liberals and harms the Conservatives currently, but after the constituency changes could possibly harm Labours chances. Forget all the arguments, this is what it all boils down to. It's a choice between a system that invariably gives strong majority governments and a system that makes coalitions (with the Liberals switching two and fro) more likely.

 

Yeaahhhh.

 

Saw a Sky peice on it the other day, the reason one elderly gent gave for no was 'the loser wins'. Stuff like that makes me lose hope for mankind. However the argument should be about which system best represents the electorate, my answer would be neither as with both systems the percentage of votes doesnt directly have a bearing on level of representation in the Commons. However AV would fix this slightly.

 

As for 'strong' majority governments (which I dont really believe in, as the coalition at the moment isnt particularly fragile, and I prefer consensus politics rather to 'shove any legislation you feel like particularly if it hurts the other side' politics). AV only slightly reduces the chance of a majority government - Thatcher, Major and the Blair/Brown majorities would all have remained under AV. The only major difference is that in 1997 the Lib Dems would have overtaken the Conservatives under AV, however the Conservatives would have reclaimed 2nd in 2005.

 

Both camps have been running a pretty rough smear campaign, although I would say the No camp has been rather more dubious but then I would say that wouldnt I .

[dune]

AV only slightly reduces the chance of a majority government - Thatcher, Major and the Blair/Brown majorities would all have remained under AV.

 

That is wrong according research comissioned by the BBC. See my previous post.

[Joensuu]

That is wrong according research comissioned by the BBC. See my previous post.

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

[Deppo]

[Deppo]

The problem is that a lot of people aren't logical and can't think for themselves, so such propaganda carries weight with them.

 

I think you're wrong. Most people know exactly what the implications of AV are - it benefits the Liberals and harms the Conservatives currently, but after the constituency changes could possibly harm Labours chances. Forget all the arguments, this is what it all boils down to. It's a choice between a system that invariably gives strong majority governments and a system that makes coalitions (with the Liberals switching two and fro) more likely.

 

Brilliant

[Wade Garrett]

AV is more flawed than first past the post, so probably a no from me.

 

As a caveat, I don't want the number of MPs reduced or boundaries changed. It is a little hypocritical of Cameron to want a smaller Government, when he's just had is knuckles rapped for making too many Lords up. I don't really blame him for this, but if he wants to make savings, then it should be on the Lords side.

[Lord Duckhunter]

and that it appears for certain people is the rub. They think that the party they support will be less able to win that 50% so rather than see a more balanced voting system they attempt to convince themselves that FPTP is better, it may be 'better' for them if it was kept but this does not make it a better system for everyone not just them.

 

 

I presume you want this to apply for all elections and that a Govt can't be formed without a party winning 50% of the Country's support.Or is your arguement that a Tory cant win his seat with 49% support, but Labour can form the Govt with 34%.

[pedg]

I presume you want this to apply for all elections and that a Govt can't be formed without a party winning 50% of the Country's support.Or is your arguement that a Tory cant win his seat with 49% support, but Labour can form the Govt with 34%.

 

Oh dear, failure to understand LD. A government needs over 50% of the MP's (normally) and for each MP will be elected by 50% of the electorate in that constituency favoring that MP after zero or more rounds of eliminations, as required.

 

The original point is that the tories are scared of AV not because it is less fair but because it is more fair and they think that typically those more centralist in their opinion are probably more likely to favour left over right wing parties and that left wing voters will put more centralist candidates before right wing candidates. This would effectively see Labour voters put lib-dems ahead of tories in their voting preferences and lib-dems probably put labour ahead of tories in theirs. The end result of this they fear is that they will lose a lot of seats they currently hold with 30 odd percent of the vote and never again have the force in government they currently have.

 

If this mindset is true is another matter. There was good article on this in the guardian a week or so back but don't have the link to hand.

[dune]

I don't want the number of MPs reduced or boundaries changed.

 

Currently the system favours Labour. Needless to say i'm all for changes to make the next general election more democratic. It's because of these changes, and my belief that in 2015 people will see that the Conservatives have done what is best for the country, that the next election isn't a foregone victory for Labour as Verbal states.

[dune]

Brilliant

 

[View From The Top]

Oh dear, failure to understand LD. A government needs over 50% of the MP's (normally) and for each MP will be elected by 50% of the electorate in that constituency favoring that MP after zero or more rounds of eliminations, as required.

 

The original point is that the tories are scared of AV not because it is less fair but because it is more fair and they think that typically those more centralist in their opinion are probably more likely to favour left over right wing parties and that left wing voters will put more centralist candidates before right wing candidates. This would effectively see Labour voters put lib-dems ahead of tories in their voting preferences and lib-dems probably put labour ahead of tories in theirs. The end result of this they fear is that they will lose a lot of seats they currently hold with 30 odd percent of the vote and never again have the force in government they currently have.

 

If this mindset is true is another matter. There was good article on this in the guardian a week or so back but don't have the link to hand.

 

I think that's a fair summing up of the tories fears.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

The original point is that the tories are scared of AV not because it is less fair but because it is more fair and they think that typically those more centralist in their opinion are probably more likely to favour left over right wing parties and that left wing voters will put more centralist candidates before right wing candidates. This would effectively see Labour voters put lib-dems ahead of tories in their voting preferences and lib-dems probably put labour ahead of tories in theirs. The end result of this they fear is that they will lose a lot of seats they currently hold with 30 odd percent of the vote and never again have the force in government they currently have.

.

 

Surely your "Fair Votes" agenda means constituencies of equal numbers, an English parliament and PR. Not a tinkering around the edges and a system that nobody wants, but pretends they do. It was a scrap the Tories throw the Lib/Dems and Labour are behind it for political purposes.

 

Roy Jenkins spent his whole life fighting for PR and in 1998 he said this

 

"AV on its own suffers from a stark objection. It offers little prospect of a move towards greater proportionality, and in some circumstances, and those the ones which certainly prevailed at the last election and may well do so for at least the next one, it is even less proportional than FPTP"

[pedg]

Surely your "Fair Votes" agenda means constituencies of equal numbers, an English parliament and PR. Not a tinkering around the edges and a system that nobody wants, but pretends they do. It was a scrap the Tories throw the Lib/Dems and Labour are behind it for political purposes.

 

Roy Jenkins spent his whole life fighting for PR and in 1998 he said this

 

"AV on its own suffers from a stark objection. It offers little prospect of a move towards greater proportionality, and in some circumstances, and those the ones which certainly prevailed at the last election and may well do so for at least the next one, it is even less proportional than FPTP"

 

I want PR but as its not on offer I will take AV as it is less worse than FPTP. Yes AV offers little immediate prospect of a move to better PR but a NO vote will remove the chance of getting PR for probably a generation.

[Deppo]

 

Is that you? You are quite handsome.

[trousers]

I want PR but as its not on offer I will take AV as it is less worse than FPTP. Yes AV offers little immediate prospect of a move to better PR but a NO vote will remove the chance of getting PR for probably a generation.

 

How come? Surely, Labour and the Lib Dems will put 'proper' PR in their election manifestos in 4 years and if it's what people want they'll vote for it?

 

Why would a 'no' vote to AV stop that happening? (apart from the 'yes' campaign using it as a scaremongering tactic of course...)

[Lord Duckhunter]

I want PR but as its not on offer I will take AV as it is less worse than FPTP. Yes AV offers little immediate prospect of a move to better PR but a NO vote will remove the chance of getting PR for probably a generation.

 

But according to Jenkins (an expert on PR), it can be "even less proportional than FPTP"

[dune]

Is that you? You are quite handsome.

 

I'm complimenting you on your humour. He is a comedian called Michael MacIntyre and he's very funny like you.

[Deppo]

I'm complimenting you on your humour. He is a comedian called Michael MacIntyre and he's very funny like you.

 

Are you handsome?

[trousers]

But according to Jenkins (an expert on PR), it can be "even less proportional than FPTP"

 

Sssshhhh....that's hardly going to help the 'yes' campaign agenda, is it...?

[Joensuu]

How come? Surely, Labour and the Lib Dems will put 'proper' PR in their election manifestos in 4 years and if it's what people want they'll vote for it?

 

Why would a 'no' vote to AV stop that happening? (apart from the 'yes' campaign using it as a scaremongering tactic of course...)

 

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.
  

[scotty]

 

C*nt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..oh, sorry, thought this was the word association thread.

[aintforever]

I still fail to see how registering your 2nd and 3rd choices can possibly be less democratic.

 

In my opinion most people care about issues and are not passionate about a particular party. If two, three or four parties fall in line with what you believe in then surely it is right to be able to register your support for them?

 

I live in a area that is usually a straight choice between Tory and Lib Dem so have never voted for the party that most represents my views because it would be a wasted vote. AV would give me the chance to vote for what I believe.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Perhaps some of the Labour supporters could explain why after 13 years when they could have done something about it, they did nothing. They looked at the whole constitution, they changed the Lords, gave devolution to wales and Scotland and yet nothing about “fairer” votes, which seems an important issue to them now. 3 large majorities, yet no mention of “fairer” votes. All of a sudden they lose, and within a few months most of them are banging on about “fairness” and the “unfairness” of FPFT. They’re position seems to be “it was fair when we won, but unfair when we lose”.

[aintforever]

Perhaps some of the Labour supporters could explain why after 13 years when they could have done something about it, they did nothing. They looked at the whole constitution, they changed the Lords, gave devolution to wales and Scotland and yet nothing about “fairer” votes, which seems an important issue to them now. 3 large majorities, yet no mention of “fairer” votes. All of a sudden they lose, and within a few months most of them are banging on about “fairness” and the “unfairness” of FPFT. They’re position seems to be “it was fair when we won, but unfair when we lose”.

 

I think Labour are split over the issue.

[bridge too far]

Perhaps some of the Labour supporters could explain why after 13 years when they could have done something about it, they did nothing. They looked at the whole constitution, they changed the Lords, gave devolution to wales and Scotland and yet nothing about “fairer” votes, which seems an important issue to them now. 3 large majorities, yet no mention of “fairer” votes. All of a sudden they lose, and within a few months most of them are banging on about “fairness” and the “unfairness” of FPFT. They’re position seems to be “it was fair when we won, but unfair when we lose”.

 

I think you'll find that 'Labour' is leaving the voting on this issue to its members. That's why, for example, John Reid and Caroline Flint are supporting the 'No' campaign.

[Joensuu]

I think you'll find that 'Labour' is leaving the voting on this issue to its members. That's why, for example, John Reid and Caroline Flint are supporting the 'No' campaign.

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.

[View From The Top]

Perhaps some of the Labour supporters could explain why after 13 years when they could have done something about it, they did nothing. They looked at the whole constitution, they changed the Lords, gave devolution to wales and Scotland and yet nothing about “fairer” votes, which seems an important issue to them now. 3 large majorities, yet no mention of “fairer” votes. All of a sudden they lose, and within a few months most of them are banging on about “fairness” and the “unfairness” of FPFT. They’re position seems to be “it was fair when we won, but unfair when we lose”.

 

As I understand it Labour haven't taken a view on it and are allowing folk to vote how they see fit.

[Chez]

The Conservatives would only go as far as to allow a referendum on AV in the coalition agreement as they are bitterly opposed to any electoral reform. The Lib Dems had to make do, because obviously out of government they wouldnt get any shot at electoral reform at all.

I thought the lib dems only agreed to form a coalition if they were given the PR referendum. What exactly did the Cons give them in the end as I don't recognise a single lib dem policy to date.

[dune]

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.

 

You are talking rubbish.

 

Here is the list of how Labour MP's intend to vote. I notice Dennis Skinner is voting NO to AV - proper careerist isn't he. Joensuu must try harder.

 

 

UPDATE: April 19th 1.40pm

 

 

Labour MPs supporting Yes2AV - 86

Labour MPs supporting NO2AV - 130

 

I notice John two armchairs and an “Alana” rug Denham is voting Yes, as in Alan Whitehead.

 

 

 

http://www.labourlist.org/labour-mps---are-they-yes-or-no-to-av

Edited 20 April, 2011 by dune

[Joensuu]

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.

[trousers]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1379004/My-wife-hates-Is-Calamity-Clegg-blame.html

 

:-)

[Wes Tender]

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.
  

What breathtaking arrogance! It is not transparent at all that the argument for FPTP simply doesn't stack up vs AV. It might be in your mind, but I'm sure that there are very many who hold different opinions to yours, although you will smite their intelligence for having a different viewpoint to you. It is just such a position which calls into question your intellectual capacity.

 

And you are not entitled to conclude that the "no" campaigners do so out of self-interest, any more than it would be true the other way around, that those who favour AV do so out of self-interest themselves. Also, I argue the constant allegation put out by the Yes lobby that the referendum is to vote for a fairer voting system, as this tacitly implies that the current system is unfair, which is again only a matter of opinion. I see nothing unfair with the proposition that in a constituency election, the person with the most votes wins.

 

So the choice for voters is simple

 

• Leave things as they are, a system that has served our democracy well for centuries
  
• Change it to a system popular in only a handful of other Countries, a complicated, expensive system, likely to produce weak Governments where minority Parties hold the balance of power.
  

[Minty]

So the choice for voters is simple

 

• Leave things as they are, a system that has served our democracy well for centuries
  
• Change it to a system popular in only a handful of other Countries, a complicated, expensive system, likely to produce weak Governments where minority Parties hold the balance of power.
  

 

Careful, you're guilty there of the same thing you accuse Joensuu of... your 'simple choice' also happens to contain your own opinion about that choice - is it 'likely to produce weak Governments...'? In YOUR opinion, maybe.

 

It just goes to show, impartial information about the vote and about the two systems is actually quite difficult to get if you're genuinely undecided and/or want to know more.

[Wes Tender]

Careful, you're guilty there of the same thing you accuse Joensuu of... your 'simple choice' also happens to contain your own opinion about that choice - is it 'likely to produce weak Governments...'? In YOUR opinion, maybe.

 

It just goes to show, impartial information about the vote and about the two systems is actually quite difficult to get if you're genuinely undecided and/or want to know more.

 

I deliberately chose to be controversial as to the options, exactly to illustrate that conclusions are opinion, not fact. But the opinion that AV is more likely to produce pacts and alliances with the smaller fringe parties holding the balance of power is not so outlandish. Many would reasonably conclude from that situation that the resultant government was weak.

 

It occurred to me that I could actually utilise the post of Joenssu's and just change AV to FPTP. See how it looks.

 

I don't want to smite the intellect of 'yes' campaigners (as it is transparent that the argument for AV simply doesn't stack up vs FPTP), therefore I must conclude that 'yes' campaigners do so out of self interest - i.e. I assume that all 'yes' campaigners must be putting their own party politics or self interest before changing our democracy to something less fair.

 

See, it works quite well.