The No vote will probably win. Cameron needed the Lib Dems to get into power and knows that by giving them this tiny concession, the bulk of Tory policies will get through parliament with their help without losing any real power.

I think this is a sufficiently important issue for voters to try to consider the proposed change on its merits, rather than getting into speculation as to who has been plotting with who in smoke-free rooms and as to which party might do best out of AV in some hypothetical set of circumstances.

I think your view will be influenced by the importance you attach to maintaining a parliamentary system, with a close relationship between MPs and the community who elect them, and resisting the move towards a presidential system, where people vote for Cameron, Milliband or Clegg rather than Dowd, Phillips or Feakes.

If you're not concerned about this, you might favour a full-blown PR system such as STV, which enables 'the will of the nation' to be most accurately expressed. As that's not on offer, abstention in the referendum seems the best option.

If on the other hand you are, like me, in favour of a more local, community-based parliamentary system, the issue to consider is what the best way of choosing the community representative is. I think AV is better for this purpose than FPTP.

At a more instinctive level, I think there is a good case for saying that the present system for electing MPs could, other things being equal, do with a shake-up anyway. Anything that has a chance of connecting politicians better with the public, and thus of combatting the current levels of cynicism about politicians and the political process, must surely worth considering?

I think a large portion of the country already treat a general election in a 'presidential' way, voting for the party with the leader they most want to be PM rather than fully considering the candidates for their local MP. Not sure any change to the voting system will change that.

As ever, there is not a box on the ballot paper marked "I abstain" or "None of the above" to enable an expression of positive engagement to be made by electors, rather than just being taken as apathy and a failure to bother to vote.

Turnout is predicted to be around 25%. I don't think that kind of a turnout gives the result any validity.

Exactly!
Turnout in local elections is typically about 25 -35%, so any so called Referendum result will most definitely not be representative of the overall majority of the country. I can't see people turning out to specifically vote in the Referendum when they can't even be bothered to vote in the local elections.

Turnout in the Referendum on Common Market membership was 65% with a 67% vote in favour. I can't see this happening this time. Most of the people interviewed by the BBC yesterday either didn't know (a) there was a Referendum or (b) what it was about.

Robin, the 50% thing JUST ISN'T TRUE. It just isn't. That's the aim, but when there's no compunction on anyone to use any more than one preference, there is no way in which this specious holy grail of 50% can be assured.

Michael, the problem with your 'extremists are unlikely to win seats' argument is that they're also unlikely to win seats under FPTP. Not quite as unlikely, but still unlikely. Gerrymandering them out of the system still further nurtures their sense of victimhood (parallel to that seen by some extremist posters on this forum).

More importantly, however, extremists don't particularly care about seats. They're interested in influence, and in getting the debate on their issues. In the undignified scrabble for second and subsequent preferences, I can well imagine a right-wing Conservative candidate pandering to the BNP, and edging himself further to the right in order to do so. (Not that this is unique to Conservatives, Mr Woolas.) AV may stop the BNP getting seats, but it's a pretty good way of ensuring they get their policies.

Vote NO to this partisan fraud.

So, if people are never going to turn out in sufficient number in a referendum on a constitutional issue to make it 'valid', does that mean that we should leave it to Parliament to decide these things?

Baboonery,
You make a good point about vying for people's second preferences but I don't really see this as different from today as the parties present a position to voters, not to other parties (as happens in other systems including the Australian version of AV). In fact the Conservative Party probably have to work less hard for the 2nd choices of UKIP or BNP voters than they do to win in FPTP. The Conservatives hardly need to change their policies to capture the additional votes on the right. The campaign for 2nd preference votes seems to be what happens in a multi-party democracy where it is almost always a FPTP two-horse race.

That is no reason not to change the system to one that is more democratic.

I would argue that a system whose greatest proponents claim as one of its greatest benefits that it will prevent a party with x% support from ever gaining representation is quite plainly not democratic at all. Defeat these idiots through argument, not through gerrymandering.

That is the fear that is being used by some who are against AV to win the arguement, but as you and I both point out, it is a fiction. Extremists do not benefit from either AV or FPTP. And when they do benefit from a system of AV with party top up votes (London Assembly) they end up proving themselves to be idiots. (This is not the method proposed for Parliament).

The switch to AV is simply not about excluding one party or another, nor is it about having one party permenantly in government. It is about getting democracy working best for the largest number of people.

(Difficult to keep track of this discussion, as some posts seem to be subject to a delay in appearing on the forum. My previous posting was in reply to 'IWereAbsolutely...' and 'Bt'.)

All I said, 'Baboonery', was that 50% support was the aim. Obviously, if a large number people choose not to make second and third choices, you might get a situation where a candidate gets elected on less than 50%. So what? You can lead a horse to water, etc. Nobody has to vote at all.

I agree with Michael's latest posting. Who is saying that this is one of the system's 'greatest benefits'?

Robin. Why use inverted commas round my user name?

If 50% isn't really that big a deal, why is it such a big deal? Why mention it incessantly if it's not true? Why bother with it at all if it's unattainable? I suggest that the 50% line, which gets trotted out with depressing regularity, is another element in the hoodwinking of the public into accepting this partisan fraud.

The stop-the-BNP advantage was claimed by the Yes2AV campaign in a video last week.

It seems to me that the way to get someone who best represents the interests of any group of people, someone who won't create divisions, is to have several rounds of voting. Which is the politicians do this when electing their party leaders or the Speaker.

AV is just a way of doing that.

So why should we have a less good system of voting than the politicians have for themselves?

Because (I assume) 'Baboonery' is a pseudonym. I have adopted this practice (affectation?) recently after I read that Norman Tebbitt, a hero of mine, does the same on his blog. It is intended as a mild protest against on-line anonymity, which I do not like very much, particularly in a local forum where we are talking to our neighbours.

If however you think it is offensive, I shall stop.

It's not unattainable; it just might not happen in some, possibly quite rare, cases.

Not quite the same as claiming that it's one of AV's 'greatest benefits.'

I believe the Yes votes will win although I will vote No.
I think very low turnout in England with No majority , possibly only 20%

At least 50% turnout in Scotland , Wales and N Ireland as they have other important elections on the same day.


Very clever of Nick Clegg to get the election on that day. Perhaps he is not as stupid as he looks.

I still believe it is undemocratic to force a major change like this without a minimum Yes % vote requirement.

Michael,
Indeed it isn't, it's just a shame that the system we're being offered is less democratic, being as it is a partisan fraud based on lies and smears.

Robin
I think your use of inverted commas is childish and rude.

I also notice the Yes camp has finally admitted its lie on its website and corrected its text to 'aim to get 50% of the vote'. But not 'aim to get 50% of the vote when some people get nine votes', which would be less clangingly dishonest. Also, people 'aim to' get 50% of the vote under FPTP. In my experience they generally 'aim to' get 100% of the vote. It's a completely worthless and dishonest statement.

And they considered the BNP argument, and the laughable 'make your MP work harder' smears important enough to be the topics of their last two campaign videos. They think they're major advantages to the system, clearly.

The AV campaign is built on lies and smears and is a massive retrograde step in democracy that will make pandering to the BNP a national sport (as a fan of Tebbitt, that probably won't worry you, but it worries me). It must be opposed.

Thanks for this helpful feedback, Baboonery. I accept your rebuke, and am sorry if I have been rude. I will change my practice forthwith.

I don't think I can respond to the other points in your most recent posting without repeating arguments which I and others have already made on this thread.

Baboonery: "The AV campaign is built on lies and smears and is a massive retrograde step in democracy that will make pandering to the BNP a national sport"

I don't see where you're coming from. The main thing I can see is Labour politicians (for example) trying to avoid alienating LibDem and Tory supporters, because they may need their second votes. Instead of a safe-seat politician being able to ignore everyone outside his or her party, they'll have to consider all of us for a change. This seems to me to be a good thing.

Why do you think the leaders of the main parties are not elected by the first-past-the-post system? Is the system they use also "a partisan fraud based on lies and smears" and "a massive retrograde step in democracy"? Surely not?

The No 2 AV campaign is built on lies and smears. Those opposed to AV consistantly argue that it will 'make pandering to the BNP a national sport' in a system that has 'Gerrymandered them out'. They warn us that BNP are going to win vast numbers of seats and sit government while all evidence points to the opposite happening.

We know that AV works, it is the system we use for Mayor of London and Mayor of Lewisham. I do not believe that it has led to any additional pandering to racists, nor was it a 'massive retrograde step in democracy' (leaving aside the debate about the presidential nature of directly elected mayors).

And it is an odd 'partisan fraud' when it was a policy of the Labour Party in the 2010 manifesto that was then adopted as a compromise between Lib Dems and Conservatives.