There's plenty that would argue that those results aren't exactly glowing endorsements of the AV system...

I suspect that AV will tend towards centerist middle of the road politics. Which may or may not be a bad thing. I recall a quote from the film the Third Man "in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock" Okay the Swiss didn't actually invent the cockoo clock, but you pays your money and you takes your choice.

Personally its FPTP for the me. I prefer a bit of edge to my politics

From my limited knowledge of Switzerland through my travels, I don't think democracy is what we know it as here; women have only had vote recently and they seem to do strange things to their neighbours ie report them for having the wrong geraniums in the balcony box and other such grave misdemeanours. They do however have trains and buses that run eerily on time.

Heres to warfare, terror, bloodshed, oh, and FPTP.....

Good grief, I am now officially in the 2000 Club!

However its more than that in reality as registration and counting only began in 2005, whereas the site was up and running earlier- 2003?

Posted by one of my FB contacts:

I never thought of that.

Think of all those votes that didn't go to the Jedi Knight Party because they did not stand in the last election. All their votes were redistributed to the other parties as in FPTP you only get one vote for the candidates who are standing. It is the very fringe parties, such as the Jedi party, that suffer most from this system and by eliminating them from the choices on the ballot paper more weight is being given to these ultra-minority candidates.

It is a stupid argument that does not make any sense. In each round everybody's votes count equally, until one of the candidates get 50% of the vote. In each round you just have to pretend that the smallest party never stood for election.

Personally I'd rather 'pretending' played no part in an electoral system. Particularly 'pretending' that eighth or ninth preferences should carry the same validity as first preferences.

So let's stop pretending that there are only two political parties and that nobody else's opinions count if they don't vote for one of the top two in their particular area.

That is why we currently get hundreds of leaflets telling us 'its a two horse race' and 'only xxx can beat xxx here', often with competing parties telling us they they are both in second place in the same race based on different elections or their own surveys. At present if you don't vote for one of the two top parties, your vote is wasted. Too many people pretend to support one of the top two parties because that is their only real choice if they wish their vote to count, even if it is really their 8th or 9th preference in reality. The current system simply hides the preferences of many voters.

AV puts an end to wasted votes and tactical voting. It is fair and transparent.

In the elections for a new leader, in all the main parties, an MP who votes for a candidate who then drops out gets an equal vote with everyone else in the next round. This is not undemocratic. On the contrary, it produces the most representative leader and is therefore extremely democratic. AV is the same.

"The no campaign will probably not put it so indelicately themselves, but they are calculating that their best hope of preserving first past the post is to mobilise what you could crudely call the Thicko Vote."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...ral-reform

shzl400's friend said:

Michael and hillsideresident have already answered this, but another way of putting it is to think of a series of votes in successive weeks, with candidates successivey eliminated (as, for example, in the French presidential election), which is what AV seeks (more or less) to replicate synchronically. If there were three candidates in an extended ballot of this sort, it would hardly make sense to eliminate the candidate who came second in the first vote and let the voters who had voted for him or her in the first round vote in the second round for the candidates who had come first or third in the first round, would it? Surely the bottom candidate has to be eliminated first.

Michael,
A vote for an unsuccessful candidate is not wasted. It's just a vote for an unsuccessful candidate. By the same logic, a vote for an unsuccessful candidate is still 'wasted' under AV if it is not transferred to the voter's 2nd, 3rd or 38th preference, thereby resulting in them winning.

Similarly, tactical voting is not eliminated under AV. This is yet another lie propagated by the AV campaign. I know personally because I voted tactically in the Labour leadership election. It will be changed, but it won't be eliminated. Read the paper by Roger Mortimore of IPSOS MORI.

Oh, and if you don't like those fraudulent leaflets, don't vote for a system that is designed to favour the party that produces them.

AV is neither fair nor transparent. It is a terrible system. FPTP has its faults, but AV is a partisan fraud.

I would imagine that the main advocates of yes in this referendum would be Lib Dem supporters who have spent a lot of time in the political wilderness and unfortunately due to the events of the past year seem set for a few more. Its undoubtedly true that the current system doesn't best provide proper representation of the range of views that exist which results in people having to make a choice between two parties. If I felt that it suited my political preferences I would probably vote yes too but I don't so I'm won't be. I know I'm probably entrenched in my views and if I were younger I would probably feel more passionate about embracing this change and vote yes for the general good of the nation but unfortunately I don't have enough strength of feeling to do so. I have been extremely jaded since the election and the recent scandals involving all parties and extremely dismayed of the choice of the Lib Dems to blindly support and follow Camerons' line. I therefore have no idea where the Tories end and the Lib Dems begin. My feeling is therefore to maintain the FPTP system as to me, it has occasionally got rid of the Tories and put Labour into power, and I am expecting it to do so again at some point in the future. Perhaps if the Lib Dems had made more of a positive impact or less of a negative one, and really showed that they had stood up for their values, rather than toadied up to the Tories, then my view might have been very different. Electoral reform is a bedrock of Lib Dem politics hence unfortunately it really does suffer by association with that party.

My view is that a vote for AV in the referendum would mean increasing the outcome for Lib Dems in Lewisham West etc, and despite having a lot of personal respect for our Lib Dem councillors, I'm not prepared to do that.

I'm probably therefore classifiable as the 'thicko' vote but there you have it!

Yes, well done. When argument fails, call your opponents thick. Genius.

I support the No Vote and hopefully am not a thicko ( but who knows ). Insults to ones opponents is a nasty new addition to our politics, or maybe not.

I must admit getting a bit fed up with the Coalition. The PM should call an election.

I also note that the Conservatives have a big majority of English Seats on their own. Surely all MPs not representing English seats should not be allowed to vote on matters that are devolved.

If you repeat it often enough it does not make it true.

AV is supported by the Lib Dems, UKIP, Greens, Plaid, SNP and support for this system as a fairer alternative was in the Labour Party manifesto in 2010. So if one of the campaigns is partisan it is the one that is only supported by one major political party (No 2 AV with the support of the Conservative Party). If is were such a partisan fraud then why is it supported by the leader of your party and your local MP? Have Ed Miliband and Jim Dowd been taken in by a partisan fraud or do they actually care about a fair voting system for the British Parliament?

It's a shame the same genius doesn't apply to the religion thread!

I should have said 'does' apply...!

As for AV, I prefer FPTP.

Roz said:

.

I assume you are a Labour supporter, Roz. It appears that Labouir would have done better under AV than under FPTP in all elections from 1997-2010, although admittedly there is some evidence that the Tories would do better under FPTP if an election were held now. See here. In the longer run, who knows? I still think it's best to consider the case rationally - if you can wean yourself from your taste for 'warfare, terror and bloodshed'! - and on its merits.

I agree Robin
I support FPTP . The AV system does not seem to work anywhere apart from PNG . The other two countries that use it Fiji , Australia seem likely to change from it.

Also will cost a lot more money in counting Votes.

I am far from impressed with all so called celebreties that the Yes campaign have dragged out.

Just because you are a B List Celeb does it mean you should be trying to influence naive people on how to Vote.