I’m a bit news media devoid so not at all up to speed, but from where i stand labour under brown hugely screwed me (financially) over so i voted conservative and within 24hrs I’d been hugely screwed again.

I won’t even start on cornwall council.

So this av thing, why should i care because from where i stand I’m stuffed any which way?

You go to a pub with some mates and all decide you want crisps. The choice is: Salt & Vinegar, Cheese & Onion, Plain; so you take a vote:

First-past-the-post: Salt & Vinegar gets the most votes, but not with a majority. In fact the majority hate Salt & Vinegar. So why choose a flavour unacceptable to the majority?

Alternative Votes: this time you list your preference 1,2,3 and taking into account second choices, find out that Cheese & Onion is acceptable to a majority.

It’s a crap analogy and entirely wrong. But it’s the easiest way for me to understand why AV is fairer, and why I will vote for it.

I’m voting ‘yes’ because I see it as the first step towards proportional representation, which would actually be a good solution to the issue of many people having wasted votes.

The danger of the outcome of this vote being ‘no’ to AV is that politicians will use this as a signal that we’re happy with the current system, and PR will move yet further from our grasp.

As it is with the current system, since I was old enough to vote mine has never counted as I live in a very safe Tory area.

labour under brown hugely screwed me (financially) over so i voted conservative and within 24hrs I’d been hugely screwed again.

Well, you could stop voting on what suits you best and start voting on what is best for the nation.

As it is with the current system, since I was old enough to vote mine has never counted as I live in a very safe Tory area.

Can you explain what you mean by not counted?

To be honest I do not know of many people wh vote for tneir MP but vote on a party basis, though I am sure there are some. I will be voting for AV as it seems fairer. I would prefer full PR, though. I don’t like the idea of someone claiming a mandate with less than half the votes.

looking at the polls we will be staying with FPTP, which in my opinion would be a disaster. The current political system is broken and needs to be looked at on mass. Why should votes have different values depending on where you live? why should bishops sit in the house of lords? Why should a party most people do not want be elected with huge a huge majority?

OK, a change of opinion here. I admit when I’m wrong…

from being very definitely “no” I think I’ve moved into the “yes” camp merely because this is probably the best – and more likely the only – chance we have of changing things for at least a generation.

I don’t like AV but I like “no choice” even less. Both methods have their faults, but if we say “no” now, as mentioned above, “the powers that be” will probably take that as a “carry on as you were”, and we won’t get another chance to change things for the next 25+ years

As it is with the current system, since I was old enough to vote mine has never counted as I live in a very safe Tory area.

This is the bit of the yes campaign I don’t get. Why hasn’t your vote counted?
just because your chosen candidate didn’t win, doesn’t mean that your vote didn’t count does it?

@charliemungus,

A number of points, if you look at many northern towns, it is a forgone conclusion that a labour MP will be elected so any vote for a tory, a lib dem, a green, etc is a waste. The home counties are Tory fiefdoms and a tory will be returned. You might as well talk of the rotten boroughs of the 17th century.

So the idea of a vote not counting, your vote is not represented in any way by the outcome of the election. A true PR system would mean that if you vote green, then your vote is added to all the other green votes nationally, so your vote might actually count for something.

The current system could see a party get over 50% of the vote and still loose the election, it depends on where your vote is as to whether you get the MPs and thus win the election, is that fair? etc etc etc.

It’s a crap analogy and entirely wrong. But it’s the easiest way for me to understand why AV is fairer, and why I will vote for it.

The analogy is poor, but i’ve not really heard a good one yet. The way i see it, in this context, is The choices are more like, Cheese & Onion, Cream Cheese & Chive and Marmite flavours.

A, it is a forgone conclusion that a labour MP will be elected so any vote for a tory, a lib dem, a green, etc is a waste.

See, I don’t think it is a waste, True my candidate doesn’t win, but I don’t think that means that my vote is wasted.

The current system could see a party get over 50% of the vote and still loose the election, it depends on where your vote is as to whether you get the MPs and thus win the election, is that fair? etc etc etc

This can still happen with AV.

See, I don’t think it is a waste, True my candidate doesn’t win, but I don’t think that means that my vote is wasted.

How would you see it, you made the effort to vote, but your vote influences nothing, there is no one representing your opinion.

AV is no better or worse than FPTP, the only reason i intend to vote yes is to say the current system is bust and needs to change. vote against AV and this will be taken not as AV is crap but FPTP is the best system going.

How would you see it, you made the effort to vote, but your vote influences nothing, there is no one representing your opinion.

But it is registered. The same way in which striking and losing or going on a march / demo or writing to your MP does not change policy, but I don’t think those efforts are wasted. You’ve voted, you exercised your right to do so. You lost. That’s all.

AV is no better or worse than FPTP, the only reason i intend to vote yes is to say the current system is bust and needs to change. vote against AV and this will be taken not as AV is crap but FPTP is the best system going

.

Given that it is very likely that the ‘No’ campaign will win, do you thin your ‘Yes’ vote will be a waste?

The current system could see a party get over 50% of the vote and still loose the election, it depends on where your vote is as to whether you get the MPs and thus win the election, is that fair? etc etc etc

as I understand it, under AV (or FPTP or any other “fair” voting system, for that matter), any candidate with more than 50% of the vote will win no matter what the other candidates do. OK, 49% of the electorate didn’t vote for the winning candidate, but show me a fair electoral system where a candidate winning more than half of the votes fails and I’ll show you some hanging chads…

But it is registered. The same way in which striking and losing or going on a march / demo or writing to your MP does not change policy, but I don’t think those efforts are wasted. You’ve voted, you exercised your right to do so. You lost. That’s all.

Fair enough, but i would say IMO, i would rather know that my vote had been counted for something, ie a positive vote, rather than counted as a protest but having no affect. I except that you can loose, i just am not happy that different constituencies are of varying sizes so each vote is not equal. A system where certain areas of the country are fixed voting wise. I want the winner to have got 50% of the electorate to support them, not 30% as is the current situation.

@johndrummer, not saying in a constituency, i am saying nationally, because the constituencies are different sizes and by getting landslides in a few or being spread thinly nationally, these are things that mean that you can get the majority of the vote but a minority of the seats.

As for a wasted vote, you win some you loose some, it would be nice to see a proper debate in the media from both camps, the coverage has been crap, far to much negative campaigning. but not really a surprise.

I’ve deleted my post, I’m to drunk to post sensibly. Thanks for the replies all, as ever on stw some excellent views, comments and arguments.

Here’s why

The Tories are saying “A vote for AV might get the BNP in”, while the Labour Party aren’t keen on any electoral reform that might force them not to be useless.

Vote AV and watch them all squirm.

but i would say IMO, i would rather know that my vote had been counted for something, ie a positive vote, rather than counted as a protest but having no affect.

I can understand that, but it means less if you have to vote for someone other than the candidate you actually want.

AV opposition say the reason Av is bad is because it’s complicated.

a) It’s not complicated.
b) If that’s the best reason the opposition can come up with for stopping it, they probably don’t have any good reasons.

Only stupid people will vote against AV. Sadly you live in Britain so it’ll never happen.

I can understand that, but it means less if you have to vote for someone other than the candidate you actually want.

and the beauty of a PR system is that you vote for who you want, the allocation of seats is then based on a national basis.

I do except PR has a downside in that it delinks mps and constituencies, but i would say how many people vote for an MP and how many vote for a party?

“might let the BNP in”

ho ho ho

a) It’s not complicated.

True, and so all the false analogy vids are unnecessary and only serve to mislead.

Only stupid people will vote against AV.

Only stupid people will vote for AV

Now what?

and the beauty of a PR system is that you vote for who you want, the allocation of seats is then based on a national basis.

Yes, PR would be fine. I’d vote for that.

@CharlieMungus – see mrmo’s comments. I couldn’t have stated my position any better!

@johndrummer –

as I understand it, under AV (or FPTP or any other “fair” voting system, for that matter), any candidate with more than 50% of the vote will win no matter what the other candidates do. OK, 49% of the electorate didn’t vote for the winning candidate, but show me a fair electoral system where a candidate winning more than half of the votes fails and I’ll show you some hanging chads.

The current system allows a candidate to win with significantly less than 50% of the vote. Whilst AV is far from ideal, at least a greater proportion of votes will be reflected by the result.

Given the number of people in STW who favour AV, I wonder who your first 2 votes would be for? Who is your choice and who would be the alternative?

Now what?

We wait and see how stupid we all are.

Yes, PR would be fine. I’d vote for that.

You won’t get a chance to vote for that for a very long time, if ever, if the AV outcome is ‘no’.

You won’t get a chance to vote for that for a very long time, if ever, if the AV outcome is ‘no’.

I really don’t see that it will be any more likely if the outcome is ‘Yes’

You’re trolling, aren’t you?!

Whilst we may not get the chance to vote for PR if the AV vote is ‘yes’, we definitely won’t if the vote is ‘no’. The Tories (and to a large extent the ‘establishment’) don’t want the current system changed and will use a ‘no’ result as evidence that we’re all happy with things as they are.

AV isn’t perfect (or even particularly good) but at least it’s a step in the right direction, and would show that there’s an appetite for change.

Likes reform cat.

voting details

1979
Conservative 43.9% gave 339 seats
Labour 36.9% gave 268 seats
Liberal 13.8% gave 11 seats

1983
Conservative 42.4% gave 397 seats
Labour 27.6% gave 209 seats
Liberal 25.4% gave 23 seats

1987
Conservative 42.2% gave 375 seats
Labour 30.8% gave 229 seats
Liberal 22.6% gave 22

1992
Conservative 42.3% gave 336 seats
Labour 35.2% gave 271 seats
Liberal 18.3% gave 20

1997
Conservative 30.7% gave 165 seats
Labour 43.2% gave 418seats
Liberal 16.8% gave 46

2001
Labour 40.7% gave 412
Conservative 31.7% gave 166
Liberal Democrats 18.3% gave 52

I know this doesn’t show the whole picture, such as the 59.4% turn out in 2001 compared to the 76% turnout in 1979.

in 2005, 67% of the voting public didn’t want Labour in power, however they either were too disillusioned or could not identify with any other alternative.

With AV, parties will be forced to recognise the possibility that the so called “silent majority” might not stand by and allow then to fart in our faces.

Frankly, that prospect is long overdue.

mrmo – so that’s showing % of votes against number of seats gained? It would be interesting to see the % of votes against the % of seats gained, but I think it shows the winning party and leader has never in that time come close to representing the majority of the country?

Whilst we may not get the chance to vote for PR if the AV vote is ‘yes’, we definitely won’t if the vote is ‘no’. The Tories (and to a large extent the ‘establishment’) don’t want the current system changed and will use a ‘no’ result as evidence that we’re all happy with things as they are.

No, I’m not trolling and of course I’m aware of your argument above, but it is unsubstantiated. A counter might be to say that once we have AV, ‘the establishment’ will tell us we have the voting reform we wanted or that we should give it a few elections to bed in. or to say that by voting ‘No’ we send that message that we will not accept their half-assed sop which doesn’t actually give us what we want. My problem with these argument is that it they try to second guess politicians. I’d rather take AV for what it is, rather than what it ‘might’ lead to.

in 2005, 67% of the voting public didn’t want Labour in power, however they either were too disillusioned or could not identify with any other alternative.

It’s hard enough finding one party worth voting for, let alone hold our noses tightly enough whilst voting for another one even less desirable.

and there is also the suggestion that if this vote fails the tories will have to offer the Lib-dems something to keep them quiet, such as full reform of the house of lords.

There are lots of whats, ifs and maybes. No one really knows what the outcome of the vote will be. Which to me doesn’t really sound very democratic. You would think a democracy would be a place where knowing the outcome of a vote was reasonably predictable. Look at the current vote, people voting for AV knowing it is crap but is less crap than FPTP. Sums up the problem with british democracy quite nicely i think.

CharlieMungus – I know you aren’t trolling, I was just being cheeky.

You make a sound point about ‘yes’ and ‘no’ results being used by the two sides to ‘prove’ different sides of the argument. I’m sure this will happen, I just hope we can make some progress towards getting a fairer electoral system and I feel a ‘yes’ result is the best way to do this.