[Closed] AV referendum

Already voted - and it wasn't Yes

been discussed umpteen times in the last couple of weeks

Search - several threads in the last 2 weeks. Some good arguments either way, some bad. I'm a "Yes".

I'm a yes
if only because of the sheer offensiveness of some of the no camps leaflets
and for me its a step to pr

Av is no better or worse than fptp.the level of the adverts is shocking.all about whether you are happy with status quo or not imo

mrmo,

I can't agree that it is no better or worse, because that would mean it was the same? Difference may well be slight, but it will produce some different results, particularly if it encourages people to vote for who they really want first rather than voting tactically.

particularly if it encourages people to vote for who they really want first rather than voting tactically.

I suspect that AV would do that in seats where there's a lot of tactical voting now but it will also create as many new 'tactical voting' constituencies where they weren't before

So just shifting things from one place to another

If anyone can show me any evidence that AV would be a step toward full PR and would open discussions on it, I may change my mind on it.
Failing that, I'm with Clegg [God, did I really type that?] - it's a miserable little compromise and in no way a step towards full PR

it's a miserable little compromise and in no way a step towards full PR

Although a NO vote will kill any electoral reform for the next 20 years (including PR).

Again,

is there any evidence that a vote either way would lead to further/more electoral reform?

copied and pasted from my other entry on the other thread on this page:-

AV for me.

Not perfect by any stretch, but imo better that what we currently have. Government is a compromise - and I'd rather be ruled by a party that at least half the populous indicated they are vaguely happy to be governed by rather than one that only a minority voted for as we have had for the last god knows how long.

As a PR supporter, I'm voting for AV if for no other reason than Cameron vetoed having PR on the referendum form and AV is the one of the two he did sanction that he does not like. That and a vote for change might get us to PR eventually whilst a vote for the status-quo will see me trudging to the polling booth for another 30yrs to put a tick in a box that will have absolutely not effect on the result locally or nationally (safe tory seat secured every time by <38% of the votes but far enough ahead of the rest that it will never change hands).

My theory is that a vote for AV by the population will indicate that we want a change & we are not happy about how we are currently represented. I can't believe we will just get a new system - it will start a review and Cameron will drag it out as long as possible. But out of that I hope will come a second vote, even if it's 10 years away. I'm convinced however that a No vote majority will see me voting in FPTP for the remainder of my days.

a no vote is essentially saying fptp is fine
which it is not

uplink - I wouldn't put much credence behind anything clegg said in opposition !

I suspect that AV would do that in seats where there's a lot of tactical voting now but it will also create as many new 'tactical voting' constituencies where they weren't before

How?

Give me an example of what might happen. I can't see it.

a no vote is essentially saying fptp is fine

No, a 'no' vote is saying you prefer FPTP to AV, not that it is fine.

So, lets get this straight... under AV, the people who put their first priority as an unelectable fringe party, get their second or possibly third votes taken into account - whereas the people who vote for a mainstream party only get one chance to choose.

So, if you choose to waste your first vote, you get another go?

So, in reality, the people who settle the election, are the BNP voters and assorted cranks 😯

i didnt understand it until it was explained with cats...

is there any evidence that a vote either way would lead to further/more electoral reform?

As previous posters have said: A NO vote will be interpreted as a vote in favour of the FPTP system.

From Sunday's Andrew Marr show with Dave Cameron

AM - Will a No vote put an end to electoral form for a generation?
Dave - (some waffley caveat)...Yes

It will be interesting to see how the votes pan out across the country. If you live in a safe seat that might change political hands once in a generation or less you probably either feel happy with that (if you are in the minority that always gets it's way every time) or very anti FPTP and want a change (if you are one of the rest). If you live in a marginal seat that changes hands frequently you probably can't see a lot wrong with what we have - it actually seems to work.

So, lets get this straight... under AV, the people who put their first priority as an unelectable fringe party, get their second or possibly third votes taken into account - whereas the people who vote for a mainstream party only get one chance to choose.

No.

This is the biggest bit of bull$hit of the whole "No"campaign.

If there is a second round of counting, the votes of the weakest party are redistributed. But that doesn't mean they are counted twice.

Another way of looking at it would be to say that the weakest party is eliminated then all the votes are counted again. Except that the people who weren't eliminated don't really need their votes to be PHYSICALLY counted again as its just been done in the previous round. But they still count.

Everyone's vote counts in every round of counting until one candidate gets over 50%

i didnt understand it until it was explained with cats...

It's not complicated, but this demonstrates why dog voters should say 'no'. They have no alternative

 

I'll vote yes to absolutely anything... and I do mean pretty much anything short of removing my own testicles with a pair of house-bricks.... that would ruin Call-Me-Dave's day.

I also had the pleasure of listening to the truly delightful Hazel Blears telling me I should vote no. That really decided it for me

Unless a mouse candidate stepped forward.

So, lets get this straight [proceeds to talk utter bullshit as usual]

They were talking about the system in Australia on R4 this morning and it actually tends to favour centrist parties, but don't let evidence stand in the way of your usual nonsensical ranting. I'm surprised you don't vote BNP tbh.

This is the biggest bit of bull$hit of the whole "No"campaign.

And the biggest BS of the Yes, campaign is that your vote always counts. But it's not your vote, it's your second choice that counts, not the thing you actually wanted. Everyone gets a goldfish, is not a good voting principle

rightplacerighttime - you are right.

When I first thought this though I did think that maybe if your first vote was for a very distant 3rd party your 2nd vote might not get to count until too late. But when you actually do the maths the chance of one party getting to 50% without the first of secondary vote of the vast majority of the voters being involved in the top 2 shoot out is pretty marginal.

And the biggest BS of the Yes, campaign is that your vote always counts. But it's not your vote, it's your second choice that counts, not the thing you actually wanted. Everyone gets a goldfish, is not a good voting principle

And yet it's still (marginally) better than the current system.

And yet it's still (marginally) better than the current system

Why?

I also object to the whole patronising condescending attitude of the 'No' camp. It really is offensive. To summarise:

Oi! You! Yes you! You horrible little prole. Do you find putting a cross on a piece of paper to be about the limit of your ability? Yes, I thought so. This AV lark is frightfully complicated. Far too much for your tiny little brain to comprehend. You'll have to count and everything. Not into double figures or anything, but, you know..... just leave this whole thing to the grown ups there's a good peasant

It's a yes vote from me. It's just fundamentally unfair that we could (theoretically) get a government of 100% of one colour based upon a vote split less than 1% difference, all less than 50%.

As for the 'fringe nutters' deciding the election - I don't think it will happen. The fact they are fringe means their votes are few and far between so their second preference votes would budge the tories up by very few points.

PR is the best policy, even if it allows some nutters in. To be honest though, if, say, the BNP/UKIP got 10% of the vote each they should be entitled to 10% of the seats. I have yet to meet one person (face to face as all web people tend to fib) that actually votes for their MP, only the party.

And the biggest BS of the Yes, campaign is that your vote always counts. But it's not your vote, it's your second choice that counts, not the thing you actually wanted. Everyone gets a goldfish, is not a good voting principle

You'll be unsurprised that I don't agree with that interpretation either.

It's true that people may still not be any more likely to get their first choice of candidate, but at least we will know what everyone's first choice was.

So there won't be a load of politicians on the media after every election saying "we would have done better if people hadn't voted tactically" - because everyone will know exactly how many people in each constituency would really have liked the minority parties over the one that got elected. And it should mena that the likes of the Greens will be able to put candidates forward and actually get a respectable show of support even if they don't win the seat.

Why?

On the most basic level - the current system disproportionately favours the two main parties, and particularly the Tory party. Any attempt to redress that, however small - is a good thing.

On the most basic level - the current system disproportionately favours the two main parties, and particularly the Tory party. Any attempt to redress that, however small - is a good thing.

How does FPTP favour anyone, Tory or otherwise?

its a real shame that the politicians are so worked up about something that nobody else cares about

but we dont get a referendum on things that we want to...

Charlie - but the point is everyone gets a chance to vote for a party that they are [b]prepared[/b] to be governed by in the top 2 or 3 shoot out if they choose. I might love the monster raving loonies and wish they won. I can vote for them. I can also make a grown up decision and indicate if MRL can't govern me who is the best of the rest that I would compromise and live with.

No campaigners like to focus on the running race analogy - too simplistic for me- I'd like to think about it as 10 mates going for a night out.

3 want Indian
2 Mexican
2 Chinese
2 Thai
1 fish and chips

FFTP would mean you would all go Indian. It could well be the other 7 would rather cut off their left nad than get a curry but all 7 of them love Mexican*, it just so happens 2 like Chinese, 2 Thai and 1 F&C even more. In reality that group of mates would talk it through, compromise and go mexican - it's the meal most of them would be happy to live with. Of the systems on offer AV gets closer to that result than FPTP.

* equally likely that enough of them like Indian enough for that to be the meal of choice too.

its a real shame that the politicians are so worked up about something that nobody else cares about

I think the recent discussions on here show that people [b][i]do[/i][/b] care about it

How does FPTP favour anyone, Tory or otherwise?

FPTP favours the status quo.

It's psychological.

Because in most seats people believe that only the Tories or Labour can win then they will vote for one of those 2 parties.

WIth AV they get to vote for who they really want without the fear that they are wasting their vote, because they know that once their party is knocked out that they still have a say in each succeeding round until they are finally left with a choice between just 2 parties.

Then they choose the least worst. 😀

Not just that though

lunge - read this:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/first_past_the_post.htm

In the example above, 22,000 voted for the candidate that won that election but 30,000 voted against the winner. In recent years, national or by-elections have frequently thrown up the instance of the winner having more people vote against him/her. Therefore, that victor cannot claim to have the majority support of the people within the whole constituency concerned. Therefore, the total popular mandate for the winner does not exist.

It has traditionally benefitted the Tories more, but I think Labour redrew some boundaries so it would benefit them - either way, its not a very democratic system.

How does FPTP favour anyone

Would it not be better to have bigger constituencies and say (depending on the population of the constituencies) five or six MPs per constituency? That way, you get a good mix of MPs per const. broadly representing the views of that const.

Hmmm...akshilly, that's proper PR isn't it?

In the meantime, it's a yes from me anyway. Small steps and all that.

The idea that AV gives power to BNP etc voters is preposterous. What happens is that they vote BNP, and then all the BNP votes go in the bin when the candidate is eliminated, and we tell those voters to have another go at voting for a party that more than 50% of voters find acceptable. They have the choice of doing so or ducking out of the vote. Their votes never count twice, and their votes won't elect a candidate unless over 50% of the voters put the BNP somewhere on their list. This means that even if the non-BNP vote is split (which it will be) the BNP will not get in. The AV system is MORE LIKELY TO KEEP THEM OUT. It ensures that MPs have broad support. The idea that AV is a win for racists is one of the biggest and most cynical pieces of the bullshit No propaganda.

The idea that AV is a win for racists is one of the biggest and most cynical pieces of the bullshit No propaganda.

And particularly ridiculous given that the BNP are against AV.

Seems if the vote was amongst STW posters we would go AV, but a quick google of opinion polls indicate we are in the significant minority amongst the general population.

The idea that AV gives power to BNP etc voters is preposterous

There was an interview on The Today Programme this morning with a bloke looking at the Aussie system (where they have had AV for 100 odd years)

He said that minority parties DO end up with more say (which is a good thing) but only those minority parties with fairly "central" politics (which is also good).

Parties with more extreme minority viewpoints, like Pauline Hanson's "One Nation" party, tend to suffer under AV as they no longer benefit from people splitting votes up between their opponents.

Seems if the vote was amongst STW posters we would go AV, but a quick google of opinion polls indicate we are in the significant minority amongst the general population.

Same story amongst my social circle too. Either the opinion polls are very wrong and it will be a surprise win for AV (unlikely) or folk that are vocal and interested about the subject are more likely to be advocating change while the silent majority want to stick with what they know.

Of course the BNP are against AV.

AV guarantees they will never win a seat.

http://www.stewartpratt.com/?p=479

but only those minority parties with fairly "central" politics [b](which is also good)[/b].

Maybe, but that is a value judgement.

while the silent majority want to stick with what they know

Maybe the silent majority want to stick with what they favour. Or the vocal minority want to opt for what they don't know?

If I vote for a Labour candidate in a seat in which Labour has a large share of the vote, I can rank every other candidate to my heart's content but those votes will never be counted, no difference.

By contrast, if I vote for a fringe party that gets knocked out early, my second and third preferences can end up deciding the election.

Under those circumstances, the second and third preferences of fringe parties (some of whom may be moderate, some of whom may be extremists) become all-powerful, so candidates for the mainstream parties will have to pitch for them. Hence, under AV, the minor parties wield more power – both in the ballot box and on the stump.

So - mainstream parties are forced to pander to the nutters in order to get elected, producing policies and rhetoric that appeal to them, so that they are selected in second or third place.

The problem with AV isn't that the BNP would win more votes, its that the people who are stupid enough to vote BNP as their first choice, become the all powerful vital second and third votes that settle the election!

Maybe the silent majority want to stick with what they favour.

Why do they favour it though? Mainly because people generally fear change/what they don't understand.

So - mainstream parties are forced to pander to the nutters in order to get elected, producing policies and rhetoric that appeal to them, so that they are selected in second or third place.

You've already said this and it was wrong the first time. Again, see the example of Australia where they actually use this system.

Under those circumstances, the second and third preferences of fringe parties (some of whom may be moderate, some of whom may be extremists) become all-powerful, so candidates for the mainstream parties will have to pitch for them. Hence, under AV, the minor parties wield more power – both in the ballot box and on the stump.

But they could do that now. For example, the Tories might want to look tough on immigration in order to appeal to BNP sympathisers (obviously a poor example).

What you are suggesting is not a feature of AV, it is a feature of all political systems.

Why do they favour it though?

You've already said this and it was wrong the first time. Again, see the example of Australia where they actually use this system.

You say that like it might actually change his tune sometime soon.

If I vote for a Labour candidate in a seat in which Labour has a large share of the vote, I can rank every other candidate to my heart's content but those votes will never be counted, no difference.

By contrast, if I vote for a fringe party that gets knocked out early, my second and third preferences can end up deciding the election.

Under those circumstances, the second and third preferences of fringe parties (some of whom may be moderate, some of whom may be extremists) become all-powerful, so candidates for the mainstream parties will have to pitch for them. Hence, under AV, the minor parties wield more power – both in the ballot box and on the stump.

This is simply the wrong way to look at things. In the first round, you vote for labour and some minority party is knocked out. In the second round, you get to vote again (the same as everyone else) and you stick with labour, and so on.

People who vote for a minority party which then gets knocked out get to indicate their second preference (e.g. BNP 1st, UKIP 2nd) - but that does not mean they get more voting power, it simply means that their political views are not held by a majority of the public.

Mainstream parties are in no way forced to pander to the 'nutters'. If they don't, then the nutters will only vote for their minority party - which will be knocked out a certain point, and then their vote is discounted.

Edit: in case it's not obvious, I'll be voting Yes. And I sincerely hope as many people on here as possible engage in the debate and choose the system they find to be most representative of the people (i.e. Yes 😛 )

Zulu,

The AV system throws BNP votes in the bin.

If someone votes BNP their vote will be lost. If someone who is a racist then votes Con/Lab/Lib then what's the problem? Existing voters for those parties may have objectionable views too.

No-one gets more than one vote and votes for parties without broad support are rejected.

AV is a kick in the teeth for racist parties.

Mainly because people generally fear change/what they don't understand.

Too many unsubstantiated claims in there. How do you know they fear it as opposed to support the other option? How do you know they don't understand it?

Is it that if they do not agree with you the must be stupid and fearful?

Well, the mainstream parties already do pander to the "nutters" (see tory/labour insane policies re: immigration). I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing - but imo AV would provide a more representative breakdown showing who in the electorate cares about immigration/environment/cornish independence. Currently there may be Green voters (say) who vote for the tories to keep the BNP out - this is good for no-one (apart from the tories), and leads to lower turnouts.

Too many unsubstantiated claims in there.

It's just human nature - or do you deny the general principle? Inertia is clearly a massive factor in politics - I'm not suggesting that every single person who supports FPTP is doing so only because they fear change. But to deny that it's a factor is just silly.

The AV system throws BNP votes in the bin.

If someone votes BNP their vote will be lost. If someone who is a racist then votes Con/Lab/Lib then what's the problem? Existing voters for those parties may have objectionable views too.

Under FPTP, the racists will be tactically voting Tory to try to get Labour out?

Under AV, they have to be openly racist first then, after their BNP, UKIP, England First or whatever votes are thrown out, they get to vote Tory.

Too many unsubstantiated claims in there. How do you know they fear it as opposed to support the other option? How do you know they don't understand it?

I think it is pretty hard to argue that people generally do not fear change.

But if you look at the stuff the No campaign is pumping out it is all aimed at generating fear, and given that they probably have a lot of clever people behind the scenes working out the most effective messages to put forward for their cause, I think it is a fair assumption that that has been the outcome of some proper research.

Apart from all of the stuff about how BNP supporters will be in charge, how about the crap about it only being Australia, Fiji and Papua New Guinea that have AV now - so what? If you want to look at the numbers of people under any particular system then Chinese Communism is the most popular, but I don't see many Tories advocating that.

I'm not suggesting that every single person who supports FPTP is doing so only because they fear change. But to deny that it's a factor is just silly

Ok, but will you also accept that there will be a number of people voting for change for equally spurious reasons and that many of them won't really understand it either. It's just that your original post had a hint of 'oh they're too stupid and scared to know any better' The system is not complex. I don't think there are many who do not understand how it works.

But we don't need to have a hijack here to labour the point.

Under FPTP, the racists will be tactically voting Tory to try to get Labour out?

Under AV, they have to be openly racist first then, after their BNP, UKIP, England First or whatever votes are thrown out, they get to vote Tory.

And how would that will change the result? Or is your argument is that it will benefit Labour as they may win outright due to the split Tory vote?

No - the mainstream parties are going to have to do much more to appeal to supporters of the minor parties than at present to be sure of attracting their second preferences.
So where now the Conservatives/Labour can afford to ignore the thousand loons who vote BNP in a constituency, in future they will have to make sure second preference votes come to them… So the dog whistle will come out and sooner or later someone will suggest banning burkas here too.

Focussing on 'the BNP will not win any seats’ is a smokescreen from the yes camp to distract from this!

The system is not complex. I don't think there are many who do not understand how it works

I wouldn't go that far

So far I've had to try to explain it to 2 couples one way and a 1 the other way and the outlaws
I still don't think they get it

Could be me, I guess but the guy from the 'Yes' campaign seemed to give up on the couple next door and walked off looking confused himself

If I vote for a Labour candidate in a seat in which Labour has a large share of the vote, I can rank every other candidate to my heart's content but those votes will never be counted, no difference.

By contrast, if I vote for a fringe party that gets knocked out early, my second and third preferences can end up deciding the election.

Under those circumstances, the second and third preferences of fringe parties (some of whom may be moderate, some of whom may be extremists) become all-powerful, so candidates for the mainstream parties will have to pitch for them. Hence, under AV, the minor parties wield more power – both in the ballot box and on the stump.

No offence to Mr Zulu but if someone like him who is clearly intelligent and interested can misunderstand the consequences of AV this badly the No campaign have done a damn good job and it's no surprise the vote looks like it will stay with what we have.

As I said before, when you do the maths in a at least 3 main party state even when the third party only gets about 10% of the vote its very hard to come up with a senario where everyone is not having one of their votes count towards the play off between the 2 most popular parties. The only time it might happen is when one party is a lot more popular than any other and only just misses the 50% outright of first preference votes. In that case they may only need to count the votes of a handful 2nd preferences but I very much doubt it would make a difference to the outcome as if they counted back even further (to take into account all the small parties) the largest party is still going to cross the win line..

I am a Yes even though it is unlikely to have any significant effect.

I don’t like the manner of the No campaign and i don’t like Cameron.
I don’t like the spin that tries to make the AV system seem complicated. It is simple and anyone suggesting otherwise is an idiot.

But the major reason is that a no vote would block any further reforms for years to come.

No - the mainstream parties are going to have to do much more to appeal to supporters of the minor parties than at present to be sure of attracting their second preferences.
So where now the Conservatives/Labour can afford to ignore the thousand loons who vote BNP in a constituency, in future they will have to make sure second preference votes come to them… So the dog whistle will come out and sooner or later someone will suggest banning burkas here too.

Focussing on 'the BNP will not win any seats’ is a smokescreen from the yes camp to distract from this!

But the point is Zulu, to get across the 50% line they don't just need the few BNP votes, they would need to maintain a [b]massive [/b] number of 1st preference votes and be very very popular with the electorate so that only a handful of 2nd preference votes would get them over the game line.

To attract the BNP vote with extremist policies would put off as many first preference voters as it would disproportionately encourage 2nd preference BNP votes. Unless of course you are saying that typical tory voters are closet racists anyway and would not mind a bit of that from their preferred candidate! 😉

I'm not talking about just BNP votes though - there are plenty of other "fringe" parties, UKIP attracted over 16% of the total vote at the last European election, but only 3% at the general election - if UKIP voters can happily vote for UKIP as 1st choice, and Conservative as second choice in a general election, can you really dismiss this?

Same goes with the BNP - 6% at euro election, <3% at general election - given that they are [i]more likely[/i] to vote BNP first if they are sure their second vote will be counted - do you really think that this sort of proportion proportion of the total vote can be ignored?

The Tories would [b]have[/b] to create policies which ensured they got the UKIP voters second preference.

I'm not talking about just BNP votes though - there are plenty of other "fringe" parties, UKIP attracted over 16% of the total vote at the last European election

Same goes with the BNP - 6% at euro election

And this is why we have 2 BNP members representing us in the European parliament, including Mr Griffin himself. What's changed ?

[i]if UKIP voters can happily vote for UKIP as 1st choice, and Conservative as second choice in a general election, can you really dismiss this?[/i]

What's the problem? It means that the Conservatives have a lot of broad support in that area.

You can't get pissed off by a democratic system just because you're in a minority in the electorate. It's democracy. If 33% of the electorate want the Conservatives and 33% want Labour and 33% want UKIP, but all of the UKIP voters would be happy enough with the Conservatives and none of the non-UKIP voters would be happy with UKIP, then surely the Conservatives are the best representation.

[i]they are more likely to vote BNP first if they are sure their second vote will be counted[/i]

Who cares? As long as (broadly speaking) at least half the voters never put a number in the BNP box, the BNP don't get a seat.

Zulu-Eleven

What you are suggesting as a negative makes no sense.

So the mainstream have to broaden their appeal to everyone from the BNP to the Greens.

Why is that a bad thing.

But the point is Zulu, to get across the 50% line they don't just need the few BNP votes, they would need to maintain a massive number of 1st preference votes

Not really, as long as they weren't knocked out of the first round then Cons/Lab/Lib could in theory run with 10% of the first vote and hoover up the round 2 votes.

Alas, politicians got involved in both sides of the AV argument so I have to say equal spin and bull from both camps.

Only way I can see the BNP etc. benefiting is getting AV then getting PR after that - that way they'll get seats.

The Tories would have to create policies which ensured they got the UKIP voters second preference.

They don't have to. They would [b]choose[/b] to, as UKIP/BNP/rightywing stuff would be their 'bag' and they would want the votes. Similar to labour going for left wing stuff (not that they are at all left wing any more). If they went out all-right-wing-mad they would end up losing their core vote/votes to the middle-left of their party. So it would balance out.

[i]The Tories would have to create policies which ensured they got the UKIP voters second preference. [/i]

So what you're saying is that the parties would have to adapt to find ways of better representing the views of the population as a whole?

Your issue with AV appears to be simply that you tend to disagree with the population as a whole. Which is fine. Largely, so do I. But it's not a criticism of AV, it's simply that there are more right-leaning people than you would like.

Focussing on 'the BNP will not win any seats’ is a smokescreen from the yes camp to distract from this!

No it's not.

Think about the reality for a moment.

For the BNP to win a seat they would have to get the second (or third, or fourth etc) preference votes of [b]nearly all[/b] of the second/third/fourth parties in order to beat the other remaining party in the final round.

Do you really think that is going to happen?

Or are you just creating your own smoke screen.

Only way I can see the BNP etc. benefiting is getting AV then getting PR after that - that way they'll get seats.

If significant numbers of people vote for them, then they should get seats - however much we might not like them, isn't that what democracy is supposed to be?

No - the mainstream parties are going to have to do much more to appeal to supporters of the minor parties than at present to be sure of attracting their second preferences.

This is a GOOD thing!

Significant minority parties get to have greater influence on policy. Politics moves towards trying to find compromises that suit everyone instead of just trying to keep a majority happy at the expense of others.

So where now the Conservatives/Labour can afford to ignore the thousand loons who vote BNP in a constituency, in future they will have to make sure second preference votes come to them…

You're ignoring the fact that if Conservatives/Labour decide to adopt some extreme BNP policies to earn some second preferences from BNP voters then they are likely to lose votes from their existing supporters. So it wouldn't be worth it.

They are far more likely to look at the number of people voting for more moderate minority parties (Green, SNP, SDLP, Democratic Unionist, Plaid Cymru etc) and see if they can adopt any policies from those parties that may win them votes.

Bez, as I said It leads to the forced extreme of politics, the mainstream parties have to pander to the nutters, rather than (at the moment) pandering to the middle of the road!

Do you really want the nutters to have the final say?

To me the simple fatal weakness of AV is that the second preferences of the nutters (ie. the people who would vote BNP or another fringe party as their first choice) become the decisive votes, and the mainstream parties will be forced to pander to them.

So the mainstream have to broaden their appeal to everyone from the BNP to the Greens.

Why is that a bad thing.

It starts to be a bad thing if you take the example of the current coalition. You may have voted LibDem because of their stance on student fees, then too late realised in the backroom horsetrading they've given that 'policy' away.

This coalition could well be brought down (good or bad in your opinion) because one party (most likely LibDems looking at the polls) is going to throw a strop after losing the AV vote. Ironic given their 'lets be adults' political approach...

Scotland has a form of PR - actually two differnt ones neither of which are AV

Minority parties do get representation - tories, Lib Dems and Greens as well as pensioners, socialists and one or two other odd bods.

however extremists such as the BNP don't get anything at all. Same as they would not under AV.

A fully proportional list types system might give them representation but AV will not. Its not a proportional system as such

Zulu, your premise is that current mainstream parties will become nutter parties. That just ain't going to happen. Not least because doing so will lose them more votes than they gain. There are vastly more votes in the middle of the road than there are in the gutter.

If the population in part or in whole has some beef about immigration issues then they need to be handled in mainstream politics by mainstream parties, otherwise it's ignored and frustration builds, and extreme parties gain support.

You can forget the real neonazi crowd, they'll vote BNP whatever. The issue is disenchanted voters living in areas where they perceive immigration or race related issues. Some of these issues are often real, even if they're always not [i]actually[/i] immigration related. It's at the margins where people need to talk and deal with issues, otherwise the extremists can sound compelling.

I understand where you're coming from but still maintain that AV is a significantly better way of addressing your concerns than FPTP is.