this important referendum is nearly upon us and i thought it would be interesting explore the views held by this BB

after much thought, i have decided to vote against AV
i do not dispute that "first past post the post" is in some ways unfair - so is life and golf! - but i am far from convinced that AV is intrinsically much better

i would rather have a stronger gov't of some hue than a weak coalition or mps (and parties) who have felt obliged to trim their sails to offend the least number and thus gain a few more secondary votes

full-blown PR is at least "fair", but even then, there are many examples of horribly weak and unstable gov'ts, which is also pretty disastrous

finally, and of greatest concern, i suspect the turnout for this referendum will be +/-35% at best and probably a lot lower in many parts of the country
it follows that those who vote in this will be (relative) "activists" for lack of a better word, for the run-of-the-mill voter will find the whole thing too complicated and voting on it all, too much of a fag
thus, if there is a change in our voting system, then it is very likely to have been pushed through by <20% of the electorate - is that fair?

and vince cable as proven that

i confess surprise that with one dissenter (fred), this board is so far, unanimous in rejecting AV

the more i dwell on it, even though i have already made up my mind, it is the the thought that only +/-20% of those enfranchised could change the whole structure of a system that has worked well for many centuries despite its imperfections and weaknesses .... that just cannot be right - or fair if it comes to it!

one could even rationalise by saying that the great majority of those who cannot (could not) be bothered to vote at all are perfectly or at least acceptably happy with the status quo - i.e. the "second choice" would be overwhelmingly in favour of leaving well alone

I'm against, for no other reason than I'm an old dinosaur and think one person one vote has worked in the past. Winner takes all and put up with it, I've never entered by the back door.........;>))

If I was even slightly interested in making a second choice when voting then it would mean that I couldn't make my mind up who to vote for, so maybe should not vote at all! It is almost like saying that I want, say, a Conservative member to be elected but wouldn't really mind if a Labour MP got in. Mine is a definite NO vote!

Many tribal chief "dictatorships" believed in the status quo, perhaps a belief in that only they were fit to "govern" or have a right to rule.

Many middle eastern chieftains justify their positions on it is working for them and can not see any reason to change.

Not be surprised by the result of poll for AV on this thread, as it sustains a status quo.

On balance, over last 30 years or so, the Libs would have benefitted from PR and AV.

If in place at the last G. election I would have thought Labour would have been caned.

The next election I have a "feeling" that it will improved the result for Labour.

my gut feeling is not to trust AV, or more precisely, its proponents .....
it's worth remembering that income tax was brought in as a temporary measure to pay for the napoleonic wars and indeed was abolished and re-implemented a few times

and to repeat .... i do not like at all the possibility that the status quo could be changed by the votes of just +/-20% of the electorate ..... would not be exactly a change by democratic consensus would it?

A burning question for me was, " What would have happened at the last General Election if AV had already been implemented?" and so I set about trying to find an answer.

Of course, all of this is merely a purely theoretical result because an actual result would have undoubtedly been influenced differently by the Alternative Voting parameters in place at the time. Nevertheless, since there weren't any, it surely does at least throw up who might be the most interested parties in the making of any changes and bringing AV into a new voting system.

Constituencies That Would Have Changed Hands as a Result of an AV Ballot at the last General Election

Labour to Conservative - 1 seat:
Dudley North

Labour to Liberal Democrat - 19 seats:
Aberdeen South
Edinburgh North and Leith
Edinburgh South
Newport East
Swansea West
Ashfield
Birmingham Hall Green
Bristol South
Chesterfield
Durham City
Hull North
Islington South and Finsbury
Lewisham West and Penge
Newcastle upon Tyne North
Oldham East and Saddleworth
Oxford East
Rochdale
Sheffield Central
Streatham

Conservative to Labour - 10 seats:
Aberconwy
Cardiff North
Brentford and Isleworth
Broxtowe
Hendon
Hove
Lancaster and Fleetwood
Sherwood
Stockton South
Warrington South

Conservative to Liberal Democrat - 13 seats:
Montgomeryshire
Bristol North West
Camborne and Redruth
Colne Valley
Harrogate and Knaresborough
Newton Abbot
Oxford West and Abingdon
Reading East
St Albans
Truro and Falmouth
Watford
Weston-Super-Mare
York Outer

Conclusions Summary

"Although the Conservatives would have gained Dudley North from Labour, this would have been more than offset by their 10 losses to Labour (including Brentford & Isleworth and Hoveboth won with relatively comfortable majorities under FPTP) and their 13 losses to the Liberal Democrats (including Montgomeryshire and Bristol North Westalso won with comfortable FPTP majorities).

Labour, too, would have been a net loserdropping 19 seats to the Liberal Democrats, including the relatively safe seats of Isleworth South & Finsbury and Newcastle on Tyne North.

These results suggest that there may be some very nervous Conservative and Labour MPs in the House of Commons if the AV referendum scheduled for 2011 produces a Yes2AV result."

(The information above was sourced from: "SIMULATING THE EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE VOTE IN THE 2010 UK GENERAL ELECTION" by David Sanders, Harold D Clarke, Marianne C Stewart and Paul Whitely, University of Essex, dated July 2010, a '2010 British Election Study Working Paper')

to clarify for all .....

Conservatives hold 305 but under AV (as above) would reduce to 283
Labour hold 255 but under AV (as above) would reduce to 246
Lib Dems hold 57 but under AV (as above) would increase to 89
Others hold 33 but have assumed they would stay the same

using the logic of the general election, that still left the Conservatives as the largest party and theoretically would still have formed a coalition with the Lib Dems, though no doubt even less comfortable than is now the case

The supposition is that if we had AV then punters would vote in the same way.

the only voters to vote yes will be the ones that no they will never get power thank god. libs are liars and would and do stab ever one in theback and the last 12 months says it all clegg cable total liars

.

quite so fred, but one can only work from the facts and info to hand

mna. they would betray there mothers for power ,scum comes to mind

mna. they would betray there mothers for power ,scum comes to mind

the libs no that thevote will be NO they arenow trying to save there soles

.

tanks - you really are ridiculous at times and merely make yourself look so ..... if you had commented that politicians as a breed rarely if ever act altruistically or somesuch, your post would have had some credibility

cynic i think you will find that even the hard line libs would now agree with me .
clegg as done the country a good favour destoying the party which is very good for the country

cynic . how many libs in gov will be tory candidates next election ?

probably none