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?

stan . so we now know that you are lib the very people that have destoyed this country with therehumans rights .libs are in a dream and liars look at cable and clegg
if they had there way we would more over run . i would never vote lib a bunch of holligans

Incorrect on all assumptions Tanker.

If 99% of the world nations have rejected it but Vince (Loose) Cable is for it I am 100%

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When does a belief become a reason which is oblivious to thought?

myself i am as far right as possible

"myself i am as far right as possible".. bit like most of the other posters on MAM then -):

That's right most of the posters on MAM have voted you and Fred as a couple of tossers, so do the decent thing and piss off

you people who vote yes . are the same people who if attacked would put up the white flag before thinking .

Tank,

Not quite right enough, just move along the bench a little more please.

==================

Aids, the oracle, writes again with amazing insight and wit.

----------------------

PS. How did you escape TA little list?

excuse me guys, but may we keep this thread sensible .... undoubtedly this is a singularly important issue, but to my mind it should not be bound by "party political lines" as seems to be happening here as well as in the big outside world

a Q for the "yes" camp .... do you think it democratically fair if 20% of the electorate win the day by voting for a change in the system, and if so, why?

Interesting that the question of AV is being decided by a first past the post system.

My vote is a definite NO.

Australia was held to ransome for several weeks by three MPs from very rural constituencies virtually in the bush who could not decide which party to make the government after their last election because of AV. Italy has had an average of one government a year because of its election system that causes endless coalitions. It is so bad that the public are prepared to put up with Berlusconi to get a stronger government. Israel has a coalition of four or more parties most of the time with extreme right wing religious parties holding the balance of power. Religion should have no place in government including Iran, Pakistan etc. Germany is one of the few countries that manages to make coalition governments work.

I believe that AV will produce more coalitions and that means more deals done behind closed doors and the public only getting a watered down version of what they voted for. It means minority parties have a disproportionate voice and the possibility of extreme parties being elected and possibly holding the balance of power.

We all know why LIB/LAB want to change the voting system, keep them out vote

NO!!!

Haystack, that is a very amusing point most have missed re.the first past the post
vote for AV-if the YES vote wins will there be another vote using AV-just to waste another couple of hundred millions?

i still await fred, stan or any others from the "yes camp" to answer my question in post 83

cynic if a yes means 50% to get elected does that mean if a party does not get 50% then we should have enough election that would be good but then that would go on for ever so . keep to what we have . coalition is no good to many cooks soil the food .
VOTE NO NO NO

YES TANKER,

oh I mean

NO!!!!!

Cynic,

If all the possible electorate, is a true representation of the of the public, then a total vote of only 5%, 10% or 20% of possible electorate whether the outcome of the election is yes, or no, then that result can be assume to be democratic.

This is an assumption that there are no "impediments" placed in the way of those who wish to vote Yes or No.

(Where propaganda, coercion, education, media, PR etc. influences the information provided for the public is another consideration,)

Those who don't vote are showing no concern, or are indifferent and are prepared to accept the consequence of their "non-participation" .

The total vote can be seen as a poll and representative of the people.

(That is an assumption that the "electorate" is a true representation of the populace. In this country it is reasonably correct, but it could be open to review and possible tinkering.)

what you say has its merits (and open to different interpretation) - would one expect otherwise! - which is a good argument as to why voting should be obligatory as it is in oz

Not voting has its merits and also influences actions.

(As you might guess, in general I tend not to vote.)

in that case you should be ashamed of yourself