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?

It's not 'fair' if pushed through by <20% - but then, as you yourself state Cynic: neither is life nor golf!

I do feel that the present system isn't entirely representative of the population as a whole, when you look at the number of people eligible to vote for 1 parliamentary seat in one area compared with another. However, I don't believe that the suggested AV really addresses this in the way that I had hoped.

That said, it doesn't really concern me as I can't vote in any case, being a non-Brit citizen!

had you been, which way would you have voted? ...... off to play golf with peter shortly (all very unfair yet again!)

I think I'd be voting against, as it's too complicated and could allow some very strange combinations of conflicting views and agendas within the one government - not a great start for trying to get anything done, nor for providing any sort of stability.

Be kind to Peter!

With AV in place you'd merely end up having the worstiest votes electing the worstiest people. Simples.

We'd signed up for 'postal voting' in our house, so we got to actually do our vote for or against AV.

The way the question was asked on the voting slip was not good, IMHO.

I didn't keep a copy of it, but the way the question went was somewhat along the lines of:

At present, the UK uses the first past the post system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the alternative vote system be used instead?

Then you had to tick either 'Yes' or No'.

IMHO this was a maybe little bit mindset manipulating. Nowhere in the voting paperwork packet did it explain what AV was. Neither did it ask the voter if he/she understood it or how AV voting might affect the outcome of elections.

I really do think it takes the voters' poorest quality votes to elect the poorest quality candidates.

Anyhow, I won't tell you how I voted, because it's 'private'. ;-)

However, do say NO2AV

Little i,

"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"

Yes, I like strong government.

Bring back Stalin, Gaddafi (if he goes), Putin, Mubarak, Assad (when he is disposed.

Likening, a political election to "government", or a "committee" to a race or a game, is making a poor simile.

In a way, the first past the "post" in a race, is an attempt to judge who was best at that moment, in that event, at that moment. Similar would apply to team games.

Electing a "representative" of a "group" is hoping that the person elected will represent the consensus of the group.

It seems to me that AV is an attempt elect a candidate who is more likely to represent of the general "wishes" of a group. If this is so, the "elected" body's decision would be more representative of the group.

Proportional representation for General Election would appear to offer the public a better representation of the "political" wing of the public as a whole.

But in order to save the "coalition" the Liberals did not stick out for the latter and the "elitists" in the tory party would not have permitted Cameron, even if he though it appropriate, to agree to it.

All the systems are open to abuse and manipulation.

If you have a large family meeting try the different systems for a short period.

Quite amusing.
============

The tories are seen by many of the public as anti AV and the public may wish to give a early bloody nose to Cameron.

===============
Interesting to watch and see the outcome.



(Edited)

fred - you do not answer the key issue .... will you vote for or against AV? .... guess you won't say, under the pretence/pretext that it's private .... hope the fence pickets are sharp

the only sensible solution is to make voting compulsory then you would get a true representation of the wish of the electorate,postal votes for all and/or allow online voting.

Cynic,

I am probably going to be annoying the French around the Dordogne and Brittany with my tank at the time of the vote. But I would probably vote Yes, for AV, but would prefer a PR system.

----------

Be careful that there aren't splinters in your bicycle seat, as I don't think there would be many offers to remove them for you.

hali - can't disagree and it is certainly an offense not to vote in Oz .... for all that, what is your view on AV and the fact that voting is not obligatory in uk nor likely to be made so


PR
i suspect i would be inclined to vote for PR, but i don't really see AV as a true step in that direction .... i am certainly very suspicious of what pandora's box may reveal if AV is allowed through especially on only +/-20% of the electorate voting in favour (and few less against same)

vote NO

because?

As discussed today, I'll be voting against:

1. I never expect to be in a position where I am undecided as to how I should cast my vote. In fact I would never even use a second preference. If my first choice is not the popular option, so be it, I lose.

2. I could never vote for a system where the most popular choice doesn't come first.

A definite NO from this warhorse cynic as I have never voted for a second best SD

CYNIC . will a yes vote give us enough vote if we have no clear winning party if not then it better to have first passed the post . one vote i would never vote lib they are a bunch of nutters .

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?