Ok. So what are you going to do in the Great Referendum?

[non sociopath skin]

Poll question: Ok. So what are you going to do in the Great Referendum?

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. 'yes because AV is better', though I'd rather see AV+ or STV

but those aren't on the menu yet.

[Jeneral2885]

18. I encourage you to read

the links i post in "Exact What is AV?"

They may be biased but they sure do explain AV better than the Yes or No Campaigners.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. The PSA paper is interesting; the AV2011 was unimpressive, as I said

AV2011 used some dodgy arguments, and therefore I don't think is a good explanation.

[Jeneral2885]

20. AV2011 still has some points

much better than any Yes or No campaign nonsense

[LeftishBrit]

2. Vote yes because I prefer AV

Might have preferred STV if it was on offer; but I prefer AV to the present system, which gave Maggie Thatcher absolute power with 42% of the vote; which means that people in most constituencies have little or no voting power; and which means that people in the marginal constituencies often have to vote 'tactically'. Also, unlike some 'pure' proportional representation systems, AV and STV generally reduce the power of extremists.

Of course, *any* system depends on decent leaders to work well, and Clegg's uselessness has meant that a hung parliament didn't work the way we hoped, and the Tories could more or less run things with 36% of the vote. But similarly a huge parliamentary majority for Labour under FPTP didn't work in the way that it should have, because Blair was leader. At least AV does somewhat reduce the leader's power.

Also - any system that Cameron and the Tories hate so much must have something going for it!

[fedsron2us]

3. No. Because I hate Clegg.

Why on earth would I vote for a system that is likely to keep that lying
duplicitous toe rag in government.

AV is only marginally more democratic than FPTP. Its a run off system that is
supposed to favour consensus parties ( ie the one most voters in a constituency find least objectional).
In practise the evidence from Australia is that you are just as likely to get a
hard line neo liberal government as you do in the UK. It is not PR as
it does not provide a true reflection of voters real preferences.

Interestingly my Trade Union is in favour of AV but my local branch which has a fair number
of left wingers voted to oppose it. Milliband is by no means guaranteed to get
the Labour members casting their ballot for the Yes campaign, particularly
as bodies such ASLEF and the GMB are backing the No vote.

I also hope that voting No will cause a final and irremediable rift in the
Coalition as Lib Dem MPs and activists finally realise that Clegg has bought
them a one way ticket to Palookaville

[non sociopath skin]

4. Looks like you're not alone.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/18/guardian-icm-poll-av-vote-support-collapses

The Skin

[fedsron2us]

5. deleted

[fedsron2us]

6. deleted

[fedsron2us]

7. deleted

[fedsron2us]

8. To be honest I think the whole debate on the UK voting system is pointless

since none of the changes address the fundamental problem
of an over mighty executive branch of government and a
supine legislature. Once a Prime Minister has a working majority
in the House Of Commons then he can virtually dictate
policies for 5 years even if public opinion turns completely
against him after a short period. I set out my views on this matter
here as long ago as 2005.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=191x4153#4206

What we need to keep the politicians honest is more frequent elections not
voting systems that may or may not deliver consensus coalitions.
Biennial Parliaments would probably change politics more fundamentally than all
the arguments over AV.

[tjwmason]

10. I agree with your diagnosis

Switching to A.V. will probably have little effect overall, particular in terms of the relationship between Parliament and the executive.

I'm afraid I disagree about biennial parliaments, I think that would create a tendancy for perpetual campaigning on the part of M.P.s. I think that the strength of parties over M.P.s is the biggest problem as any party with a majority can get almost any legislation through.

[T_i_B]

14. I also agree with Fedsron2us diagnosis

However the solution I would prefer is for the executive to be elected directly and separately from the legislature, with a gap of say 2 years between elections for the 2 branches of government. That way we would have a bit of balance that we don't have at the moment and which AV will not provide.

[LeftishBrit]

15. Actually that would be my preferred solution too

but I think that it's one that we're extremely unlikely to be able to get. Partly because *all* the party leaders would have a vested interest in opposing it; partly because we'd get into all sorts of constitutional issues relating to the fact that the Monarchy is in theory the executive branch, even though this has not really been the case for a very long time.

[fedsron2us]

17. I totally agree with your about the point about party machines

dominating MPs. In fact I only suggested biennial Parliaments because they were one of the ideas put forward during the English Civil War in the 17th Century for limiting the power of the Crown

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=86550

I would certainly want one system of midterm or rolling election program for MPs to the House of Commons where a portion of The House of Commons comes up for re-election every few years rather than winner take all General Elections that occur at the moment. If an MPs term of office is not co-terminus with his party leader or a particular government then we might just see a little more independence amongst our elected representatives.

One reason I do not like AV is that it is not likely to weaken the power of the big party machines and may make it much tougher for the odd independent or small party to slip through the net into Parliament. All the available evidence suggests that if AV had applied at the last General Election it would possibly have led to the election of another 22 Liberal Democrat MPs but apart from that have made very little difference to the result. In Australia the system seems to have led in the past 30 years to the Labour Party on the left and the Liberal Nationalist coalition on the right swapping office at 8-10 year intervals which is not that different from what has happened in the UK under FPTP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Australia

I don't see much evidence that AV is going a make huge difference to the way British politics operate apart from perhaps providing a few Lib Dem hopeful candidates with a nice paid job in Westminster for 5 years. I don't really regard that as sufficient justification for the cost of ditching and replacing the current system even if it is also piss poor. AV is not going to lead to the reform of governance that this country so desperately needs

[tjwmason]

9. I'm not surprised by the move in the polls

Those with the strongest views on the matter will generally be those who want the change, they will have been those most involved and informed in advance...so early polls would tend to be more favourable to A.V.

On the day, I think that turn-out will be critical. The local elections don't tend to pull people out in droves so there won't really be any piggy-back effect. I suspect that those wanting change will be more motivated to vote and so with a very low turn-out may make it.

[T_i_B]

13. I've seen a few polls favouring No

But in a way that's suprising as the Yes campaign has a lot of people who've been preparing for this for years and as such you'd expect then to race ahead of the No2AV lot.

The Clegg factor could well swing it if the No campaign decides to use that card rather then going on about the cost.

[Malden Capell]

11. Probably NO

I am agnostic about the merits of PR, but the more I learn about AV the less enthusiastic I get. I'm a believer in the principle of devil-you-know, and in the hope we avoid becoming another Australia, I think (right now anyway) I'm going to vote NO.

[T_i_B]

12. No. AV is not an improvement on first past the post.

It's over complex and it will increase, rather then reduce tactical voting.

[Ken Burch]

22. The problem is, if AV loses, won't Labour and the Tories both say

"That's it then. It's first-past-the-post for the rest of eternity"?

How do you build support for other pr models(like, say multiple-member districts)if the status quo is endorsed on Thursday?

[T_i_B]

23. Not if they have to deal with the Lib Dems

The trouble is that the Lib Dems are in a position where they've screwed up their role in the coalition so much that they don't think they will ever be in a position to demand anything in a future hung parliament without changing the voting system today.

The "This is your ONLY chance of ever changing the system" argument is IMHO a tacit admission that the Lib Dem's future does not look good.

The debate on electoral reform will continue as for as the Lib Dems remain a strong 3rd party. The Lib Dem's main policy for decades has been PR and that will not change regardless of the result. It's more a matter of how much they can compel the other parties to listen to them, which they can't do if their vote falls through the floor thanks to all of their broken promises.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Maybe referendums should *use* AV in the future

That way, we could have had several voting systems put forward, and seen what was most acceptable: FPTP, AV, AV+, AMS, STV or any others with significant support.

[T_i_B]

21. Referendum day kick.

[T_i_B]

24. The No campaign has won!!!!!!!

I'm chuffed to bits about this, especially as this is the first election where I have gone public about my voting intentions. I might have joined the No2AV campaign but for personal business and the fact that both campaigns seemed more interested in flinging poo at each other then explaining how AV works.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13297573

UK voters have rejected a change to the voting system - a major blow to Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg after heavy election losses.

Counting continues but more than 9.8m people have voted to keep first-past-the-post, more than 50% of votes cast.

The No campaign is on course get a decisive 69% of the vote - leading AV campaigner Chris Huhne conceded the rejection had been "overwhelming".

[LeftishBrit]

25. I'm the opposite of chuffed.

I think it will be very good news for the Tories, and not very good for representative government.

I could be persuaded to see a silver lining if it causes the break-up of the coalition, but we shall see.

[non sociopath skin]

26. I agree.

Obviously, the left saw it as a priority to go after the monkey.

OK. Got him. Now can we go after the organ grinder before it's too late?

The Skin