[Shaun]

Probably been a thread on it before but with the referendum just around the corner, I don't remember one.

[Boothy]

This will be the first time I can legally vote but I'm still undecided which way to go. Think I'm swaying more towards Yes though.

[BigBrotherfan4ever]

Got my postal vote today, & have voted for AV.

[Shaun]

I personally think it sounds good in theory but am worried it'll lead to a great deal of political inertia. Plus I think the AV solution is a lot like my Top10s games lmao - just unnecessarily complicated and it kind of devalues the voting process - it's hard to describe. I also don't really want the Lib Dems to have more power.

[MTVN]

Cant vote but even if I could I dont think I would, it's a choice between two crap systems, FPTP is unrepresentative but so is AV, although maybe not as much, and it seems a bit complicated and beurocratic. PR would be a far better option.

[Smithy]

I can legally vote

Not that arsed though tbh, it seems like a really complicated way of voting

[Jamie.....]

Can't vote, but they still send me a voting card and info on voting

But I'm not overly sure if AV will work, and seeing as only three countries use it, and apparently want to change it.

[Livia]

There was another thread about this, and I will say what I said in the last one for those that missed it. Only three countries in the world have AV: Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Australia. Fiji and Australia want to get rid of it.

Nick Cleg, who insisted on a referendum on voting reform described AV as "a miserable little compromise".

It will give unfair advantage to minority parties. Rather than the candidiate with the most votes winning, under AV the person who came third might win. We will be forced into coalition governments forevermore.

Calculating the results would be long and complicated. Anyone who's ever been to a political count will know that it already takes allllllllllllll day. AV take much longer to count than the current sustem and will require specialist equipment. AV will cost us millions.

I think some people who are supporting AV don't truly understand the implications of it. It is not proportional representation.

My advice on voting on AV would be... Vote "no" as your first choice, and "yes" as your second choice.

[joeysteele]

I will be voting NO,for a few reasons,some of them petty.

I voted Lib Dem at the election, my first vote and I feel I have been kicked in the teeth for giving them my trust so anything against Clegg I will do now.

This system as Livia says is only used in 3 Countries,the biggest being Australia who would like to ditch it and have another system.

On a newsnight programme the YES campaigners inc. Paddy Ashdown said that if used in elections in the UK over the last few decades,AV wouldn't have greatly altered the results we got.
That being the case then that is the main selling point of then voting NO to it, if that's the case then the time wasted and massive costs wasted on it of holding the referendum and then setting it up is not acceptable,we should cut our losses and not go down the road of the massive costs of setting the AV syatem up.

The other point of it is also, under AV the Conservatives would never again be likely to get an overall majority in elections, so any Conservative voters should think hard on that one.
The only party likely to be regularly involved in Govt under AV are the Lib Dems with their lies and chopping and changing of policies to suit themselves.

I hope its beaten and I hope it also means the Lib Dem party questions whether it has the right leader when he fails, as I hope he will fail,to deliver this very small move to electoral change.

I would vote for a full PR system,but that could easily have been on the ballot paper this time round too. The full question could have been asked and the chance has been missed so I hope the voters who do vote will vote no to it and this is resoundly voted against.

[Livia]

I agree with joeysteele. I too would vote for full proportional representation if it had been included in the referendum.

[Mystic Mock]

If I was able to vote I would vote yes,because it would have stopped the hung parliment we had in the last election,plus conservatives will have a better chance at winning imo.

But even if they dont win I always believe the majority should always get what they want.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by jedward fever

If I was able to vote I would vote yes,because it would have stopped the hung parliment we had in the last election,plus conservatives will have a better chance at winning imo.

But even if they dont win I always believe the majority should always get what they want.

Hung parliaments would be the norm under AV.

Conservatives would not have a better chance of winning. If you check out the Conservatives website you will see that they are firmly in the "No to AV" camp.

I'm confused that you say that the majority should always get what they want, but say you would vote "yes" to AV. That's a complete contradiction and indicative of the way people are misunderstanding AV.

Nice to see you JF.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by jedward fever

If I was able to vote I would vote yes,because it would have stopped the hung parliment we had in the last election,plus conservatives will have a better chance at winning imo.

But even if they dont win I always believe the majority should always get what they want.

Sorry my friend jf but the expert analysis of what may have happened under AV at the last election is as follows.

Conservatives got 307 seats on FPTP, but under AV they would have likely got only 282 (25 less).

Labour got 258 seats on FPTP, but under AV they would have likely got 262 (4 more)

Lib Dems got 57 seats on FPTP, but under AV they would have likely got 78 (21 more).

Other parties would have still likely got 28 seats on both electoral systems.

AV if it is voted in would very likely make it unlikely for the Conservative party to ever again get an overall majority in elections,it's why the Conservative party and David Cameron are now getting so worked up about it.

In my view thankfully this silly system that would only benefit the Lib Dems looks like being voted against.
Also as Livia says, under AV hung parliaments would be the norm under AV.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Livia

I agree with joeysteele. I too would vote for full proportional representation if it had been included in the referendum.

Thank you Livia, I really think it should have been,get the whole question asked in one go at one cost.

[Mr XcX]

I do not want an AV System.

GB will regret it if we do. Y'all have been warned.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Mr XcX

I do not want an AV System.

GB will regret it if we do. Y'all have been warned.

I agree fully with you.
We most certainly will also be left with a situation where election promises mean nothing, backroom deals being done after the votes are cast and in reality only one party always part of the Govt and that being the Lib Dems.

I really hope voters throw this over expensive referendum out and deliver a massive body blow to Clegg and his party by voting NO to AV,I also think they will.

If It's so good a system why do only 3 Countries have it, but the biggest of those that do want to ditch it too.

[Harry!]

I am not allowed to vote as I am 16 but vote NO. The voting system is fine as it is. You lose you lose. No explanation needed.

[Shaun]

Ah crap, I clicked the wrong option. Meant to say no.

[bananarama]

I want rid of the corrupt first past the post system but the AV system is no better. In fact its bloody ridiculous. Proportional representation is the only realistic alternative in my book. A choice the bloody main parties have denied the public from selecting. Shame on the anti democratic crooks......

[Livia]

Originally Posted by bananarama

I want rid of the corrupt first past the post system but the AV system is no better. In fact its bloody ridiculous. Proportional representation is the only realistic alternative in my book. A choice the bloody main parties have denied the public from selecting. Shame on the anti democratic crooks......

Although I think proportional representation would be a better way, I hardly see what we have now - one man, one vote - as corrupt.

[joeysteele]

First past the post has it's faults but it is miles better than AV.

[karezza]

AV means perpetual hung parliaments.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by karezza

AV means perpetual hung parliaments.

It would indeed and only one party having the say as to who has the chance to govern,the Lib Dems with a ridiculous amount of influence.
Unless a major party gets well ahead all we will have are hung Parliaments.

The Conservatives need to be 6% ahead of Labour to even get the smallest overall majority even on FPTP but under AV they will need to be in a position they haven't been now for over 20 years to be nearer 10 points ahead of Labour with still no guarantee of an overall majority under the AV system.

The reason for that being, few of the minor parties 2nd votes using AV would go to the Conservatives, whereas the vast majority of Conservative 2nd choice votes would be for the Lib Dems, Labour voters 2nd choice votes would also for the vast majority go to the Lib Dems and the Lib Dems 2nd choice votes would likely go to Labour.

AV will highly likely effectively kill off the Conservative party as a ruling party with overall majorities for good.

[Sticks]

Originally Posted by bananarama

I want rid of the corrupt first past the post system but the AV system is no better. In fact its bloody ridiculous. Proportional representation is the only realistic alternative in my book. A choice the bloody main parties have denied the public from selecting. Shame on the anti democratic crooks......

But a no vote will kill PR stone dead for generations to come as it will give a massive vote for FPTP

However this is academic as the polls show a massive vote for the NO campaign since all people are seeing this as a chance to give Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats a thorough good kicking.

The way things are with Nick Clegg, if there were a referendum on whether we should slaughter everyone's first born child, and Nick Clegg was against that, there would be a massive vote in favour of slaughtering everyone's first born child, including votes from loving parents, just to give Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems thorough good kicking

[ILoveTRW]

Already voted no