UK Referendum on 5th May

[yastobaal]

So with two months to go before a referendum on the voting system it seems that some campaigning is starting up. The BBC has a couple of articles outlining some of the no and the yes arguments.

The question has been released: (from here)
'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?'

Currently I'm unsure which way to vote. In the general election I was all for the Liberal Democrats and their promises to bring in proportional representation. If that was the choice then I would be voting yes. However, I don't see the alternative vote system as much of a change. Say the majority say no then the politicians could say that everybody is totally happy with 'first past the post' and the system is unlikely to change for a good few years. The yes votes win and then we are with a system that hasn't really changed that much (see here. I'm unsure how accurate this data is though).

So what's other people's thoughts? Yes, no, undecided or abstaining?

[Galanthus]

I was planning t vote "Yes". But, now, having seen the LibDems in government I'm going to vote "No".

I suspect I'm very far from being on my own that position as well.

[Wallenstein]

I hate FPTP. It basically means I have never cast a meaningful vote in my life, as the places I've ended up living (semi-rural middle england) would happily vote in a turnip if it had the right colour rosette.

But AV is a neither-here-nor-there fudge between FPTP and proper PR. I'm not sure as a nation we're ready for full PR... the idea of UKIP or Greens having any real say in policy doesn't sit right, but I'd stil like some of the checks and balances that come from coalition politics (while avoiding political stalemate, which is always the downside).

[jjimm]

Originally Posted by Galanthus

I was planning t vote "Yes". But, now, having seen the LibDems in government I'm going to vote "No".

Is that a general observations of the behaviours of minority parties in coalitions, or a short-term dissatisfaction with the current status quo?

Personally speaking I will vote yes not because of the current government, but because, even if the proposed alteration isn't perfect, it'll be proof to the British electorate that the voting system isn't immutable, as most traditionalists seem to think.

I too am sick of throwing away my vote in FPTP elections.

[footballisplayedwithyourfeet]

I personally wouldn't decide based on which party will benefit from it. I'd look at the question whether you want a winning candidate to have at least 50% of the voters (whether it be as first, second or third vote) actually preferring it over the other plausible alternatives. I'm not an UK citizen, but if I got to make this choice I'd vote yes.

[ColdPhoenix]

I'm going to be voting yes. It's not PR but it's better than FPTP.

My concern is that it will not win because the rhetoric around FPTP sounds better and many people will vote based on that. Without thinking too much about it having a "strong government" and not letting the "loser" win the seat might sound like the best option.

If it passes it will hurt the Tories the most. Leaving aside the current distaste that many have for the Lib Dems, most Labour voters would prefer Lib Dem, and most Lib Dem would prefer Labour to the Tories.

[villa]

Originally Posted by footballisplayedwithyourfeet

I personally wouldn't decide based on which party will benefit from it. I'd look at the question whether you want a winning candidate to have at least 50% of the voters (whether it be as first, second or third vote) actually preferring it over the other plausible alternatives. I'm not an UK citizen, but if I got to make this choice I'd vote yes.

It's probably too late for me to re-register in the UK to vote on this, but I am a definite no.

Philosphically, I prefer the most popular candidate to win rather than the least unpopular. AV encourages a shift to the center, which I don't think is a good thing.

Practically, AV reduces the likelihood of an overall majority. It therefore places whatever party is willing to be the swing party in the driving seat. What a surprise the LibDems support it. They want power over and above their support - the power to make or break governments. Ever since the Liberals (who I didn't support but respected) through their lot in with the traitors from the SDP, they have been the most despicable political entity in the UK, running the dirtiest campaigns, being willing to sacrifice any and every principle they might have accidentally adopted in the past. Fuck 'em.

[footballisplayedwithyourfeet]

Originally Posted by villa

It's probably too late for me to re-register in the UK to vote on this, but I am a definite no.

Philosphically, I prefer the most popular candidate to win rather than the least unpopular. AV encourages a shift to the center, which I don't think is a good thing.

Practically, AV reduces the likelihood of an overall majority. It therefore places whatever party is willing to be the swing party in the driving seat. What a surprise the LibDems support it. They want power over and above their support - the power to make or break governments. Ever since the Liberals (who I didn't support but respected) through their lot in with the traitors from the SDP, they have been the most despicable political entity in the UK, running the dirtiest campaigns, being willing to sacrifice any and every principle they might have accidentally adopted in the past. Fuck 'em.

Well, the shift to the middle - aka the two main parties within a constituency - is probably happening now as well, since voters probably have a good idea what the likely candidates are...I don't think strategic voting is entirely unheard of in a FPTP system.

Your second point is probably a fair, allthough - being from a PR system-country myself - I don't have a problem with coalition Government. It is a mindset in which you have to acknowledge that parties won't be able to keep all their promises and will have to sacrifice certain issues to get others. This doesn't mean you can't be critical about how parties make these decisions about what to stand up for and what not. In return for that you actually get a government that 50% (in PR at least - in AV there is still the possibility of a smaller percentage) voted for.

[Wallenstein]

Originally Posted by villa

Philosphically, I prefer the most popular candidate to win rather than the least unpopular.

Does that not describe FPTP?

MPs are usually voted in with much less than 50% of the available vote, and often with less than 50% of the actual votes cast.

And no government since WW2 has gained power with an overall majority of the popular vote - even Blair in 1997 got less than 44% overall.

[villa]

Originally Posted by footballisplayedwithyourfeet

In return for that you actually get a government that 50% (in PR at least - in AV there is still the possibility of a smaller percentage) voted for.

That really depends on your definition of "voted for."

[villa]

Originally Posted by Wallenstein

Does that not describe FPTP?

Exactly - that is why I prefer FPTP. Most popular in each constituency wins.

Originally Posted by Wallenstein

MPs are usually voted in with much less than 50% of the available vote, and often with less than 50% of the actual votes cast.

And no government since WW2 has gained power with an overall majority of the popular vote - even Blair in 1997 got less than 44% overall.

Blair didn't get less than 44% of the vote. In 1997 Tony Blair got over 70% of the vote. The Labour Party received just less than 44% of the overall vote, making it by far the most popular party in that election.

[Wallenstein]

Originally Posted by villa

Exactly - that is why I prefer FPTP. Most popular in each constituency wins.

Depends how you look at it! If I get 40% of the vote, and my two opponents get 30% each, it means 60% of people did not want me to win. The more parties you have to spread the vote the more chance there is under FPTP that a huge majority do not want the eventual winner.

This is why tactical voting is so popular - the Lib Dems do this all the time ("Don't waste a vote on Labour, we're the only ones close enough to beat the Tories").

In a strict two-party system FPTP works OK, but as soon as you get other parties popping up (UKIP, BNP, Green etc) you end up with winning candidates with only a fraction of the overall vote.

[villa]

Originally Posted by Wallenstein

Depends how you look at it! If I get 40% of the vote, and my two opponents get 30% each, it means 60% of people did not want me to win. The more parties you have to spread the vote the more chance there is under FPTP that a huge majority do not want the eventual winner.

The party that got 40% is the most popular. They may also be the most unpopular, but they are still the most popular. I have never denied that majorities often don't want the eventual winner - I just don't care, as long as more people want the winner than want another individual winner.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Originally Posted by footballisplayedwithyourfeet

Your second point is probably a fair, allthough - being from a PR system-country myself - I don't have a problem with coalition Government. It is a mindset in which you have to acknowledge that parties won't be able to keep all their promises and will have to sacrifice certain issues to get others. This doesn't mean you can't be critical about how parties make these decisions about what to stand up for and what not. In return for that you actually get a government that 50% (in PR at least - in AV there is still the possibility of a smaller percentage) voted for.

So what does a Party Manifesto mean in such a system?

[ColdPhoenix]

Originally Posted by villa

I just don't care, as long as more people want the winner than want another individual winner.

You're making the assumption that every voter only wants one party to win. That isn't true. Many voters would want one of two parties to win.

In AP a voter doesn't have vote for more than one party. They only have to vote for and rank the canditates they want to win.

FPTP is designed for a two party system which doesn't exist in the UK anymore. And in FPTP many people don't vote for their very favourite party to win anyway as it would be a wasted vote.

[Stanislaus]

Originally Posted by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party

So what does a Party Manifesto mean in such a system?

What does it mean in FPTP?

I know it should be a binding contract with the electorate, but that's long since been a polite fiction. There is effectively no penalty for a party that fails to enact a manifesto commitment. There's a bit of noise about how people were promised a referendum or whatever, and then the government does what it wants.

There's a flip side to that as well. One of the key attributes of FPTP is that it translates relatively small margins of victory into a solid parliamentary majority. There are definite upsides to that, but the downside is the winning party will immediately claim that they have a national mandate to enact every aspect of their manifesto (even if we know they won't actually manage to). They don't have such a mandate. They had a narrow victory, possibly reliant on tactical voting, and it's almost certain that those who did vote for them did so on balance, not out of a whole-hearted commitment to all 36 pages of the manifesto.

So on balance, I'm quite happy with the idea that manifestos become a list of policy positions, rather than an apparent contract with the electorate. It's a more honest reflection of their actual status.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Originally Posted by Stanislaus

I know it should be a binding contract with the electorate, but that's long since been a polite fiction.

Not really. It's my impression that the majority of manifesto pledges are actually kept, or at least there's an attempt to put them into law. Yeah, there's some high profile failures to implement election promises, but by-and-large I'd say that manifesto promises are kept.

The problem with a succession of coalition governments is that you don't know which manifesto pledges will need to be sacrificed by your party of choice as part of the coalition negotiations ahead of voting. In effect, you're voting blind.

There's some irony here in the vocal minority of Lib Dem supporters who are not happy with them reneging on their pre-coalition promises regarding student fees. Many of these disaffected Lib Dems are also desperate for proportional representation, yet if this were implemented, then we'd see the same thing over and over again.

[footballisplayedwithyourfeet]

Originally Posted by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party

So what does a Party Manifesto mean in such a system?

Probably the same as in a FPTP system, the ideal set of policies that a party wants to achieve. After the formation of a government they can explain to their electorate what they won and what they gave up...it is up to the electorate to decide whether the made the right choices (next election). There is also the possibility of putting it before a congres of (all) party members and having them vote on whether the coalition is going to be formed (so a vote on the negotiation results).

[Stanislaus]

Originally Posted by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party

Not really. It's my impression that the majority of manifesto pledges are actually kept, or at least there's an attempt to put them into law.

Yes, but that's less out of a sense of moral or legal obligation to the voters, and more because the manifesto is a pretty fair reflection of what a party wants to do with power. The difficulties arise when either it isn't possible for political, legal or practical reasons to enact a particular commitment, or when a commitment was put in solely as a piece of electioneering with no real intention of carrying it out. In the former case, fair enough; in the latter, it's probably better if we don't regard manifestos as genuine committments, because then we can't be fooled.

[villa]

Originally Posted by ColdPhoenix

FPTP is designed for a two party system which doesn't exist in the UK anymore. And in FPTP many people don't vote for their very favourite party to win anyway as it would be a wasted vote.

No, FPTP is designed for exactly the system the UK has - a constituent system - not the system people seem to think it has - a Presidential type system. This mistake was made earlier when someone described the 1997 Labour landslide as Tony Blair getting less than 44% of the vote. People don't vote for the government, they vote for their MP.

[Quartz]

I'll be voting against. Alternative Voting is too complex and doesn't give good results. I'd vote for Approval Voting, though.

[Wallenstein]

Originally Posted by villa

No, FPTP is designed for exactly the system the UK has - a constituent system - not the system people seem to think it has - a Presidential type system. This mistake was made earlier when someone described the 1997 Labour landslide as Tony Blair getting less than 44% of the vote. People don't vote for the government, they vote for their MP.

Yes, that's the theory. But in reality people don't.. they vote for a party, and more often than not they vote for that party's leader.

Individual candidates from the larger parties do not issue individual manifestos, and they would not be in a position to enact them anyway. So the voting is done against party politics.

This is why there's such a thing as a "safe" Labour or Tory seat. If people genuinely voted for the individual MP there would be a lot less "parachuting" of candidates into certain areas... someone like Luciana Berger, a 28 y/old posh Londoner who now represents inner-city Liverpool with a majority of 7000+. You cannot seriously suggest that she was elected for her personal qalities rather than the party she represented?

It's also naive to suggest that in UK politics party identity is not inextricably bound up with the personality of the leader. How many average voters could identify more than 2-3 of the current cabinet, or shadow cabinet? But they can all identify Cameron, Clegg and (possibly!) Miliband.

A lot of people rejected the Labour party at the last election specifically because they did not want Gordon Brown to be Prime Minister. Likewise, a lot of people voted for Labour in 1997 specifically because they wanted Tony Blair to be PM.

[Walker in Eternity]

Originally Posted by jjimm

Is that a general observations of the behaviours of minority parties in coalitions, or a short-term dissatisfaction with the current status quo?

Personally speaking I will vote yes not because of the current government, but because, even if the proposed alteration isn't perfect, it'll be proof to the British electorate that the voting system isn't immutable, as most traditionalists seem to think.

I too am sick of throwing away my vote in FPTP elections.

My sentiments exactly. I am slightly concerned though that people will use this referendum as an opportunity to punish the Lib Dems and we will therefore be stuck with FPTP for another 4 or 5 years at least.

I live in a safe conservative seat, frankly I can't stand my MP but no vote I ever cast under FPTP will unseat him. With AV there is a chance my vote won't be wasted.

[Gyrate]

Personally I'd rather have STV over AV or FPTP but I'll take AV as the least worst option on the table.

[Walker in Eternity]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Personally I'd rather have STV over AV or FPTP but I'll take AV as the least worst option on the table.

Having just looked up STV I think I agree.

[Quartz]

No thanks. Where both AlV and STV fail for me is the issue of complexity. Consider getting stuck behind someone who can't decide whether they prefer Bloggs to Higgins. Now multiply that up for when there's a high turnout with a set closing time.

Both FPTP and ApV work on a simple like/dislike basis which is much simpler. Most people use Approval Voting frequently without realising it: "Shall we order an Indian, Thai, Chinese, or pizza?"

[Giles]

Originally Posted by Wallenstein

Yes, that's the theory. But in reality people don't.. they vote for a party, and more often than not they vote for that party's leader.

...

A lot of people rejected the Labour party at the last election specifically because they did not want Gordon Brown to be Prime Minister. Likewise, a lot of people voted for Labour in 1997 specifically because they wanted Tony Blair to be PM.

Yes, in a parliamentary system, where the MPs choose the PM, the way the voters can influence who the PM is, is to vote for the candidate from the appropriate party. So it makes sense to day that "44% voted for Blair in 1997", because 44% voted for Labour candidates, and most of them voted that way because they wanted Blair as PM, not because of the qualities of the local Labour candidates.

So a system where 44% of the voters get to elect 63% of the MPs, and the 47% of the voters who went for Tory or Lib-Dem candidates only got 32% of the MPs (as happened in 1997), is clearly unfair in some way. It's partly because of single-member constituencies, and partly because of the first-past-the-post system.

My first choice would be for PR, but if you can't get that, then an alternative-vote system is better than FPTP.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by villa

It's probably too late for me to re-register in the UK to vote on this, but I am a definite no.

Philosphically, I prefer the most popular candidate to win rather than the least unpopular. AV encourages a shift to the center, which I don't think is a good thing.

Practically, AV reduces the likelihood of an overall majority. It therefore places whatever party is willing to be the swing party in the driving seat. What a surprise the LibDems support it. They want power over and above their support - the power to make or break governments. Ever since the Liberals (who I didn't support but respected) through their lot in with the traitors from the SDP, they have been the most despicable political entity in the UK, running the dirtiest campaigns, being willing to sacrifice any and every principle they might have accidentally adopted in the past. Fuck 'em.

You're assuming a bit here. In a three-party system, yes, AV gives the "middle party" disproportionate influence. However, it also encourages the rise of additional parties. So while the Lib Dems would benefit in the short term from AV, it might ultimately make them simply one of many "third parties".

Personally, I'd like to see a voting system which isn't based on party affiliation at all.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Personally, I'd like to see a voting system which isn't based on party affiliation at all.

Neither the present system, nor the alternative vote system as proposed, is based on party affiliation: you are just voting for individual candidates, who need not belong to a party at all. Party affiliation is only important because it's the most important reason for people voting for particular candidates.

What you are really saying is that you want people to vote for the best local candidate, and not for the best party to form a government in Westminster. The problem is that, for most people, the major issue is which party is in government. Unless you have some other way of choosing the executive government (like the United States system, where the choice of President is independent of who has a majority in Congress), you aren't going to change that.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I thought one of the elements of the proposed AV system was one candidate per major party.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

I thought one of the elements of the proposed AV system was one candidate per major party.

That would be odd if true. In fact, an AV system allows a party to nominate two candidates for a single-member seat without the danger of splitting the vote. That's happened a few times in Australia in widely spread electorates, where there was no sitting member and the local party was divided between candidates -- though it doesn't happen very often, because voters typically view internal party division as a sign of weakness. More often, there will be candidates from each of the partners in the Liberal-National coalition, where the coalition doesn't have a sitting member. So, in the U.K. situation, having a Tory/Lib-Dem coalition government should not stop both parties in the coalition having a candidate in a Labour-held constituency. Is there any cite for this limitation on candidates in the proposed UK system?

[notquitekarpov]

I'm going to vote YES.

I'm not convinced I would like AV but if I vote no then I'll probably not be asked again in my lifetime and FPTP is manifestly inappropriate to anything other than a two-party system.

What it should not be used for is as a snap judgement on the popularity of the current Government.

[Quartz]

It looks like I've lost my vote. I applied for a postal vote but didn't do it correctly. If I were to get to the voting station, I would vote against AV. It's even worse than FPTP. Give me simple Approval Voting.

[Walker in Eternity]

Originally Posted by notquitekarpov

I'm going to vote YES.

I'm not convinced I would like AV but if I vote no then I'll probably not be asked again in my lifetime and FPTP is manifestly inappropriate to anything other than a two-party system.

What it should not be used for is as a snap judgement on the popularity of the current Government.

I agree, ideally I would like some form of PR that maintained a constituency link but we are unlikely to be given any opportunity to change the voting system again in our lifetimes so I will vote for AV.

[Princhester]

I think AV is a far better system than FPTP but we have AV here and it has to be said that a large number of people simply don't understand it, and throw the benefit away.

I suppose it is better to have a system that you can use well if you know how to do so than a system that is very simple but flawed, but it is frustrating.

[NineToTheSky]

Originally Posted by Princhester

I think AV is a far better system than FPTP but we have AV here and it has to be said that a large number of people simply don't understand it, and throw the benefit away.

I suppose it is better to have a system that you can use well if you know how to do so than a system that is very simple but flawed, but it is frustrating.

This. On the Today programme yesterday, David Cameron got quite upset that John Humphries appeared not to understand AV. Today, on the same programme, the Milliband man said that, actually, it was David Cameron that didn't understand it. If the party leaders and one of our major political commentators can't agree on who understands it correctly, there's not much hope for us plebs.

[penultima thule]

Originally Posted by villa

Practically, AV reduces the likelihood of an overall majority.

I got no vote in that ballot, but that is simply not correct.
Clear working majorities and landslides are just as possible under AV as FPTP.

In the last 50 years Australia, with AV, or STV has had the same number of minority governments as the UK, i.e. one. Our last minority government was 1940-43.

PR, by improving the likelihood of minor parties to gain parliamentary representation, means coalition goverments are more often on the radar, but aren't necessarily going to happen, nor necessarily be a bad thing if they do.

[Ximenean]

I would like to see a more proportional system, although I don't think FPTP is as bad as people make out - you still get coalition governments, it's just that the coalition is usually contained within one "broad church" party. Labour is a coalition of the left, the Tories a coalition of the right. Both have elements who alarm me, but they're reined in by the other wings of the parties. Under PR, presumably there would be some fragmentation. You'd still have a party called the Conservatives, for example, but it would probably comprise was is now merely one wing of the party.

Nevertheless, I do think PR would be fairer. Really not sure how I should vote. I prefer FPTP to AV, but take the point that a No vote might kick the whole question into the long grass. I'm leaning towards No - voting on the question that I am actually asked. Plus, I'll be on the winning side!

[Ximenean]

Well, having read some of the material at the "No to AV, Yes to PR" campaign site, I am persuaded that the argument that AV could be a stepping stone to PR is specious. It could even make future PR less likely. So I'm definitely going to vote No.

[Ryan_Liam]

Originally Posted by ColdPhoenix

I'm going to be voting yes. It's not PR but it's better than FPTP.

My concern is that it will not win because the rhetoric around FPTP sounds better and many people will vote based on that. Without thinking too much about it having a "strong government" and not letting the "loser" win the seat might sound like the best option.

If it passes it will hurt the Tories the most. Leaving aside the current distaste that many have for the Lib Dems, most Labour voters would prefer Lib Dem, and most Lib Dem would prefer Labour to the Tories.

Which is the main reason why I voted no. Telling the electorate to vote yes primarily in order to keep one party out or reduce its power because they don't agree with its electoral stances is just as bad, if I want AV, it should equally hurt all the parties.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Ximenean

Well, having read some of the material at the "No to AV, Yes to PR" campaign site, I am persuaded that the argument that AV could be a stepping stone to PR is specious. It could even make future PR less likely. So I'm definitely going to vote No.

I dunno. The mere act of changing the status quo sets a precedent for changing the status quo. Keeping things as they are sends the message that there's no point even trying.

[SecondJudith]

Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam

Which is the main reason why I voted no. Telling the electorate to vote yes primarily in order to keep one party out or reduce its power because they don't agree with its electoral stances is just as bad, if I want AV, it should equally hurt all the parties.

I'm really sorry, I'm having trouble parsing your last sentence.

[Ryan_Liam]

Originally Posted by SecondJudith

I'm really sorry, I'm having trouble parsing your last sentence.

If AV is to be introduced, it shouldn't be seen as a victory for one particular brand of political parties to spite another, that might be an impossibility, but it's how I feel about it.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam

Which is the main reason why I voted no. Telling the electorate to vote yes primarily in order to keep one party out or reduce its power because they don't agree with its electoral stances is just as bad, if I want AV, it should equally hurt all the parties.

Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam

If AV is to be introduced, it shouldn't be seen as a victory for one particular brand of political parties to spite another, that might be an impossibility, but it's how I feel about it.

[Nitpick]

The colored commas should be periods with a new sentence following or at least semi-colons, which is why your posts are hard to read.

Not a criticism. Just an observation.

[/Nitpick]

[Ximenean]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

I dunno. The mere act of changing the status quo sets a precedent for changing the status quo. Keeping things as they are sends the message that there's no point even trying.

Counterargument:

- Should AV prove to be popular, we will probably just stick with it. Since it would be no more proportional that FPTP, and possibly even less proportional, it could not sensibly be used, in itself, to show that a more proportional system is better.
- Should AV not prove to be popular, I think it is more likely that people would say "well, this electoral reform idea was a lemon, let's go back to FPTP." That would really put the kibosh on any future referendum on PR.
- Any new electoral system deserves to be tested over the course of several elections, so it would and should not be changing to PR or anything else any time soon.
- Furthermore, a general principle in stable, well-governed countries is that the constitution should not be changed easily, or often. It would risk encourage constitutional tinkering for partisan gain. Therefore, if we are to change our electoral system, we should do it once and get it right first time - some kind of PR system, not the "miserable little compromise" of AV.

Sadly, I think either way this referendum may put back the likelihood of PR by some years.

[Dead Cat]

Well, I have already voted "yes" because I like the idea of being able to support minority parties without "wasting" your vote. I have found a lot of the literature to be quite misleading, in my opinion, particularly that saying that AV is more complicated - it isn't more complicated for the voter, it is more complicated for the vote-counters. I also think it is a specious argument to say that minority party voters get their vote counted several times, and major party voters may only be counted once - if your first preference ends up winning the election, why worry that your vote was "only counted once"?

In terms of voters not understanding the system, plenty still manage to unintentionally spoil their ballot papers under the current one - you shouldn't try to cater for the lowest common denominator. And while I think Ximenean makes some reasonable points about a "Yes" result making PR less likely, I think that in practice this issue will not come again in my lifetime if a "No" result is obtained (and I'm only 25). Besides, I'm not sure whether I want PR anyway, because for one thing that would make it almost certain that a few BNP MPs would be elected.

Basically, I think it would be wrong to vote "No" just because you feel AV is not a perfect system - I have voted "Yes" because I think for all its faults, it is better than what we currently have.

[Galanthus]

I have got over my fit of pique at the Lib Dems and voted yes. Looks like the no vote will carry the day to me though.

[SecondJudith]

Ryan_Liam, I'm really sorry (again, this isn't a criticism, I just can't understand what you're saying):

"Telling the electorate to vote yes primarily in order to keep one party out or reduce its power because they don't agree with its electoral stances is just as bad, if I want AV. It should equally hurt all the parties."

or

"Telling the electorate to vote yes primarily in order to keep one party out or reduce its power because they don't agree with its electoral stances is just as bad. If I want AV, it should equally hurt all the parties." ?

[Ryan_Liam]

Originally Posted by SecondJudith

Ryan_Liam, I'm really sorry (again, this isn't a criticism, I just can't understand what you're saying):

"Telling the electorate to vote yes primarily in order to keep one party out or reduce its power because they don't agree with its electoral stances is just as bad, if I want AV. It should equally hurt all the parties."

or

"Telling the electorate to vote yes primarily in order to keep one party out or reduce its power because they don't agree with its electoral stances is just as bad. If I want AV, it should equally hurt all the parties." ?

Haha,

Bottom one

[A. Gwilliam]

Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam

Which is the main reason why I voted no. Telling the electorate to vote yes primarily in order to keep one party out or reduce its power because they don't agree with its electoral stances is just as bad, if I want AV, it should equally hurt all the parties.

But the present system doesn't equally hurt all the parties; it generally favours the Conservatives and Labour, and penalises the Liberal Democrats and other parties. If this inequality is to be rectified, then clearly any new system would (in comparison with the existing system) have to penalise the Conservatives and Labour and "boost" the Liberal Democrats.

Originally Posted by Dead Cat

Besides, I'm not sure whether I want PR anyway, because for one thing that would make it almost certain that a few BNP MPs would be elected.

This argument really irritates me. The way to combat the BNP is not to deliberately cobble the electoral system so that they can never win. Besides being utterly anti-democratic, it also potentially allows them to fester away until they become a real problem.