Alternative Vote - How will you vote at the referendum?

[Frodo13.]

As you may or may not know, we will be holding a referendum on whether we should adopt the Alternative Vote method in electing our MPs. Just wondering how you are going to vote, or, if your not old enough to vote, how would you if you could? I'm still undecided on it, because I understand the pros and cons of AV, however I am leaning more over to voting NO

[Conservative,]

I can't vote, but I'm split on this.

Pros (of AV):

Allows fairer representation of what the constituents want
Gives smaller parties a chance
Lets people vote for several parties if they're split

Cons:

Allows extremist parties to get more votes and potentially more seats
The first past the post seems pretty fair to me - don't fix something that isn't broken

[buttons]

i will/would vote yes just cause it's better than fptp
when is it being done anyway? isn't it during some sort of election? i remember there was a uproar about it

[Frodo13.]

i will/would vote yes just cause it's better than fptp
when is it being done anyway? isn't it during some sort of election? i remember there was a uproar about it

May 4th I THINK. But don't quote me on it.

[Conservative,]

i will/would vote yes just cause it's better than fptp
when is it being done anyway? isn't it during some sort of election? i remember there was a uproar about it

Same day as Scottish Parliament elections

[FlyingJesus]

It's a terrible system, it basically ensures a minority government and doesn't mean that the majority gets their choice at all, merely gives mandate to parties who weren't actually the first choice and therefore weren't truly elected


May 4th I THINK. But don't quote me on it.

Quoted lololol

[-:Undertaker:-]

For AV;

Labour Party(?)
Liberal Democrats
UK Independence Party (UKIP)
Green Party

Against AV;

Conservative Party
British National Party


I'm personally undecided, the smaller parties which do deserve more representation aren't likely to gain under each side of the referendum and I do prefer the FPTP system over the AV system, although I want proportional representation which from what I recall the Liberal Democrats did promise. There could be an upside though, that under AV where you list the favoured parties that minor parties could be placed at the top of peoples lists because they would still be voting for their main tribal parties eg; i'll vote Tory to keep Labour out - but would also be listing minor parties which might make it easier to snatch seats. It *could* help to break down the tribalist mindset.

Then of course there's the political side; a no vote could possibly cause a coup against Nick Clegg from the Liberal Democrats and destroy the coalition which would be a welcome result - but consitutionally i'm more inclined to vote to retain the FPTP system as we have had it for many years and it does appear to be the better system over AV. I'm (at the present) more likely to vote against AV and retain FPTP. I say that though, but i'm also tempted to simply spoil my vote and add proportional representation to my voting card and tick that.

But lets be honest, this isn't the issue we should be having a referendum over.

[Frodo13.]

For AV;

Labour Party(?)
Liberal Democrats
UK Independence Party (UKIP)
Green Party

Against AV;

Conservative Party
British National Party

I think Labour has kept rather quiet on AV really; possibly because it's split over the issue. From what I've read, Ed Milliband is for AV whilst some on the old timers like Prescott and Blunket are not in favour. And I'm supprised the BNP is against it, seeing as it small parties which benefit from AV.

The more I think about it, whilst I know FPTP doesn't exactly always give parties the mandate to govern, it creates strong solid governments. AV causes more hung parliaments, which in turns gives the power to the polititians with their secret deals, which isn't fair in my opinion.

[craig1709]

Just two points about why I don't feel there's a need for us to change the system:

- It'll cost around 250m apparently, to be honest, there's areas where that sort of money could be better spent.

- The old phrase 'if it isn't broke, don't fix it'. I find fptp perfectly fine.

[jam666]

I'll be voting NO.

Why try to fix something that isn't broken?, As far as im concerned the system is fine as it is and the attempt by the lib-dems and other minority partys for AV is quite frankly stupid. There is only one reason why they want AV and thats because they know that they will have more representation in parliament and essentially be the party that holds the other two to randsom which is unthinkable (think back to general election last year).

Under AV it is highly unlikely although not impossible to have a majority government and thats precisely why i'm voting against it.

[Inseriousity.]

I believe that the current FPTP system is biased towards the top three parties (especially the Conservative/Labour votes) as people feel their vote is wasted if they don't vote for any of those, which is a shame because it means they think they're invincible. If AV is designed to change that then I'm all for it although I am not aware of any other alternatives that sound better as the AV system does sound really complicated.

[Chippiewill]

AV is definitely better, it allows people to vote for smaller parties without losing influence on the main parties, it certainly seems like an excellent thing to me.

[Fez]

My party, the Pirate Party, supports the cause FOR AV. I should be for it, yet at the end of the day it isn't exactly proportional. Under the AV system in the 2010 general election, Labour would be able to still rule with Gordon Brown keeping the Prime Minister seat. The country voted in 2010 and they decided, as a whole, that... well... they voted everywhere. Left, right, Pirate, BNP, UKIP, Greens, English Democrats and we ended up without a coalition that nobody actually voted for. All of those votes spilled across parties, you can see a trend per general election where the independents go from 1% to over 10% of the national vote in two general elections. I won't name parties and I don't have Pirate Party figures to go on but, basically, in the 2010 election everybody was split on who they wanted and we got what we were given.

AV would guarantee a government that the general public opinion rejected, a Labour government, and that is wrong. What it would also guarantee BNP seats, UKIP seats and so on and so forth. Eventually it would guarantee a Pirate Party seat, which would be lovely, but you are essentially letting the second choice walking straight into the seat. I'm all for diversity and freshness in politics and the point made earlier in this thread about people thinking its a wasted vote in the current system, no it isn't there fault, it's the media brainwashing them into thinking it's a three horse race when in actual fact this is a well functioning democracy... as much as can under European dictatorship.

That last point was a joke.

[GommeInc]

I don't see the point - fptp seems to be a fairer system because the person/people voters vote for get chosen. This new system just ruins the whole voting process and appears to be wasting time for the sake of proving who has a majority vote. It's worked for hundreds of years, why change something to a complicated, time consuming and wasteful system?

I don't see how anything will change. If anything, educate voters that there are more than just 3 parties :/

[Hecktix]

I will be voting no for several reasons:

- FPTP seems quite fair really
- The country needs to be saving money not wasting money on changing a voting system with nothing wrong with it
- It's something that's mainly been brought into question by the Liberal Democrats - who imo are desperate for power, as has been shown in what they have compromised to be in this coalition. In times like these parties should be thinking about spending this countries money in terms of helping it, not to benefit their own party, this is something I cannot fault the Conservatives for at the moment (however much I disagree with how they go about it, they are still looking to save money where the Liberal Democrats quite clearly want to waste it on this to make their party have more of a chance - which is flawed anyway really).

[Conservative,]

If we want a fairer system, proportional representation is the way to go. Although that rarely ends in a majority Government. That is the only alternative to fptp that seems fairer to me.

AV might seem like a better idea, but to be honest, we don't need it and it will just be wasting money.

[Ajthedragon]

Tories are love or hate, thus they would suffer. Labour would win every election... and the smaller partys might have a few more mps. They only care about themselves, not about the country. The current system works, how do we know, well, we're still a superpower and one of the richest country's in the world. Why change that, my parents will both be voting no, as will my auntie and my grandparents.

[Agnostic Bear]

I think I'll end up voting yes.

[Jordy]

From what I've seen so far it won't really change things. The liberal democrats won't really be doing much better out if it, infact it has been shown in some instances the Tories will do better under AV. Nor will it allow for smaller parties to get MPs, the only reason they're supporting it seems is because it's stepping away from FPTP and getting closer to Proportional Representation, and also so it makes it look like Nick Clegg won something in the coalition agreement (The Lib Dems were essentially mugged). Another issue with it is the fact a minority party could govern...

However my main issue with AV is this, it's far too complicated. In a proper functioning democracy you want as many people voting as possible, that makes the system and the government all the more legitimate. If you get a poor turnout, then the majority of people aren't having their say on who should govern and imo, can't really be considered a democracy then. It is essential as many people as possible vote in elections. If you change and complicate the system you will simply put people off voting and they'll be far more spoilt ballot papers. How anyone could advocate such a ridiculously complicated and difficult to understand system is beyond me.

[Nuxty]

I think the system is fine as it is, I don't believe that reverting to an AV system will make decision making harder for people, instead they will have the task of having to number candidates in order of preference which may lead to split decisions etc.

[Swearwolf]

Leaning towards voting yes

[Sarah]

It's not a question of "if its not broken don't fix it" its about changing the system to something else (which depending on your opinion is better or worse). I will be voting yes, as I feel that if a candidate secures 50% of the vote they can represent the constituency more legitimately.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm leaning towards voting yes now, I think it will help break down the main, discredited parties (I think, from what i've read). Ken Clarke is against AV anyway, so it looks more and more attractive with each passing day. But i'm still open minded and probably will only decide in the last week or so.

[Jordy]

It's not a question of "if its not broken don't fix it" its about changing the system to something else (which depending on your opinion is better or worse). I will be voting yes, as I feel that if a candidate secures 50% of the vote they can represent the constituency more legitimately.What makes an election more legitimate is a higher turn-out. It's inevitable this will decrease voter turn-out and increase spoilt ballots. Democracy should be simple and popular to be legitimate, AV is not. These people will not secure 50% of the vote anyway, they are "second" or "third" choices.

[FlyingJesus]

It essentially means that it's actually possible for someone to win a seat when only 1% of the constituents actually voted them as first choice

[Agnostic Bear]

It essentially means that it's actually possible for someone to win a seat when only 1% of the constituents actually voted them as first choice

In such a hilariously unlikely circumstance (think in the several million to one factor) yes.

[Jordy]

In such a hilariously unlikely circumstance (think in the several million to one factor) yes.So we'd rather have that system than one where the person with the most votes wins... Yeah...