Are you intending to vote No or Yes to AV and why?

Question

Personally, I have not seen any reason for me to vote against the current voting system. For instance, I am 100% sure that the current coalition government have no mandate from british people to do most of what they are currently doing like TREBLING University fees to £9000. No party won the election last time.and current voting system allow us all to see that. This government is like a patchwork quilt. I doubt if the country is in as bad a shape as they are telling us. We are able to lend Ireland money and wage war. One tomahawk missile is said to be around 300,000. How much is Brimstone missiles and despite all that, Gaddafi's army still currently hold all the oil refineries in Libya

How many of us has physically seen most of our constituency candidates before election? How on earth am I likely to decide on who I select as my second choice? What I am trying to say here is that most of us at best vote for party on political party's promises meaning: We vote for whoever the party choose to represent them in elections. This field is never big enough for AV to work on. At the end of the day, it will always be two Parties' race with any other closest party in third.

So technically, most voters are loyal to Labour and Conservatives and then there are independent voters. Lib Dem seems to have shot themselves on the foot at the time when their base began to solidify - I suppose it doesn't take long b4 power get into some heads. Poor Lib Dem! It is almost impossible to believe them again

Any way, I will be voting No to AV solidly on the reasons above and in addition to that is the fact that only the Vote Yes to AV letter came through my door. That is like ramming that idea into my neck. I decide what to vote for. based on what I know... Not what some celebrities support.

Answer 1

I had been intended to spoil my vote, as I believe the referendum to be a waste of time and money - a construct designed to make it look like Clegg had extracted some concession on PR from Cameron.



But as the arguments have been made I've become convinced that the AV system is fundamentally flawed. It is basically unfair, because it gives some people 2 or more votes while others only have one. The person who votes for a no-hoper will get their vote counted again when redistribution takes place, and this runs contrary to the principle of 'one person, one vote'.



I'm moving towards voting NO to AV.

Answer 2

I really don't understand a word of that, apart from "technically, most voters are loyal to Labour and Conservatives" which I assume is about the kind of sheeple that would vote for a lamppost if you stuck the right coloured rosette on it. I expect I'll be voting "Yes" to AV though:



1) AV ensures that candidates have to work toward getting broad support from the electorate, unlike first-past-the-post where you just need one more vote than the next guy. I don't think it's acceptable that MPs can be elected on a third of the vote or even less (Brighton Pavilion, Norwich South, Upper Bann). AV will not however ensure that every MP gets an outright majority as it wouldn't be compulsory to rank every candidate - some MPs in ultra-marginals would be elected on 46-47% of the vote.

2) AV will not necessarily make hung parliaments and coalitions more common - in Australia they've used AV since 1919 and had two hung parliaments (1940 and 2010), while the UK has had three in the same period (1923, 1974 and 2010) using first-past-the-post.

3) AV will expose the levels of tactical voting - under first-past-the-post there's no telling whether you're actually voting for a candidate because you think they'd be the best MP or whether you just think they're less awful than the other guy.



As for "It is almost impossible to believe them (the Lib Dems) again" - people have short memories. Everyone seems to have forgotten about Tory B Liar and his "New Liebour" bunch of closet Thatcherite war criminals already - the party that originally introduced tuition fees and then trebled them despite pledging not to in their 2001 manifesto. Sound familiar?



Personally I don't think AV will make all that much difference, and think we should be voting on a proper proportional system like the additional member system (used for the Scottish Parliament). I think if a party gets a third of the vote it should only get a third of the seats, not a first-past-the-post lottery which favours some parties over others.

Answer 3

I will be voting NO...



For four reasons.



1. Clegg wants it and I hope the masses disappoint him and his lib dem's as much as they have disappointed the masses.



2. It is a crap system, I am not saying FPTP is any better but why replace one crap system with another crap system



3. It gives some people two votes! For me I would vote Labour and therefore have one vote - For people who vote for parties like the BNP/UKIP/Green etc would get two votes - the first one for a fringe party and then a second vote when that one gets eliminated.....ONE PERSON ONE VOTE.



4. It would bring about more coalitions which doesn't please anyone other than the lib dems. Tory voters dont really want this coalition, Lib Dem voters dont really want this coalition. Their policies weren't voted on so they dont really have a mandate. Really 29 million or so people voted on what government they wanted.....which was then pretty much ignored and they then had a government and policy decided by 6 or 8 men who sat round and put together a deal in room in London.

Answer 4

I'll be voting no because AV is the worst of both systems . AV will only help the Lib Dems and will mean hung parliament after hung parliament , coalition after coalition , Con Dem , Lib Lab , Con Dem , Lib Lab , forever more .



If it was true PR I would vote yes as PR would at least mean the people get therepresentationn they actually want .



@ Hal . As for the coalition not having a mandate from the people , no government ever has , I may be wrong but can you show me evidence that any government has had 51% + support of the people ? Every government is made up of the largest minority and only holds power because of the system of constituenciess we have , even Thatcher in 83 and Blaire in 97 had minority support and therefor no true mandate .

Answer 5

you're astonishing. the three important events have failed time & time back with below 50% of the vote. At no element have 50% or extra of the individuals voted for anybody occasion. maximum folk of the individuals, after balloting at an election, are actually not represented. There desires to be a metamorphosis to our balloting device yet regrettably i think of AV isn't the respond.

Answer 6

I will vote NO for many of the reasons already stated, as well as believing it may bring an end to this utter disgrace of a coalition. Coalitions can be fine if parties have some common ground, but the Libdems in bed with the Tories is akin to a chicken sharing a shed with a fox. They had no common ground before the election, but now Nick Clegg can't find anything they disagree on. If that's the case then the Libems may as well fold as a party as we already have a Tory party.

Answer 7

I am going to vote yes. The present system does not encourage people to turn out and vote.My vote has counted for nothing all my life.People do not bother to vote where you have large majorities.If you have a constituancy where one party has a majority of say 20,000 then many voters do not see any point in voting and stay at home. Therefore you get only 30 or 40% that do vote. How can that be democratic ?

Answer 8

We will end up with a system where we are dragged through law making by people who want to make a name for themselves and generally will not have the UK as an interest, only their agenda. Imagine the greens with any real power or the liberals on our energy crisis. They would hobble us.



Also I vote for a candidate. If that candidate does not get in then that is the way it goes. I do not want my vote split.

Answer 9

No to AV.

If it isn't broken, don't fix it.

AV nearly ALWAYS results in a hung parliament, or a coalition.

It is usually the least unpopular candidate that wins, rather than the one with most votes.

It will be hugely expensive to implement, and we are broke, thanks to Liebour.

Very confusing and time consuming.

It is the only way a minority party can get a bit of power.

Answer 10

Frankly I cannot understand why anyone would vote NO to this.



If you vote No, that means you are perfectly happy with sustaining the 3 main parties in power and you don't want that to change.



Changing to AV is not ideal, but any sort of change away from perpetuating the endless cycle of 3 relatively similar parties is surely the way forward.



If you vote No and get your way, then I don't want to hear you complain about the electoral system in the UK ever again.

Answer 11

Another big NO if what you get is the debacle like what we have now more liars and power junkies who would sell their granny for a bit of prominence e.g Danny (boy) Alexander ,Mince Cable and oh yes I almost forgot (his pet phrase) Nick Cl egg

Answer 12

for years I have always wished that we had proportional representation

in general elections.

however after seeing how the lib dems acted in the hopefully brief spell

of part power.

I can definitely state that I will never be a supporter of av.

Answer 13

I will be voting No, there is nothing wrong with the system we have. I am very annoyed we are voting on this in the first place.

Answer 14

yes