If you were pro Proportional Representation...

[Simster]

...would you vote for or against AV?

Here is my position: I would rather have AV than the current system, but am not sure that it provides much more of a benefit. It would give the LibDems a handful more seats in most elections, but rarely will it make a real difference.

On the other hand, I think Clegg is a total sellout wanker so I would love to see him lose. And more importantly, I can't help wondering whether we'd be better off with the current ridiculous voting system for a few more years until it becomes a glaring anomoly that is in need of reforming properly.

So in the view of NSC, do you think PR will ever be on the table?

 

[Stoo82]

Clegg is a 'sellout wanker' because he had to compramise to form a government?

First past the post for me. Person with the most vote wins.

 

[Simster]

Clegg is a 'sellout wanker' because he had to compramise to form a government?

But he didn't, did he? He could have let the Tories form a minority goverment, and block the least palatable Tory policies.

But that would have meant him holding no power, and of course we know now that he would sell his own granny for a whiff of power. Having once described AV as "a miserable little compromise", he is nevertheless happy for the country to spend money it shouldn't be spending on tinkering with the current system that he doesn't even like. He's a tosspot.

 

[8ace]

I think if you want PR than you have a better chance of getting it via the stepping stone of AV.

 

[Giraffe]

Nothing wrong with the current system.

 

[strings]

I would vote 'yes to AV'. As mentioned about, it could well be a stepping stone.

 

[beorhthelm]

when you think about the arguments put forward for AV, they are really for PR and have just been recast as pro-AV arguments. they dont stand up to proper analysis: there will still be tactical voting, votes "dont count" for those voting in safe seats or for the loser in any seat, theres not any inherent fairness of voting in someone by forcing the number of candidates down to two.

 

[Simster]

I think if you want PR than you have a better chance of getting it via the stepping stone of AV.

Yes but how is it a stepping stone?

Nothing wrong with the current system.

Successive governments formed with the backing of about 35% of the electorate, representing constituencies that vary wildly in population would suggest otherwise.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

I would vote 'yes to AV'. As mentioned about, it could well be a stepping stone.

So, in the meantime we have to live for several parliaments with a system that is no better than what we have, and one nobody actually wants. Seems like people voting 'yes' are doing so just for the sake of it, not because we get a better system.

 

[Simster]

when you think about the arguments put forward for AV, they are really for PR and have just been recast as pro-AV arguments. they dont stand up to proper analysis: there will still be tactical voting, votes "dont count" for those voting in safe seats or for the loser in any seat, theres not any inherent fairness of voting in someone by forcing the number of candidates down to two.

If you can drive a bus through the AV argument (and I think you can), you can drive 50 tanks side by side through the current crap system which consistently marginalises the votes of all but two parties.

PR can't come soon enough, and nor can the abolishment of heredatory peers.

 

[DTES]

Yes but how is it a stepping stone?

A "No" vote on Thursday will (rightly or wrongly) be taken as a statement that the population is happy with FPTP, particularly by a Conservative party who will take any excuse to avoid reform. They only gave us this referendum as a price to secure the coalition; there is no chance they'll ever offer another one as it stands.

Also, AV is only a short step away from AV+, the system recommended by the Jenkins report back in the 90s. Once the population is comfortable with the basic procedure of voting 1, 2, 3 instead of just X this next step will be a lot closer.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

I think its irrelevant. The last thing the 'Yes' to AV campaign team needed was Clegg to stick his head above the parapit and get involved. That will be the final nail in the coffin.

If, say, Nigel Farage had been the poster boy of the yes vote they could have got mileage in it.

 

[Seagull27]

I am all for PR, but definitely won't be voting for AV. It's not even a compromise, I don't see how it is any more fair or proportionate to FPTP. It's pretty much the same, except the voters for extremist and minority parties may get a second vote - arguably not the people who you want to be deciding the election.

I also don't see it as much of a stepping stone as I don't think the government will be willing to change it in the near future again, having spent a lot of money implementin AV. If we get AV, I expect we'll have it for a number of years.

Also, as mentioned, I don't want Clegg to win so he can see how much he betrayed his voters. It's not the pairing up with the Tories that annoyed me, it's everything he's sold out on since - tuition fees, the BskyB thing, etc. I'd like to see him fail miserably.

 

[8ace]

Yes but how is it a stepping stone?

It will give parties who are in favour of PR (maybe only a few) more seats, so it will change the political map a bit rather than a lot.
I really couldn't see the more drastic change of PR being on the agenda if people have declined AV.

 

[Simster]

A "No" vote on Thursday will (rightly or wrongly) be taken as a statement that the population is happy with FPTP, particularly by a Conservative party who will take any excuse to avoid reform. They only gave us this referendum as a price to secure the coalition; there is no chance they'll ever offer another one as it stands.

But a yes vote will simply push voting reform off the agenda for the foreseeable future, and we will be lumbered with a system only slightly more fair than the existing shambles.

 

[DTES]

Also, as mentioned, I don't want Clegg to win so he can see how much he betrayed his voters. It's not the pairing up with the Tories that annoyed me, it's everything he's sold out on since - tuition fees, the BskyB thing, etc. I'd like to see him fail miserably.

Even though the sole winners of anything he loses from a No vote are the Conservative party?

 

[DTES]

But a yes vote will simply push voting reform off the agenda for the foreseeable future, and we will be lumbered with a system only slightly more fair than the existing shambles.

Impossible to say for certain, obviously, but I'm certain that a Yes vote will not push it off the agenda at all in terms of campaigners - those who want PR now will still want it, and they'll be buoyed by the momentum it gave them. A No vote (aka "let's stick with the status quo") will knock the wind right out of their sails.

In terms of the politicians - a No vote gives the Tories (the largest party) who are utterly opposed to any change, an excuse to say "we were right" and completely ignore any future pushes for electoral reform. Let's not forget of course that Labour were in power for so long under FPTP and didn't do anything to change it either, despite a manifesto pledge to do so - so even a few more pro-reform MPs being elected will only help too...

I think a No vote on Thursday will leave us stuck with FPTP, without any more referendums on the subject, for a generation.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Nothing wrong with the current system.

Other than a party that gets 11m votes has 306 seats, and a party that gets 7m votes only gets 57.

So a government is formed by a party having 11m votes, while 16m people didn't vote for them.

On a pure statistical level, our current system means very few votes actually count.

 

[Simster]

Even though the sole winners of anything he loses from a No vote are the Conservative party?

He should have thought this through before getting into bed with them, then.

Lets be clear, he is campaigning for a voting method that he himself described as "a miserable little compromise". I feel sorry for the rank and file Lib Dem members who must surely realise that Clegg has put his party back about 2 decades for little more than a bit of personal glory as the Prime Minister's lap dog.

 

[Seagull27]

Even though the sole winners of anything he loses from a No vote are the Conservative party?

If it helps them decide to get rid of him, it may help the Lib Dems. I certainly won't be voting for them again until Clegg has gone.

It is a toguh one though. I currently don't affiliate myself to any party and therefore have decided to base most of my decision on whether I actually prefer the voting system or not, though clearly voting in agreement with Conservatives is a worrying matter.