Vote Yes on 5th May

[Mark]

I've decided I'm going to vote yes to Alternative Vote tomorrow:

- I like the idea that a party has to have a majority to get into power.

- I don't like the anti-AV side continually playing the marketeers weapon of choice, Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. It's not complicated and to say it's more complicated than driving a submarine is just daft.

- I get the impression the first past the post system works best when there are just two main parties, there aren't two main parties any more.

- I like the idea that if my first choice party doesn't get in then I have a say in the next party, ie "my second vote counts".

I must add that Silverfox's comments have also swayed me away from the FPTP choice.

Now where do I vote for this monthly oral sex holiday?

[Jeremy]

Yep... I know it's obvious (to most of us), but FPTP discourages people from voting for anybody except the big two, because they feel the vote is wasted. At least AV might give people the confidence to go for their true choice, with the option to put labour/tory second.

[Loz]

Unsurprisingly, I'm voting YES.

Actually, make that 'have voted' - it is already in the post.

[Loz]

Mark Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> - I get the impression the first past the post

> system works best when there are just two main

> parties, there aren't two main parties any more.

That is the main reason why we need a better system today - we have more choice than we used to. Back in the fifties when there was really only two main choices, 86% of MPs were returned with a majority. In the last election that had dropped to 33%.

[Marmora Man]

Loz,

You have, at last, raised a point that could persuade me that a different form of voting for Parliament might be a good idea. You have yet to get anyway near convincing me that AV is that different form.

Had the Yes to AV concentrated upon reasons why the current system needs to be changed rather than claiming vague and unsubstantiated benefits for AV such as - "fairer", "more democratic", "holds MPs to account", "reduces MPs fiddling expenses", "progressive", "keeps the Tories out" and last but not least the illogical and frankly hilarious "would have prevented slavery" then perhaps more rational people might have listened and accorded the YES team some support.

[Loz]

MM - I fully agree that the Yes camp's approach to the argument has been, frankly, terrible. On the other hand, whilst the Yes camp has been guilty of some cringe-worthy hyperbole, at least they haven't gone for the bare-faced lies approach of the No camp. Sadly, the No camp's approach has been depressingly effective.

Which just goes to show that, while the electorate claims they want politicians to stop lying to them, they still believe those lies and vote accordingly. So, who can blame the politicians? They will just keep on lying as it is so effective.

You have, at last, raised a point that could persuade me that a different form of voting for Parliament might be a good idea. You have yet to get anyway near convincing me that AV is that different form.

Do you agree that if No win on Thursday then any electoral reform will be off the agenda for many years to come? And whilst a Yes is no guarantee of further reform, it will at least keep the topic on the table?

[granadaland]

NO to AV for me.

It's the beginning of the middle of the road.

[Loz]

granadaland Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> NO to AV for me.

> It's the beginning of the middle of the road.

We have negligible policy differences between the three main parties at the moment under FPTP. You think we can get any more middle of the road?

It's like the other day on TV someone said 'AV would lead to bland politicians', but was a bit lost when asked how politicians could actually get *more* bland that they are now.

[Marmora Man]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> MM - I fully agree that the Yes camp's approach to

> the argument has been, frankly, terrible. On the

> other hand, whilst the Yes camp has been guilty of

> some cringe-worthy hyperbole, at least they

> haven't gone for the bare-faced lies approach of

> the No camp. Sadly, the No camp's approach has

> been depressingly effective.

>

> Which just goes to show that, while the electorate

> claims they want politicians to stop lying to

> them, they still believe those lies and vote

> accordingly. So, who can blame the politicians?

> They will just keep on lying as it is so

> effective.

>

> You have, at last, raised a point that could

> persuade me that a different form of voting for

> Parliament might be a good idea. You have yet to

> get anyway near convincing me that AV is that

> different form.

>

> Do you agree that if No win on Thursday then any

> electoral reform will be off the agenda for many

> years to come? And whilst a Yes is no guarantee

> of further reform, it will at least keep the topic

> on the table?

I am not prepared to vote for a defective electoral system in order to, theoretically, keep the topic of electoral reform alive. That is frankly a very weak argument for voting yes to AV.

As I said I can see that a rational case can be made for electoral reform - it is up to those that want such reform to continue to press for it - not to accept the "miserable little compromise" that is AV, as a possible step on the way.

I could argue very persuasively that if we get to AV electoral reform will stall there and go no further.

[Loz]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am not prepared to vote for a defective

> electoral system in order to, theoretically, keep

> the topic of electoral reform alive. That is

> frankly a very weak argument for voting yes to

> AV.

>

> As I said I can see that a rational case can be

> made for electoral reform - it is up to those that

> want such reform to continue to press for it - not

> to accept the "miserable little compromise" that

> is AV, as a possible step on the way.

I suppose that is where we will have to agree to disagree. I've seen Australia's AV in use and can see that it works very well indeed. It's had 100 years of testing down under. It's is in no way defective. It works. Here's a potted history of electoral reform in Australia - as you'll see there is no push for change like there is in the UK. Because AV works and the electorate down under is very happy with it.

Also, Clegg never called AV a miserable little compromise, anyway. The text from the Guardian says:

"AV is a baby step in the right direction ? only because nothing can be worse than the status quo," he said. "The Labour party assumes that changes to the electoral system are like crumbs for the Liberal Democrats from the Labour table. I am not going to settle for a miserable little compromise thrashed out by the Labour party."

> I could argue very persuasively that if we get to

> AV electoral reform will stall there and go no

> further.

You may be right - it is a possibility, as I said - but if FPTP wins on Thursday it will be the end of electoral reform. I've no doubt about that.

[motherT]

Yes absolutely vote AV, at the end of the day its about being one of the cool people that this brill website fly's the flag for. The problem is there are less of us than 'them' so why should we be penalised for having a better grasp and understanding of high culture, its not a crime. This system as demonstrated by the last election, with us 'working' with the conservatives, has given us a handle on power and allowed us to begin to change things. Even as a minority of the mass population, but with a majority of the forward thinking and intellectually rigorous amongst us, we have been able to make change. This site is a great advert for AV, its fair , open, and anyone who is too vocal can go elsewhere. Its sanitised fairly and that's the key. Liberal exclusion is a much fairer way of doing things. AV will allow those who politically fly our flag to build better , cleaner communities, based on intelligence and cultural understanding. We may even finally get rid of the co-op and finally fulfil our dream of M+S on the lane.

[DJKillaQueen]

What?????!!!! :))

[maxxi]

aaah the heavy hand of juvenile irony... with just a touch of petulance

[maxxi]

I am referring to mummy t of course

[DJKillaQueen]

Awww...I so wanted it to be me !!!! lol.

[maxxi]

it will be Deej, it will be... B) (with thanks to James McNeil Whistler)

[maxxi]

what happened to post re motherT? and the Whistler post? Did he threaten to sue? Damn artists!

[grumpyoldman]

So why did Labour not look at electoral reform in teh previous 12 years of government, when they had a major majority.

Oh yes it would not have worked for them at the time.

It is easy to knock everyones arguments but at least the current coalition government have the balls to ask what the country would like.

each to their own and the whole point of a secret ballot is its secret.

[DJKillaQueen]

No it's not the coalition that brought it about, it was a condition of the Lib Dems for helping the Tories into government. David Cameron never wanted this referendum but it is the price he had to pay to get a majority government.

[misscarmelite]

I am not sure the current coalition did have 'the balls' to ask the country. As I remember it was a hastily stitched up deal when the country had Gin googles for Nick Glegg.