First in line at the polls this morning. For all the good it'll do.

Heck yes. Shame its been ruined by some unbelievable propaganda, I'm still holding out for it to squeeze through due to apathy from "No" voters.

The few people I know who are voting No have not been able to articulate their reasons other than "I voted Tory. The Tories don't want it"

Some background to those of us who had no idea what you guys are talking about.

It seems like a good idea, so I'd vote for it...but I'd give an alternative vote to "No" as well! It's like a real-life version of having checkboxes in a Massassi poll, except with your main vote on a larger checkbox.

Voting No.

Why? Because it's lose lose either way. If it happens, we get AV instead of a true PR system future politians will say "You voted for it." Actually, no. I wanted to vote for PR, not AV. The irony being, give me an alternative vote on the electoral system and AV is my second choice.

If it doesn't happen AT LEAST we can argue that it didn't happen because people actually wanted PR not some half assed attempted appeasement and have a chance at changing it properly in the future.

The long and the short of it for UK politics is that it would basically allow us lefties to vote ANYTHING BUT TORY PLEASE.

But I doubt it'll pass. It'll be a tragic landslide.

I understand your point, but I also disagree. Because AV is a fairly superficial change and likely won't make a big difference, it's a good idea for it to pass so that people realise that a voting system isn't sacred and can be improved if required. Too much of the "No" argument is about "If it ain't broke don't fix it" or "FPTP has worked fine for X years". If AV passes, there won't be decades of history behind it should we want to change it again in the reasonably near future.

Ni, a No result will be used to declare that the British public are perfectly happy with the system as it is and set back any attempt to get rid of FPTP for decades.

A Yes result sets the precedent for electoral reform. It's not my first choice either but it's better than FPTP and a step in the right direction.

Realistically, that's not how it will work though. How long will it take before AV is given a "fair chance" and the debate is opened up again? Still, at least decades, if at all. If people don't like it, it causes a backlash of "The old system was better".

A no vote isn't much better, I agree, but it's better than voting for something that not that many people actually want.

AV is a compromise, plain and simple. Why not give people real choices, hell, include AV and see how people actually vote

I was going to vote yes, if I even knew how.

I'm fairly sure I'm registered to vote, since I sort-of-voted in the general election and maaan, politics is ****ing hard.

Well that'd be nice but seeing how Labour and the Tories don't support PR because they know it'd do in their dominance to an extent they're never going to offer it.

At least your argument is better than baby-killing and cleggkicking.

So hey, I found out where to vote.

And so I did. The tenets of democracy are upheld, or at least for the referendum. There's also a local council election that came out of nowhere.

voted yes and this is coming from a tory voter in the election

I like the setup of the coalition at the moment, I'm not as right-wing as a full tory, there are a heck of policies that the lib-dems have that I agree with and want put in place, ditto for that from the tories, so the current setup is ideal for me I loved the result of the election

It's not just that mind, AV hopefully isn't what we'll stick with for more than 1-2 elections, full PR should hopefully be on the table not long after which is the real aim, we need to break the 2-party system totally and get some real choice in elections.

The only issue for me is that in the election with AV people will probably vote for either Labour/Lib-Dem for their first choice and the other for 2nd choice, so if AV passes, it'll likely be a Lab-Lib coalition next election....which is far too lefty for me

Because Labour have been soooooo left-wing lately.

For the non-Brits: the No to AV campaign has literally suggested that an alternative vote system will kill babies:



The £250 million figure is built out of the cost of the referendum which is happening anyway and the cost of expensive counting machines which wouldn't be used either. There's also a poster on the same lines with a picture of a soldier who apparently can't get a bullet-proof vest if we reform our electoral system.

From these ads, apparently resources are so tight that even if we don't vote Yes, we should expect an epic battle between soldiers and babies over the costs of maternity units vs bullet-proof vests.

Ni, I understand your motivations but like one or two others here I disagree with the conclusion you have come to.

I am in the Yes camp because

a) AV is, in my view, an improvement over FPTP regardless of anything else
b) It puts electoral reform on the political agenda. It says that the people of Britain are not uninterested in electoral reform.

Personally I think more hay would be made with the "Britain's voters don't want voting reforms" claim arising from a "No" result than would be made with the "we have already changed the system and need to give it time" claim arising from a "Yes" result.

But this is all depressingly academic because FUD from the No campaign and a lack of decent communication/explanation from the Yes campaign (or even a lack of real discussion in the mainstream media) has probably given a win to the No campaign. The thing I am most surprised by is how this issue hasn't been taken seriously in terms of news coverage (regardless of royal weddings and Bin Laden). The outcome of this referendum (especially, perhaps, if it's subsequently portrayed as "right that's the issue of the voting process dealt with then") will affect every general election for decades to come. It could be argued that it is more important than any one general election. I think for example that the BBC as a public service broadcaster should have been going out of its way to inform the public on the issue. To have debates of the stature of the prime ministerial debates prior to the last general election would not have been unreasonable in my opinion.

You...can't right now? Educate this Yank on your political system.

But you are going to get the "That's the electoral reform issue dealt with" attempt to sweep it under the rug voice from the main parties whatever happens. At least with a no result, the debate is still open to a degree and they can't fall back on a "Well you got what you wanted, now you want more???" attitude. Which is what will happen if the subject of PR is brought up while AV is in effect.

Admittedly, I really won't be happy either way, but imho, "no" is a better option for getting a true PR system in the future. Accepting a middle ground is practically backing down and having a "that'll have to do, I suppose" approach.

I totally agree with what you're saying on the media coverage and general lack of information anyway. Most people I've spoken to, either don't care or don't even understand AV properly anyway.

i was expecting something about Adult Videos...

Oh, on that issue I'm firmly in the yes campaign.

This morning David Blunkett admitted that the £250 million figure was made up.


We don't have a two party system like [essentially] do and if you discount the BNP there's only one real right wing party, but there's a bunch of left and centre-left parties so quite often with FPTP the left vote gets split and the tories get voted into power with much less than 50% of the vote. Elections here right now are a cluster**** of tories and people trying to vote tactically to keep the tories out of power.

So when do you Brits finally get proportional representation?

This is why I like Australia's Preferential system, as you can arrange your vote however you want, and it is instant runoff too.

This.

I really hope people weren't going with the "IMMA STICK IT TO CLEGG" mentality. The Lib dems were absolutely crucified last night.

Not only politics, but European politics? 0/10

No AV for us.

Pfft, SCART is totally better anyway.

Oh well, another century of heartless bastards in charge.

It's ok, the SNP are going to undermine Hadrian's wall, drop in some TNT and disconnect you from the UK. You'll float over to Scandinavia.

Funny thing is that there is no majority for independence up here. I feel really weird voting in the Scottish elections... don't really feel like I should get a say!

It's ok, they're pointless anyway so you're welcome to join in.

The majority of people that support independence seem to be random wee chavs that have watched Braveheart too many times and are still butthurt for something that happen 700 years ago.

Also, if you break from the UK, even just fiscally, you'll have to give up free higher education. No way can you afford it without us. What's the split now? Something like 75/25 in favour of staying put? Very sensible

Not entirely true if Scotland got the oil fields, which we wouldn't.

For the record I have never supported independence in any way.

This is a really disappointing result, especially since I'm hoping for a similar referendum in Canada within the next 5 years. The only parts of England that voted in favor of votes that actually count are London, Oxford and Cambridge, which I think says something truly damning about the state of mandatory education in the first world.

It was poorly handled by all the parties, and almost all forms of media. **** it, I'm moving to Canada once I'm chartered.

I'm disappointed for the same reason as Jon. The Brits doing it wouldn't have made us interested in it; but Canada doing it might have.

Yay, you can come over to my house!

Canada: where all the worlds disenfranchised come.
So where does a pissed off Canadian go?

The United States. I hear they have jobs that don't involve harvesting oil and trees.

But then they'll get upset that the government of the US is running the country into the ground for a quick buck and leave, again.