AV vote, Yes campaign strong in Newbury, but what will you do? Options

[Andy Capp]

Voted no as we cannot afford it. Even if we do not need expensive machines, the man power will increase, possibly several fold. Under the present system each vote is counted once, under AV the same vote may be counted many, many times.

I thought counts were performed by volunteers.

Also a protest vote against Mr Clegg. It is a pity he didn't show the same passion for his election promises and pledges that he is showing for AV*.

Slit your throat to spite your face? It could be said a 'No' vote is a vote for Cameron. Is that what you prefer?

I think if people think AV is a better democratic system than FPTP then they should vote 'Yes'. If not, then 'No', but to vote for any other reason is just plain silly and demonstrates one of the things that lets democracy down; voters.

*PS - The Lib Dems didn't win the election.

[JeffG]

Voted no as we cannot afford it. Even if we do not need expensive machines, the man power will increase, possibly several fold. Under the present system each vote is counted once, under AV the same vote may be counted many, many times.

Is that a direct quote from the 'No' leaflet? I don't know what your definition of "many, many times" is. If there are two candidates, then each vote is counted once. If 3, then the third place votes may be counted twice - if four then it's possible that some fourth place votes may be counted three times if their second choice is for the candidate who then comes third.

Also a protest vote against Mr Clegg. It is a pity he didn't show the same passion for his election promises and pledges that he is showing for AV.

Well, that's your prerogative. But in a coalition, there has to be a compromise over what committments are included in a joint programme and which not, otherwise there ain't no coalition.

My first thoughts when the 'No' campaign leaflet came through the door was that it was something from UKIP - it was printed in their colours, anyway. Odd choice, especially when (according to their web site) they support the Yes campaign.

I wonder why there hasn't been a 'Yes' campaign leaflet?

[Shabba]

With FPTP you vote for who you want to win and if the majority agree then you get a democratically elected member. With AV you don't.

Er... wrong. With FPTP you vote for who you think is most likely to be able to beat the candidate who you don't want to win, and the candidate who gets one vote more than anyone else wins (which is not the same as a majority). With AV you vote for who you want to win, and the winner HAS to have express support from more than half of the voters, which IS a majority.

Voted no as we cannot afford it. Even if we do not need expensive machines, the man power will increase, possibly several fold. Under the present system each vote is counted once, under AV the same vote may be counted many, many times.

Er... wrong again. There will be no new machines - a figment of the No Campaign's imagination. Australia has AV, and has had for 80+ years. But no voting machines. And the number of staff needed to count AV votes is exactly the same as for FPTP - SOME of them MAY have to work for an extra hour or two, in those constituencies where the first preference votes don't exceed 50%, but the concept of a several-fold increase in manpower requirement is a complete myth.

Also a protest vote against Mr Clegg. It is a pity he didn't show the same passion for his election promises and pledges that he is showing for AV.

ER... wrong yet again. Two thirds of the 2010 Lib Dem single party government manifesto is in the Coalition Government programme. How much more would you expect?

And if you are seriously and objectively considering the merits of changing/improving the UK parliamentary voting system on the basis of your Daily Mail-coloured opinion of one individual, then I think it's time you reconsidered your approach to politics! Sadly, I think your rather narrow-minded and partial assessment of the merits of the Yes case is one shared by Daily Mail readers across the country, which is likely to result in an ill-informed and regressive outcome.

[Andy Capp]

Yes it seems absurd that voters will vote simply down to the person they like or dislike. We now have an opportunity to elect a system that removes the need for tactical voting, and people will avoid doing so because they don't like a certain politician. It is no-wonder we have the politics, politicians and media that we do.

[Richard Garvie]

If we get AV, it will be brilliant for Labour in Newbury, but I still can'tm see how it's fairer than what we have now? As for the yes and no campaigns, I just switch off now as it's pathetic. Unless somebody can convince me to vote yes, I will be happy to stick with FPTP. By the way, I saw Richard Benyon on Saturday and he reckons from his perception, the no campaign is up 7 votes for every one. That would tally with everything we have got on the doorstep, it will be intersting to see if that level of feeling translates throughout the UK.

[Turin Machine]

Quite franlky, getting more peolpe out from behind the television to vote would have more of an effect on the whole electoral system than AV ever would.

[Andy Capp]

If we get AV, it will be brilliant for Labour in Newbury, but I still can'tm see how it's fairer than what we have now? As for the yes and no campaigns, I just switch off now as it's pathetic. Unless somebody can convince me to vote yes, I will be happy to stick with FPTP. By the way, I saw Richard Benyon on Saturday and he reckons from his perception, the no campaign is up 7 votes for every one. That would tally with everything we have got on the doorstep, it will be intersting to see if that level of feeling translates throughout the UK.

Surely not having a need to vote 'tactically' is a very good reason to have AV? And yes, I would imagine the No vote is very high, probably because many voters are ignorant of the issues, or fear the effect AV would have in their own constituency.

As for 'fair', is it right to have a leadership that represents support from only a minority of the electorate?

[blackdog]

Surely not having a need to vote 'tactically' is a very good reason to have AV? And yes, I would imagine the No vote is very high, probably because many voters are ignorant of the issues, or fear the effect AV would have in their own constituency.

As for 'fair', is it right to have a leadership that represents support from only a minority of the electorate?

It's not often I find myself in agreement with UKIP but the following paragraph from their website says a lot about FPTP v AV.

The First Past The Post (FPTP) system no longer has any legitimate claim to represent the will of the people. In 1955, 96% of voters voted for the main two parties, Labour and Conservative. In 2010, only 65% did. In 1955, 9 out of 10 MPs were elected with majorities of 50% or more; in 2010, it was one in three.

[Andy Capp]

There you go Richard Garvie; there's some food food thought. I have no-doubt, however, that 'Tory' Newbury will follow 'party line' and vote No regardless.

[Richard Garvie]

There you go Richard Garvie; there's some food food thought. I have no-doubt, however, that 'Tory' Newbury will follow 'party line' and vote No regardless.

I get what your saying, and Labour would definately benefit from it here. I guess I've always believed (rightly or wrongly) that anyone can win in a straight contest. Under FPTP, everyone votes once the candidate with the most votes wins. Under AV, some people have their first pref counted, second pref and possibly even third and fourth preferences. I just don't see how that can be fair.

As for the "works harder" argument, surely an MP who works hard under FPTP will get a good vote. Under AV, it would possibly be the "compromise" candidate who is elected.

[Andy Capp]

I get what your saying, and Labour would definately benefit from it here. I guess I've always believed (rightly or wrongly) that anyone can win in a straight contest. Under FPTP, everyone votes once the candidate with the most votes wins. Under AV, some people have their first pref counted, second pref and possibly even third and fourth preferences. I just don't see how that can be fair.

That is countered by: is it fair that a party that is not endorsed by the majority is entitled to govern? You also ignored the point about tactical voting. It wouldn't be 'necessarily' to vote tactically. How is tactical voting even right, let alone fair? And what about the argument about a nation that is now split three ways. Years ago it was a two horse race, now it is three. And remember: FPTP didn't prevent a hung parliament this time round.

[Bofem]

I can't believe our first referendum in 35 years is about something so esoteric.

We have the technology to have direct democracy these days, so we don't need representatives in the current guise.

AV is rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

[Andy Capp]

We have the technology to have direct democracy these days, so we don't need representatives in the current guise.

How would this work?

AV is rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

That might be so, but that is all that is on offer.

[NWNREADER]

The stats about voting balance are interesting, but usually stats tell little apart from where to ask the next question. Back in the 50s the country was much more divided red/blue with few viable alternatives. The parties were likewise out and out representative of Right and Left, not all competing for the centre and dressing up 'same' as 'different'.
I also think more people voted then than now, and I believe that is a core issue. The parties have played a part in making voting for one or the other pointless, as the difference is minimal and the lesser parties have no real alternatives. Look at the mess the LDs are in having promised the moon and then found they are being held to account.
AV will, I believe, lead to more obfuscation. So often 'solutions' lead to a different problem, not no problem.

[Andy Capp]

AV will, I believe, lead to more obfuscation. So often 'solutions' lead to a different problem, not no problem.

While I agree with the second part of your statement, I'd be interested in what you mean by 'lead to more obfuscation'.

[NWNREADER]

While I agree with the second part of your statement, I'd be interested in what you mean by 'lead to more obfuscation'.

Multiple parties trying to chummy up to each other in order to become a majority unit, losing their identity and becoming a mishmash of populist vote-catchers.
Politics has become about winning more votes come what may, not offering a vision and inviting people to buy into it, warts/pain/tears and all. "This is what we stand for", not "We are the ones to give you what you want".

[Andy Capp]

I understand, but I am not sure AV will have much effect on that, any more than FPTP anyway. FPTP created a coalition. Perhaps a mishmash is what the country is asking for, or at least what previous governments have created.

[NWNREADER]

I understand, but I am not sure AV will have much effect on that, any more than FPTP anyway. FPTP created a coalition. Perhaps a mishmash is what the country is asking for, or at least what previous governments have created.

'Coalition' is (to me) a positive, a bringing together of minds. 'Mishmash' is negative, a desperate struggle to find ways to ensure extended majority.

Just my opinion

[Andy Capp]

An 'advantage' the Tories and Lib Dems had, was a 'good' reason to reel in spending. If there was money about, it might have been harder to come to an agreement.

Back on topic, I am not sure that the voting systems effect this that much.

[user23]

Doesn't look like the Yes campaign is that strong in Newbury.