Maniac: "I'm voting no - and awaiting a PR referendum."

Unfortunately, I think that's part of the problem for the Yes campaign. Almost all of the Yes campaign for AV would want a PR system but the coalition could only agree to hold a referendum on AV, not full proportional representation. If Britain votes no on May 5th, changing the voting system won't be on the agenda for decades and we almost certainly won't get the opportunity of a referendum again.

I don't think AV is perfect and I would prefer PR but I'm voting yes because:

1. It is better than the current system, for a number of reasons.
2. A yes vote sends a clear message that you want our political system to change
3. A yes vote will show that the British public supports constitutional reform and add legitimacy, making reform quicker and easier.

"To me it's like saying Manchester United is less popular than Wigan, because while Manchester United gets more fans to support them and show up to their games by a large margin, lots and lots of people hate them so they'd probably list Wigan above them on a list of preferred teams. So you conclude from that that Wigan "pleases more people" and therefore is more popular, which isn't true."

Comparisons like this could be made over and over again, both to support AV and to denigrate it.

Supporting a football team is vastly different to politics though, as I'm sure you're aware. Voting patterns shift at elections, allowing different parties to take office - the contrast to your football metaphor is that someone will usually support a football team for their whole life, people don't switch allegiances at the start of every season. More specifically, the reasons for supporting a football team are very different to who you want to be elected to represent you and your constituency as a Member of Parliament. As such, these sporting analogies aren't really fit for purpose.

@gigantor - here is the result of Batley and Spen (2010)
Lab 21,565 (42.2%) Con 17,159 (33.6%) LD 8,095 (15.8%) BNP 3,685 (7.2%) GRN 605 (1.2%)
If everyone votes for the same first choice next time around it is likely that Lab will not have a 50% majority after BNP and GRN are eliminated. LD second pref become all important - it will only need a few hundred LD voters to follow central office directions to ensure either CON or LAB win the seat. You have to remember that if people are voting LD now in this seat when they are well behind that they are staunch LibDem voters who will welcome the chance of voting Lab or Con as directed to ensure LibDems hold the balance of power - If AV gets through next week expect websites to spring up advising LibDems which way to cast their second pref.

"Supporting a football team is vastly different to politics though, as I'm sure you're aware"

It is and it isn't. It's still a question of which political "team" is most popular. You can't say a candidate is most popular because it is the least disliked. That's not the same thing. You can't treat positive votes (which are what 1st preference votes are) with negative votes (which are what 2nd preference votes are) the same.

" - the contrast to your football metaphor is that someone will usually support a football team for their whole life, people don't switch allegiances at the start of every season."

Actually the single biggest predictor of who people will vote for is party affiliation. People do tend to stick with their party affiliations once they affiliate.

Glory Glory Tottenham Hotspur!

@Sarg - Not everyone pro AV would be pro PR. Lots of people who are for it are because they want their MP to be more accountable, something that PR would completely remove.

@figles - some PR systems remove MP accountability but others do not . If you ran an election along the same lines as it is run today and then compiled the party list based on the percentage of constitancy votes each MP received rather than having a party list drawn up in advance; then the elected MPs would still be accountable to the voters.

There is open-list PR which allows for "accountability" as it allows voter to choose the order on the party list and voted based on candidates. It has many many other drawbacks however, as you can see in Brazil's totally dysfunctional party system.

I just realized I said the same thing as Maniac.

The biggest argument against PR is the existence of Italy, the French 4th Republic, and the fact that Belgium set a world record for number of days without a government.

While I'd prefer STV with MMCs (all equal sized, 5 MPs each), that's not on offer. I'll be voting for AV, partly as a stepping stone, and partly because it is fairer (for a given value of fair). Our FPTP system puts the result of the election in the hands of swing voters in 100 or so key marginals. If you live in a safe seat like I do, your vote is worth a fraction of those votes (in reality)

It's not complex (as long as you can count). It won't cost the amount the 'No' campaign claim. There is no evidence that it will lead to more coaltions or hung parliaments (and consensus politics is bad why?)

You would almost certainly see people putting their first preferences more truthfully (I'd expect UKIP and Greens to benefit), and the transfer patterns will be interesting.

The best voting system would be an average of all of them.

Voters rank all candidates and draw a line for approve/disapprove. The results of IFV, Borda, Approval, and whatever others are all evaluated. The winner of the election is the person who comes out ahead in a majority or electoral systems. If no majority, eliminate like IRV until there is.

@Neocommunist: feel free, I quite like the scenario myself as well.

@Maniac: I see your point, and perhaps it's true that central office directions on who to put second may determine the winner of said seat. However, from experience (being Australian) I can tell you that minor parties put out their recommended voting sheets to say the same thing in every electorate. The idea of 'rigging' the votes to create a minority government not only seems proposterous, but it would come across as such if attempted. It wouldn't take long for the media to notice the attempt and such an act would lose the LibDems many supporters. I seriously doubt that they would attempt to rig the parliament, especially considering this system would already (rightfully) give the LibDems a decent advantage over where they currently stand.

Why do people love STV, is it because Irish politics are so awesome and exciting? STV has helped Ireland be ruled by the same party for decades. It was a shock that Sinn Fein was able to finally make a break through this go around.

Herein lies what I see as the major flaw with FPTP, though I am not qualified to explain it in detail: perhaps someone else can pick it up and explain more thoroughly: 'The Condorcet loser criterion states that "if a candidate would lose a head-to-head competition against every other candidate, then that candidate must not win the overall election". AV meets this criterion. FPTP does not meet this criterion.'

The cordorcet loser criterion is irrelevant in a two-party election. Furthermore, FPTP has advantages of simplicity and ease of counting; it almost always results in single-party governments which aren't blackmailed by small parties; it affords accountability and clear choices between government & opposition; and it protects the idea of one person, one vote.

@gigantr - if AV is adopted, i personally will make a website advising how LibDem voters in each constituancy can assist in forming a LibDem coalition government: Head office wil say it is nothing to do withthem, blah, blah blah - but I'm conviced having studied the results of the last election that I could manipulate AV to ensure a hung parliment. The only thing that will stop me is the LibDem vote collapsing completely (which is possible). You're right about the fact that the media and commentators will notice and then what? Will LibDems in marginal constituancies promise not to do it again? Or will they think 'we had 20% support for 80 years without a sniff of power while others won elections with less than 50% of the vote - let's carry on being involved and advancing LibDem policies'. How are other parties going to counter the LibDem swing vote? Are they going to ask LibDem voters not to vote for them as second pref?

@gigantor - AV does not meet your condorcet criteria. Consider 12 people going on a night out voting for where they want to go with AV:
1st Round - Starbucks 5; Red Lion Pub 2; Blue Dragon Pub 2; Dog and Duck Pub 2; and the Green mna Pub 1. Under FPTP everyone would go to starbucks but more people want to go to a pub (by 7/5) so the result is unfair. Under AV the Green Man voter gets to pick somewhere else (say the Red Lion) and when the Dog and Duck and Blue Dragon guys also vote for the Red Lion the all go to the Red Lion - but i that any fairer? Suppose rather than asking the guy who voted for the least popular choice we asked the people who voted for the most popular choice. And they all wanted to go to the Dog and Duck - (because it also serves coffee) - they all then go to the Dog and Duck on a vote of (7/5) AV some second preferences and this is why people rightly say that not all votes/voters choices are represented equally under AV.

*AV ignores some second preferences and this is why people rightly say that not all votes/voters choices are represented equally under AV.

One person, one vote. It's an idea that is clear and simple and fair, and we should keep it.

There is an idea that under FPTP most people's votes are wasted, which is simply not true. There is no better way of defining the centre of British politics than in a vote. The parties all take great notice of this, and force themselves to act in a way that better fits the will of the people. We tend to end up with two or three main parties that look very similar, but that is a good thing because they're all trying to be what we want. After a party has been in power for a while they tend to get frustrated and try and do some unpopular things that they want for a change, which ends up in the other guys being elected. It's a system that works, and we should keep it.

Will AV mean that "safe" tory and labour seats will be a thing of the past? No
Will AV mean that significant minority parties will find themselves getting the representation in parliament their vote share demands? No
Will AV increase the number of people who bother to vote? No
Will AV mean that everyone elected has the backing of over half the voters? No
Is AV a complete waste of time and money? Yes

Keep FPTP for the House of Commons, and have a 50/50 mix between PR and appointed for the House of Lords. Sorted.

whatever your opinion - get out and vote guys (and girls)

Done - if you didn't vote, you can't complain about the result

Didn't vote - I'm really not that bothered as I can see good reasons for and against either.
However, as Pete said, others who've done this certainly shouldn't complain about the result we get!

I wonder how many people will get over excited after weeks of TV adds and news reports about AV, and list their prefered councillors by order of preference?