From Paul Clarke

Monday, 2 May 2011

I was wondering when the local PR fans would hit the panic button as they flounder in the polls as voters see through this 'miserable little compromise' (Calamity Clegg).

No mention of the £250 million this farcical compromise wil cost all of us.

No mention that it is minority parties like the Fib Dems and Greens who benefit directly from so called 'fair' votes.

No mention that we will end up with endless coalition goverments and look at how well this one has turned out.

No mention that only three countries in the world use this barmy 'little compromise' (Calamity Clegg) and two of them want to ditch it.

And worse of the lot, no mention that the candidate that comes third can win. So a weak candidate in somewhere like - say - Keighley can come third and then end up winning if the transfers go their way. Bizarre.

Now before all the PR fans start accusing me of being in bed with Nick Griffin remember that more than 100 Labour MPs oppose this 'miserable little compromise' (Calamity Clegg). Opposition to AV runs across the spectrum as does support for it.

I'll be voting no on Thursday and I hope we can get a strong margin of victory so we can put this expensive nonsense to bed for a good while.

From Em F

Monday, 2 May 2011

I agree. Vote Yes.

I want to be able to vote Green without worrying it's a 'waste' of a vote. If enough of us did that the Greens might even win a few seats.

This method will allow our true beliefs to shine in the first choice while our tactical heads decide what to do with the second and third choices.

And it will stop people like Cameron ending up running the country even though hardly anyone wants them.

The Tories really don't want AV. If you really don't want the Tories, vote for AV.

From David R

Monday, 2 May 2011

I too will be voting 'No'. PR sounds good in principle, but AV is nowhere near a good enough system.

The idea that those people who voted for the least popular candidate effectively have the first say in a second round of voting doesn't sit right with me.

From Martin F

Tuesday, 3 May 2011

I'll be voting Yes for one basic reason: throughout my nearly 40 years of being allowed to vote I have felt that the percentage of MPs of one particular party (to the total in the Commons) should reflect as closely as possible the percentage of the vote that that party achieved of the total number of votes cast. AV would reflect that more accurately than our present system.

From Drew M

Wednesday, 4 May 2011

The farcical figure of '?250 million this will cost all of us' is a lie.

They break it down like this (no it doesn't add up to ?250 million) :

Referendum: ?91 million.
Electronic counting machines: ?130 million.
Explaining AV : ?26 million

We don't need ?130 million electronic counting machines. We've already spent the ?91 million money on the referendum - it's a ?91 million argument against the referendum we've already decided to have, not AV.

That leaves us with ?26 million for voter education, seems a lot to me but I'll take it at face value because I think ?26 million for a better system is worth it.

No mention that it is minority parties like the Fib Dems and Greens who benefit directly from so called 'fair' votes.

Right now, I can't see the Lib Dems benefiting from anything in the next election. Other parties won't benefit directly e.g. seats won. They may over time benefit from AV as more people may feel their first preference votes aren't wasted and they can freely show their support. I can't really see a fault in this though? maybe it's just me?

No mention that we will end up with endless coalition goverments and look at how well this one has turned out.

Coalition governments are likely here to stay, FPPT or AV. More and more people aren't voting Labour or Conservative. The Lib Dems may get hammered for the coalition in the next election, it may turn the clock back for a time, but there is no proof that either AV or FPPT are any more or less likely to create weak or coalition governments.

No mention that only three countries in the world use this barmy 'little compromise' (Calamity Clegg) and two of them want to ditch it.

That two of the countries that use AV want to move away from AV may very well be true - but do they want to move to FPPT or to a more proportional system? Many people who argue for AV would also argue for a more proportional system, that doesn't mean we don't want AV. It wouldn't be our first preference, but it's the best of what's on offer.

And worse of the lot, no mention that the candidate that comes third can win. So a weak candidate in somewhere like - say - Keighley can come third and then end up winning if the transfers go their way. Bizarre.

I'd argue the exact opposite about your 'weak candidate' in Keighley. If that candidate got to the final round it was clearly a close race between the top 3 or a wide open race where everyone was equally great or lacklustre.

Even if in the far reaches of statistical probability the candidate who was in 1st after round 1 had a commanding lead and our 3rd place candidate got ALL the transferred votes from everyone else that's a pretty strong message that Keighley, or most of it, wants anyone except the candidate you'd have as a your 'winner'.

Democracy isn't a race or a boxing match. It's about representing the views of the electorate. Here in Calder Valley we have a MP who 60% of people didn't vote for - or voted against, depending how you want to look at it. AV lets those 60% choose to have a Snickers if they can't have a Mars bar, it lets people's true views be and support aired while also ensuring they have a voice in parliament that represents them.

I'll obviously be voting Yes.

From Laura Wright

Sunday, 8 May 2011

Just for the record - I'm not a'local PR supporter' - just a socialist who loathes the prospect of a succession of Tory governments being in power for years from now on (since they have managed to get the minimum % of the vote necessary to keep them in power) because they can then proceed to make thousands of the most vulnerable people in society's lives even more miserable than they were already. It's unlikely that we will have a revolution in this country because people are being starved to death, deprived of their legal rights, no longer have access to adequate health care etc etc so we have to rely on the electoral system to try to prevent such things happening.

From Paul Clarke

Monday, 9 May 2011

Happily the answer was a resounding no and the PR question is now put to bed for a generation.

Ever since I became interested in politics I've been told that the British people craved PR if only they would get the chance to vote on it.

That myth has now been totally blown out of the water once and for all. But I would thank Drew for his considered response to my NO argument.

I must confess to thinking it would be much tighter than the rout it became in the end.

The other plus point was the fact the Lib Dems sold their soul for this vote and couldn't even deliver that.

No wonder they were turfed out of office across the country (12 candidates in Manchester and 12 defeats) and here at last in Calder where common sense won through. Well done to Dave Young.

From Andy M

Wednesday, 11 May 2011

I don't think that this is the end of the road for PR. The Lib dems shot themselves in the foot with the timing of this - no doubt engineered to an extent by the Tories - so that AV (and other Lib Dem policies sadly) have become associated with Nick Clegg - not a good PR move. It may take some time to overcome the innate conservatism of much of the population but one shouldn't give up on progress just because of that.

See also

HebWeb News: Electoral Reform Public Meeting votes yes to the Alternative Vote (October 2010)