referendum says no

[Chilly]

well that was a lot of fuss for nothing. I did vote yes so a bit miffed but meh.

 

[Moriath]

\o/ yay

I voted no

 

[Deebs]

Voted no and Tory here.

 

[Chilly]

If you're willing, I'd be interested to here why you voted no? Incidentally I voted tory last election but yes in the referendum.

 

[rynnor]

I voted no - there's nothing worse than the political dealmaking that goes with coalition politics.

Its incredibly un-democratic where tiny parties with little support wield power out of proportion to their following.

I'd prefer a Labour govt to a coalition again tbh.

 

[Krazeh]

If you're willing, I'd be interested to here why you voted no? Incidentally I voted tory last election but yes in the referendum.

I voted no because I don't believe in change for the sake of change. AV is not a solution to the problems we face when it comes to the electoral process. It's just as flawed a system as FPTP, just in different ways.

 

[nath]

Voted yes and frustrated that the no campaign was so successful at spinning its bullshit :\.

 

[Tom]

I forgot to vote. Oh well.

 

[Moriath]

i voted no cause when i vote, i vote for who i want .. ie i dont want any of the others .. there is no 2nd 3rd place in my head just the one i want to win ..

TBH i had made my mind up that if i was forced to choose 2-4 th places then i wouldnt vote any more cause i dont want anyone else apart from the party i had voted for to win.

I would make that party 1-4th hehe

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Voted yes and frustrated that the no campaign was so successful at spinning its bullshit :\.

So many stupid people. Was shocked at how so many of Murdoch's papers even refused to discuss the yes part and basically ordered people to vote no, pretty sickening, but then, that's the old **** for you.

 

[Embattle]

Both methods are fairly shit but then it suits the modern politics.

 

[Vae]

I looked at the information and arguements from both sides and struggled to find the energy and enthusiasm to feel that I should vote in either direction. As far as I could see neither side actually had any decent arguements and I don't think a Yes vote would have made much difference at all. Therefore I contentedly ignored the election and for once didn't feel bad at doing so.

 

[nath]

TBH i had made my mind up that if i was forced to choose 2-4 th places then i wouldnt vote any more

So many stupid people

Oy vey :\.

 

[megadave]

made me lol, then made me

 

[Moriath]

Oy vey :\.

????

 

[Wazzerphuk]

I looked at the information and arguements from both sides and struggled to find the energy and enthusiasm to feel that I should vote in either direction. As far as I could see neither side actually had any decent arguements and I don't think a Yes vote would have made much difference at all. Therefore I contentedly ignored the election and for once didn't feel bad at doing so.

This is part of the problem, you listened to the arguments rather than reading something independent and actually making your own mind up. When presented with the sheer fact of what both voting systems are, you would have easily been able to come to a conclusion to which you thought was best.

 

[nath]

????

With AV you can choose as many or as few votes - no one forces you to vote for more than one preference. The idea is that parties currently can get in even though the majority of the population *didn't* want them. AV finds a way to get the best compromise.

As everyone has said, it's far from perfect but no democracy is (short of the ending of Deus Ex 2, and that was just creepy). It's certainly more fair than FPTP though.

PR is even more fair on a national level, but means doing away with local MP's and that obviously has pretty serious issues.

 

[ECA]

PR is wank, it kills both local politicians and independents.

 

[Raven]

I voted yes. Can't say I am very bothered though.

 

[Ch3tan]

Oh dear Moriath, oh dear. Proof of how good the no campaign was, right on these here boards.

 

[Vae]

This is part of the problem, you listened to the arguments rather than reading something independent and actually making your own mind up. When presented with the sheer fact of what both voting systems are, you would have easily been able to come to a conclusion to which you thought was best.

Actually I more or less ignored the official sites for each argument and sought out as much independent information as I could find but still failed to care enough about which system is used. Most of the official arguements I found specious and pointless. The best argument I saw was that a Yes vote was a vote for change even if it wasn't the change that people want. The best argument I read against was that a No vote was a vote against wasting time on pointless referendums rather than ones that people would actually have wanted to vote on. Neither argument was enough to energise me though.

While I understand what each voting system is, the impact of the change seemed very little.

 

[Gumbo]

I was entirely happy with the idea that given a vote to place for a person among a selection of other people, that the person who ended up with the most votes should win. I really don't give a flying fuck if you start adding together a bunch of second or even third choices you might, possibly get a different winner.

It doesn't need to be complicated, indeed it's hard enough getting people out to vote as it is without making it even more confusing for the dim witted massive.

It's a system which does work, no matter what the propagandists might tell you. It just doesn't work quite how they would like it to work.

The usual suspects will no doubt start spouting on about how it's not complicated, it does work, people will understand, you don't have to vote for a second choice and all the usual counter bollocks we've heard for the last few weeks.

The simple fact is that the system we have is just that, simple. You throw your voting chip into the pot of the person you want, the person with the most chips wins. It's worked in democracies the world over since some bright Greeks came up with the idea thousands of years ago. Now lets stop fannying about and concentrate on more important things.

 

[rynnor]

The simple fact is that the system we have is just that, simple. You throw your voting chip into the pot of the person you want, the person with the most chips wins. It's worked in democracies the world over since some bright Greeks came up with the idea thousands of years ago. Now lets stop fannying about and concentrate on more important things.

Exactly.

The cold hard truth about PR and AV was that the Lib dems want to change our constitution so that they do better in the election - strip it of all the bullshit about 'better democracy' and thats what remains.

 

[nath]

Exactly.

The cold hard truth about PR and AV was that the Lib dems want to change our constitution so that they do better in the election - strip it of all the bullshit about 'better democracy' and thats what remains.

Motives are irrelevant if the system proposed was genuinely fairer than FPTP. Which it was.

 

[rynnor]

Motives are irrelevant if the system proposed was genuinely fairer than FPTP. Which it was.

Fairer? We all vote and the one with the most votes becomes our MP - seems fair to me?

Another nonsense we have avoided by killing AV is much more expensive elections and days of waiting to see who won - see Northern Ireland for a similar system (single transferrable vote) and the huge delays.

 

[Mabs]

Fairer? We all vote

no we dont

thats part of the point

just cos you got 51% of the vote, which was cast by about 34% of the people, doesnt mean your the most popular.

what we need is less voter apathy, or make it legally compulsory to turn up even if you spoil your ballot

 

[Gumbo]

Ah, an entirely separate matter. But do we want people who are too stupid to turn up voluntarily, turning up because they are forced to and casting a vote?

 

[nath]

Fairer? We all vote and the one with the most votes becomes our MP - seems fair to me?

Except the MP that gets voted in can have *FAR* more people who DIDN'T want him/her than did. AV takes measures to remedy this. Contrary to what no-campaign kept spouting, it doesn't give people more than one vote, it simply assesses their position far more thoroughly (should they want to give a more detailed vote) and the end result is something that reflects public opinion more accurately.

edit: Additionally, FPTP is only fair when you have a small amount of candidates to choose from. The more candidates, the more spread of votes and the less likely there'll be a clear winner. Say there are 10 candidates, the winner gets just over 10% of the vote, everyone else gets just shy of 9%. That's almost 90% of people who didn't get who they voted for. Get AV and the votes become much more relevant.

 

[old.user4556]

I can sort of see why dictatorships happen .

 

[rynnor]

Except the MP that gets voted in can have *FAR* more people who DIDN'T want him/her than did. AV takes measures to remedy this. Contrary to what no-campaign kept spouting, it doesn't give people more than one vote, it simply assesses their position far more thoroughly (should they want to give a more detailed vote) and the end result is something that reflects public opinion more accurately.

Only if people actually vote for more than 1 candidate - I bet most people would put the same candidate x5 which renders this voting system a useless extra complexity.