How will you be voting today? Yes or No?

Or do you think it is a total waste of time and not bother at all?

I'll vote no. AV just seems stupid.

I'll be voting Labour in for Welsh Assembly too.

Only the weak seem to want AV. If AV was in use, apparently Lembit Opik would still be an MP.

Only the weak seem to want AV. If AV was in use, apparently Lembit Opik would still be an MP.

And on that bombshell, I'll be voting yes. It might mean we actually have a voice at general elections. We don't seen to have that at the moment.


But them again, I've always been weak

Only the weak seem to want AV. If AV was in use, apparently Lembit Opik would still be an MP.

And on that bombshell, I'll be voting yes. It might mean we actually have a voice at general elections. We don't seen to have that at the moment.


But them again, I've always been weak

Why is money being wasted on this in the first place when the current system has been in place as long as it has? Are there any other countries that use AV where it's been successful (I genuinely don't know)?

Only the weak seem to want AV. If AV was in use, apparently Lembit Opik would still be an MP.

And on that bombshell, I'll be voting yes. It might mean we actually have a voice at general elections. We don't seen to have that at the moment.


But them again, I've always been weak

Why is money being wasted on this in the first place when the current system has been in place as long as it has? Are there any other countries that use AV where it's been successful (I genuinely don't know)?

I've always found it unfair that 60% of people might not vote for a particular candidate, but he still ends up in power. I believe this gives us more of a say. I'm pretty sure this practice is done in alot of European countries.

Only the weak seem to want AV. If AV was in use, apparently Lembit Opik would still be an MP.

And on that bombshell, I'll be voting yes. It might mean we actually have a voice at general elections. We don't seen to have that at the moment.


But them again, I've always been weak

Why is money being wasted on this in the first place when the current system has been in place as long as it has? Are there any other countries that use AV where it's been successful (I genuinely don't know)?

I think they use it in Papa New Gunie (excuse spelling)

I'll be voting No. Even Nick Clegg says 'it's a miserable little compromise'.

The problem they should be addressing is the lack of turn out.

Sorry, I was wrong. For some reason I thought Germany used it. Australia I'd the only big nation who use it. And its been working well for them!

Only the weak seem to want AV. If AV was in use, apparently Lembit Opik would still be an MP.

And on that bombshell, I'll be voting yes. It might mean we actually have a voice at general elections. We don't seen to have that at the moment.


But them again, I've always been weak

Why is money being wasted on this in the first place when the current system has been in place as long as it has? Are there any other countries that use AV where it's been successful (I genuinely don't know)?

The Av system is actually used here in Ireland, for example take an area like east Galway this takes in approx a population of around 100,000 in this area there are 5 MP's (TD's over here) that are elected to parliment this could be 5 from the same party or a mix depending on the vote. Each party usually puts forward 3 or 4 candidates for each area. It can be a nightmare for the results as they are using proportional representation. To be elected you have to reach a certain amount of votes if on the 1st count no candidate reaches that tally then the candidate with the lowest tally will be eliminated and then his 2nd preference votes will be counted and distributed accordingly this will continue until all 5 seats are filled.

Confusing??

I have already voted yes via postal.
It may be be a compromise, but I'm voting in hope for a brighter future free of party politics and policy dictated by party whips and not by the people.

I'll be voting No. Even Nick Clegg says 'it's a miserable little compromise'.

The problem they should be addressing is the lack of turn out.

And you're going to trust the word of Nick Clegg??

For the Welsh Assembly elections we already have an AV system in place - so I dont think , as some people have said only the weak want it - as in that case WE in Wales are all weak.

Will vote Yes for AV as I reckon having an MP that gets more than 50% of the vote is better than getting an MP who only has 30% support.
For the Welsh Assembly - I'll vote for anyone but Labour or Plaid Cymru. You would have to ask - what have they done for the last 12-13 years ? - time for a change me thinks

i wont be voting, no BNP in my area

Or do you think it is a total waste of time and not bother at all?

I've voted No for 2 reason firstly it's all a load of bollocks and secondly that wanker Nick Clegg sent me an email asking to me to vote yes.

Anything that gives wankers like Nick Clegg and that Danny Alexander a second longer in positions of political influence in this country has got to be bad.

I'd rather spend the rest on my time on gods green earth being shafted by right wing tory tossers like David Cameron than watch these Lib Dem tossers telling me why I need the shafting whilst having that supercilious grin all over their smug faces.

You may not of guessed but politically you will find my left of centre.

I'll be voting No. Even Nick Clegg says 'it's a miserable little compromise'.

The problem they should be addressing is the lack of turn out.

And you're going to trust the word of Nick Clegg??

Frog, he is the last person I'd trust. I'm sure lots of the people he smooth talked into voting Lib Dems at the last election were horrified to see him cuddle up with the Tories.

I have already voted yes via postal.
It may be be a compromise, but I'm voting in hope for a brighter future free of party politics and policy dictated by party whips and not by the people.

Good article http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/05/av-electoral-reform-for-best, AV is NOT confusing if you can be bothered to look into it.

Only the weak seem to want AV. If AV was in use, apparently Lembit Opik would still be an MP.

And on that bombshell, I'll be voting yes. It might mean we actually have a voice at general elections. We don't seen to have that at the moment.


But them again, I've always been weak

Why is money being wasted on this in the first place when the current system has been in place as long as it has? Are there any other countries that use AV where it's been successful (I genuinely don't know)?

I don't find it acceptable that an MP can be elected with a mere 29.4% of the vote as in Norwich South at the last election.

The current system was designed for two-party politics and means that politicians are only interested in their core vote. In this respect, it is hopelessly outdated and and very undemocratic.

Those who say that AV is only used in a limited number of countries should also note that pure First Past the Post is not the main electoral system around the world. AV is not perfect, but the Conservatives have tactically chosen it for the referendum to prevent moves to more sophisticated forms of proportional representation. I say this as someone whose views lean to libertarian/centre right.

The fact that the No campaign has focused entirely on a negative campaign against AV rather than selling the advantages of FPTP tells you all one needs to know, and why the UK needs to change. Not taking this opportunity will see any debate about reform of the electoral system silenced for 20-30 years.

If the British people can't see why AV is better than FPTP, we deserve the kinds of elected dictatorships I hear so many of you on here moaning about week in and week out.

The crass comment that AV is associated with "weak" is just moronic. What is weak is to lack the intellect to discuss the issue with any substance. I would hardly describe Nigel Farage (UKIP) as weak and he is voting YES TO AV. Tell them why Nigel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqDHKjeoDbs

I'm voting Yes.

My reasoning is much the same as PhatFrog and Uccello Azzurro above, that although AV is not perfect it is much better than first past the post.

A live in Newport East and frankly my vote counts for nothing as no-one but Labour will ever win the seat. I want my vote to count and make a difference, that's impossible under the FPTP system but far more likely under AV.

These are some of the arguments for AV:

* More than two out of every three MPs are currently elected despite more constituents voting for someone else;

* Just 1.6% of voters - fewer than 450,000 - effectively decided the last election;

* Under AV, candidates will have to gain the support of 50% of voters;

* MPs will have to work harder and reach out to a much wider range of people if they are forced to seek a much higher proportion of support in the area;

* AV, or a form of it, is used by the House of Commons, most political parties and a broad range of corporations and civic groups;

* Australia uses AV and has had fewer hung parliaments than the UK since its introduction in 1918.

There are plenty of reasons that can argued either for or against any form of proportional representation exactly the same as our current FPTP system. I always like to look at things in a simple black and white way so I would ask you to consider the reasons why Nick Clegg wants PR but will accept AV as a first step to the ultimate target of full PR.

Nick Clegg would have me believe that if I decided to vote say Lib Dem in Caerphilly my vote is being wasted because you could put a donkey up in Caerphilly under the Labour banner and they would indeed they have in the past been elected it, on that basis my vote is wasted. Labour have such a strangehold on Caerphilly that there is no form of proportional representation that if introduced could stop a Labour victory in Caerphilly.

So for PR to mean anything it will either see the end of the Caerphilly consitituency or as is more likely it true effect will be seen in the marginal constituencies throughout the country. Therefore the "Battlefield" senario under which parties win under the FPTP system is replaced by a "Battlefield" in the constituencies where AV or whatever PR system is used will be where ultimate power is won or lost.

Your vote which using the emotive argument "means nothing" will continue to mean nothing id you live in Caerphilly, Merthyr Tydfil, Rhondda, Newport East I could go on, but unless you move to one of the marginal seats where ultimately power will be decided it wont have an effect under any new AV or PR system and thats a FACT.

Of course you will never hear anyone who would argue in favour of AV or PR admit what I have just said because the reality is it makes the whole PR debate what it is a load of bollocks.

Nick Clegg wants or rather needs AV because it may just may see the dice roll in the favour of the Lib Dems in the marginal seats I have already spoken about, his desire is about a deep seated need to feel wanted and important thats why he sold out any political principal he ever had to jump into bed with David Cameron.

Give the smug tory b*stard what he needs and in return his desperation for political power will see him give me a referendum on what I need to fulfill my need to feel important and not someone on the sidelines everyone laughs at.

To argue that any form of PR would make your vote mean something in 90% of the constituencies in this country is a crook of shit arguement that lacks any moral basis or foundation.

Just my opinion of course.

@ Castleblue.

All well and good, but what about the other 10%?
Surely something a little better is better than the same shit over and over?

There are plenty of reasons that can argued either for or against any form of proportional representation exactly the same as our current FPTP system. I always like to look at things in a simple black and white way so I would ask you to consider the reasons why Nick Clegg wants PR but will accept AV as a first step to the ultimate target of full PR.

Nick Clegg would have me believe that if I decided to vote say Lib Dem in Caerphilly my vote is being wasted because you could put a donkey up in Caerphilly under the Labour banner and they would indeed they have in the past been elected it, on that basis my vote is wasted. Labour have such a strangehold on Caerphilly that there is no form of proportional representation that if introduced could stop a Labour victory in Caerphilly.

So for PR to mean anything it will either see the end of the Caerphilly consitituency or as is more likely it true effect will be seen in the marginal constituencies throughout the country. Therefore the "Battlefield" senario under which parties win under the FPTP system is replaced by a "Battlefield" in the constituencies where AV or whatever PR system is used will be where ultimate power is won or lost.

Your vote which using the emotive argument "means nothing" will continue to mean nothing id you live in Caerphilly, Merthyr Tydfil, Rhondda, Newport East I could go on, but unless you move to one of the marginal seats where ultimately power will be decided it wont have an effect under any new AV or PR system and thats a FACT.

Of course you will never hear anyone who would argue in favour of AV or PR admit what I have just said because the reality is it makes the whole PR debate what it is a load of bollocks.

Nick Clegg wants or rather needs AV because it may just may see the dice roll in the favour of the Lib Dems in the marginal seats I have already spoken about, his desire is about a deep seated need to feel wanted and important thats why he sold out any political principal he ever had to jump into bed with David Cameron.

Give the smug tory b*stard what he needs and in return his desperation for political power will see him give me a referendum on what I need to fulfill my need to feel important and not someone on the sidelines everyone laughs at.

To argue that any form of PR would make your vote mean something in 90% of the constituencies in this country is a crook of shit arguement that lacks any moral basis or foundation.

Just my opinion of course.

This vote is not about Nick Clegg, but a way forward on electoral reform. The majority of Labour politicos get it, some Tories get it, UKIP gets it. The only politicos who don't seem to get it are those who like the comfy old system that exchanges power between the Labour and Conservatives on a regular basis - a mixture of the Conservative establishment and old Labour war horses it would seem.

I don't think anybody is saying that AV is the holy grail, but it is considerably more democratic than the crock of shit we currently have. Vote against AV and the Tories will argue that nation has voted against electoral reform full stop. They will say that FPTP may not be perfect, but that it is what the people of Britain (in their wisdom) want. Any debate on the subject will be dead for another 20-30 years.

FPTP is an outdated electoral system for two-party politics and represents an outdated approach to democracy.

Im rather tired of the same old Labour politicians getting elected time and time again in Wales - and never actually doing anything or even at least doing something that makes a difference.
Education in Wales is now worse than it has ever been (based on literacy levels) - even worse now than before the Labour / Plaid run Welsh Assembly. That's why it's time for a change - make those pavement licking politicians get their noses out of the trough - and actualy become accountable for what they do.

With AV in use in the UK - there are still over 35% of seats that wont be affected as they already have over 50% of the vote, so AV in the remaining seats would at least give us the same level of parity as in the 50%+ seats

@ Castleblue.

All well and good, but what about the other 10%?
Surely something a little better is better than the same shit over and over?

The reality is that even with AV pretty much nothing will change and I will support that by this statistic during the last election the Lib Dems No 1 target in the FPTP system was Guildford where they required a 0.2% swing from the Con to them, they failed and ended up 14% below the Con in 2nd place even if every single other vote voted Con on the 2nd preference they still would have taken the consitituency.

Of their top 10 targets they actually took 2 the others would more than likely have stayed with the original result, although I accept it was not tested by this 2nd preference bollocks. My point is Nick Clegg would take a 20% increase in the number of seats he has of course he would but in reality what 12 extra seats.

Probably help him feel a bit more impostant but is it really worth changing our voting system which will only result in moving the REAL Battlefield from one group on constituencies to another.

Please vote no.

@ Castleblue.

All well and good, but what about the other 10%?
Surely something a little better is better than the same shit over and over?

The reality is that even with AV pretty much nothing will change and I will support that by this statistic during the last election the Lib Dems No 1 target in the FPTP system was Guildford where they required a 0.2% swing from the Con to them, they failed and ended up 14% below the Con in 2nd place even if every single other vote voted Con on the 2nd preference they still would have taken the consitituency.

Of their top 10 targets they actually took 2 the others would more than likely have stayed with the original result, although I accept it was not tested by this 2nd preference bollocks. My point is Nick Clegg would take a 20% increase in the number of seats he has of course he would but in reality what 12 extra seats.

Probably help him feel a bit more impostant but is it really worth changing our voting system which will only result in moving the REAL Battlefield from one group on constituencies to another.

Democracy is over-rated.

With around 35% of the vote, the country can be won at most elections and half the voters can't be bothered to vote anyway Why waste all the money on running elections when that money could be spent on new climbing frames for the kids in the park. What we need is a decent dictator who can show us the way forward without the need for thinking and debate. Word is Gaddafi may be available soon. He knows how to get things done.

Decisive leadership that's what we need!

This vote is not about Nick Clegg, but a way forward on electoral reform. The majority of Labour politicos get it, some Tories get it, UKIP gets it. The only politicos who don't seem to get it are those who like the comfy old system that exchanges power between the Labour and Conservatives on a regular basis - a mixture of the Conservative establishment and old Labour war horses it would seem.

I don't think anybody is saying that AV is the holy grail, but it is considerably more democratic than the crock of shit we currently have. Vote against AV and the Tories will argue that nation has voted against electoral reform full stop. They will say that FPTP may not be perfect, but that it is what the people of Britain (in their wisdom) want. Any debate on the subject will be dead for another 20-30 years.

FPTP is an outdated electoral system for two-party politics and represents an outdated approach to democracy.

Sorry this has absolutely everything to do with Nick Clegg do you really believe for one second that if he hadn't decided to get into bed with David Cameron we would even be having this debate

He discarded any political principal he ever held in doing this and why to get this vote, at sometime in the future he will understand his new bed partner will do for his political career what Norman Scott did for Jeremy Thorpe.

Trust me on that one.

This vote is not about Nick Clegg, but a way forward on electoral reform. The majority of Labour politicos get it, some Tories get it, UKIP gets it. The only politicos who don't seem to get it are those who like the comfy old system that exchanges power between the Labour and Conservatives on a regular basis - a mixture of the Conservative establishment and old Labour war horses it would seem.

I don't think anybody is saying that AV is the holy grail, but it is considerably more democratic than the crock of shit we currently have. Vote against AV and the Tories will argue that nation has voted against electoral reform full stop. They will say that FPTP may not be perfect, but that it is what the people of Britain (in their wisdom) want. Any debate on the subject will be dead for another 20-30 years.

FPTP is an outdated electoral system for two-party politics and represents an outdated approach to democracy.

Sorry this has absolutely everything to do with Nick Clegg do you really believe for one second that if he hadn't decided to get into bed with David Cameron we would even be having this debate

He discarded any political principal he ever held in doing this and why to get this vote, at sometime in the future he will understand his new bed partner will do for his political career what Norman Scott did for Jeremy Thorpe.

Trust me on that one.

The reason that there is a vote on the subject is because the outcome of the last election did not fit with the design of an election system intended for two parties. That is not about Nick Clegg. The other point to highlight is that Labour also offered the Lib Dems electoral reform.

36% of the nation voted for the Conservatives at the last election and a similar number didn't vote for either the Conservatives or Labour.

The majority of the Labour Party, including their leader, are behind electoral reform. UKIP and their leader Nick Farage are behind electoral reform. The only hardcore political support for FPTP is from within the Old Establishment and the Conservative Party.

Looks like I might change my vote for YES.

There's been some good debate here, and I've been pursuaded otherwise