AV referendum.

[CanisMajor]

Just watching the Andrew Marr Show and the PM said that AV is used only by Australia, Fiji and Papua New Guinnea. So do we really want a system that is so unnattactive? Apparently to make this work Australia has made voting a legal requirement. Surely any system where a stick is needed if flawed. Sorry if this has been discussed already,I'm a recent joiner.

[venator]

The question is biassed.

"At the moment we have FPTP. Do you want to change to AV?"

"At the moment" implies a temporary status.

The question should be "Our present voting system is FPTP. Do you want to change to AV"

[Old_Geezer]

I don't think whether a system is widely or rarely used is the issue, although it may give one pause for thought. The issue is a) is the alternative to the existing system going to be better or worse (or much the same) and b) if better, is it sufficiently better to be worth the effort of requesting change.

IMO advantages claimed for the proposed AV system are debatable at least, and the best that can be said of it is that it doesn't tie in parties to the government system the same way as PR would; so is at least better than them.

[venator]

A further question for mike1111 - if there's a NO vote, will we get another referendum to keep the Lib Dems happy next time?

Remember when the Irish voted the wrong way for the EU, and were made to try again.....

[Old_Geezer]

It is also my belief that the results or referenda are not binding, but it may be difficult to ignore, especially if one half of the coalition was hoping for the result they got. In practice it may prove necessary to go with the vote anyway, if the Tories want to ever have a 'look in' again.

[New Judge]

Yes, mike, what you describe is exactly what happens in the London Mayoral elections. Only the top two (as shown by first preferences) have a chance of winning. People voting for third and below have their second preferences counted only if they voted for one of the top two and under this system the eventual winner may still not secure 50%.

Under the proposed Parliamentary AV system the top two (round one) may not receive any second preference votes at all as the second preferences of those voting for the losers in round one are progressively added to the totals for any of the other candidates, regardless of where they finished in round one. Hence a candidate finishing third or fourth in round one could go on to win.

[mike11111]

If there's a NO vote, which I hope there will be, then that will be it for the foreseeable future. The Tories have honoured their pledge to the LibDems and that's that. If the YES vote should win by a tiny majority with a minority of the electorate voting I would not call that a mandate for change.

[Old_Geezer]

IMO any major constitutional change should demand more than a simple majority, but the rules have to be set out and agreed in advance.

[New Judge]

LibDems are (in the main) great Europhiles.

In European referendums the electorate are asked the same question any number of times until they come up with the "right" answer. There is no guarantee that Mr Clegg will not insist on another bite at the cherry in a year or so, especially (as is likely) the Tories are in trouble getting their measures through Parliament.

Be warned !!!

[Old_Geezer]

Interestingly though, once they get the desired answer apparently it isn't possible to go ask again to change it back again. Strange that, bit of a ratchet effect.

[MarkRae]

http://www2.warwick.a...rch_says_alternative/