[aLICErOBERTSfANkLUB]

Now. I'm minded to vote "No". Because that would mean those of us minded to serious electoral reform could/would regroup and propose something more substantial, and, more likely to get a mandate in a general election.

A "Yes" vote would result (IMO) in a poor compromise, and the issue given a back seat for the majority of, if not all of the rest of my lifetime.

Having seen the repellent campaign, backed up with self-evident pernicious lies in their campaign I've changed my mind.

It could be used by those of us minded to serious electoral reform to use it as a staging post.

And it means a revolting bunch of cunts suffering what for them would be a humiliating defeat.

[robertostallioni]

Maybe you should be able to vote "yes" as your first choice and "no" as second to cover all bases? 

[psychomansam]

Now. I'm minded to vote "No". Because that would mean those of us minded to serious electoral reform could/would regroup and propose something more substantial, and, more likely to get a mandate in a general election.

A "Yes" vote would result (IMO) in a poor compromise, and the issue given a back seat for the majority of, if not all of the rest of my lifetime.

Having seen the repellent campaign, backed up with self-evident pernicious lies in their campaign I've changed my mind.

It could be used by those of us minded to serious electoral reform to use it as a staging post.

And it means a revolting bunch of cunts suffering what for them would be a humiliating defeat.

Change is very slow. We should grab this pathetic attempt at improving out fake democracy and wring everything out of it we can. Vote no, and we may never get another chance to improve it. Vote yes, and we may never get another chance to improve it, but we'll have done something at least.

I think it's a very interesting opportunity. I can't help but wonder what history will say about this, about the coalition, about nick clegg. History doesn't have room for small details, we know nick clegg as the biggest sell-out in politics. If AV goes through and starts something, history might paint him a hero for democratic change.

I've got good money says the lib dems are staying out of power for a while regardless of av though.

[dave]

If clegg does get AV through then the "sell out" will have been entirely worth it. I can't imagine electoral reform being high on the other tory coalition hopefuls like fuckin sinn fein.

[aLICErOBERTSfANkLUB]

If clegg does get AV through then the "sell out" will have been entirely worth it. I can't imagine electoral reform being high on the other tory coalition hopefuls like fuckin sinn fein.

I think you are wrong.

I think it was a cheap option for Cameron (or rather the men in grey suits) to buy off Clegg.

He (Clegg) could have negotiated a (knowingly doomed to fail) coalition with anyone - including Brown and the "wet" wing of the Tory party - just put forward one bill - PR - and collapsed the government knowing the next general election would be based on PR.

Clegg is NOT a Liberal. He's outed himself the same way the smiley shit on a stick did as a closet Tory.

[slackline]

Now. I'm minded to vote "No". Because that would mean those of us minded to serious electoral reform could/would regroup and propose something more substantial, and, more likely to get a mandate in a general election.

Thats bollocks wishful thinking, those who are backing the "No" vote have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and should they succeed there would be no regouping for anything more substantial than maintaining the first past the post wank that we're stuck with.

A "Yes" vote would result (IMO) in a poor compromise, and the issue given a back seat for the majority of, if not all of the rest of my lifetime.

Having seen the repellent campaign, backed up with self-evident pernicious lies in their campaign I've changed my mind.

The No camp with lies about how much an AV system would cost with electronic ballot counting (which isn't used in Australia as the NO2AV calim) and bullshit like this...



...can  

It could be used by those of us minded to serious electoral reform to use it as a staging post.

And it means a revolting bunch of cunts suffering what for them would be a humiliating defeat.

AV isn't my personal preference, but its better than FPTP and both of these are good enough reasons to vote in the affirmative to me.

If clegg does get AV through then the "sell out" will have been entirely worth it. I can't imagine electoral reform being high on the other tory coalition hopefuls like fuckin sinn fein.

+1 what dave said, Clegg could well be taking one for all of us without anyone realising it (probably wishful thinking but then I'm an idealist).

[lagerstarfish]

what Dave said

[aLICErOBERTSfANkLUB]

A "Yes" vote would result (IMO) in a poor compromise

Which is my issue with votng "yes"

It's a similar issue to the plebiscite in Australia a few years ago - the move to a republic was rejected in a referendum despite there being a perceived majority in favour of being a republic and abolishing the monarchy

The only options offerered were "status quo" or "republic under these, and only these, terms, which are a greater affront to democracy than what you've got now"


The movement for repbublicanism, or the perceived majority in its favour has not gone away in Oz.

[lagerstarfish]

I haven't found a decent AV to HDMI converter for less than £30 that works

[philo]

im up for a voting system with a box that says "none of the above".

[Fultonius]

Will there be a Pain Au Chocolat option

[tomtom]

This is a classic case of the No's will win, because there are several yes options and one no... but we can only vote on one yes.

Really, the referendum SHOULD be do you want 'electoral reform (precise method to be determined via a further referendum/debate etc..)' or not.

Instead its No or Yes to AV... so all those who want PR, RP, HDMI, WGAF (I invented that one), Pain au Raisan, Peoples front for the liberation of pink anazazi's, sausicon and baguette etc.. (an option I am frankly surprised rarely makes it to the dizzy heights of UKB pollsters) are left with the choice above... change in what they may consider the right direction, but not what they want...

Personally I'll be voting YES. A bit (25%) because I think it seems 'fairer' than what we have already, and also as I feel like a change. WHy not, lets try something different. At the end of the day the same bunch of lying cnuts will get in (whether red, blue or yellow) as Cleggoid is a prime example.

[slackline]

A "Yes" vote would result (IMO) in a poor compromise

Which is my issue with votng "yes"

That was poor quoting by me, as its what you wrote ( ) I don't think a "Yes" vote would be a compromise at all, it will be the best thing to happen to our dated political system since Guy Fawkes had a bee in his bonnet.

[slackline]

im up for a voting system with a box that says "none of the above".

  It should be fundamental that you are able to register your intention to vote, but not support any of the candidates.  Having to spoil your ballot paper means that people wishing to do this are indistinguishable from idiots.

[lagerstarfish]

im up for a voting system with a box that says "none of the above".

That's the Monster Raving Loony box

glad to see that their representing in Barnsley next week

let's hope they don't suck too many votes away from whoever can keep the BNP out

[Jaspersharpe]

I agree with Nick. 

Gotta vote "Yes" because voting "No" would feel like voting BNP or UKIP or something.

AV is a shite compromise, politicians are mostly lying wankers etc etc but at least "Yes" is a vote for "I am NOT happy with the current system and I don't believe your fucking lies you horrible bunch of right wing CUNTS".

[john horscroft]

Good debate you bunch of wasters!  Keep it going because I'm still in the "Fucked if I know!" camp.  Hate FPTP, hate AV because it's nearly as blunt an instrument as FPT feckin' P.  However, the UKB massive have managed to distill the arguments better than any of the so called experts on the goggle box, so keep it up you smug fuckers............. 

.....and, Jasper, stop fuckin' swearin or I'll tell your mum............ 

[slackline]

Good debate you bunch of wasters!  Keep it going because I'm still in the "Fucked if I know!" camp.  Hate FPTP, hate AV because it's nearly as blunt an instrument as FPT feckin' P.  However, the UKB massive have managed to distill the arguments better than any of the so called experts on the goggle box, so keep it up you smug fuckers............. 

.....and, Jasper, stop fuckin' swearin or I'll tell your mum............ 

Someone take an axe to his fence. 

[john horscroft]

Good debate you bunch of wasters!  Keep it going because I'm still in the "Fucked if I know!" camp.  Hate FPTP, hate AV because it's nearly as blunt an instrument as FPT feckin' P.  However, the UKB massive have managed to distill the arguments better than any of the so called experts on the goggle box, so keep it up you smug fuckers............. 

.....and, Jasper, stop fuckin' swearin or I'll tell your mum............ 

Someone take an axe to his fence. 

  Yeah, hurry up and make my mind up for me, I'm getting a severe case of piles here 

[slackline]

You'll be a "Yes" vote then 'cause the last election was a fucking shambles when you look at the number of votes cast and compare to the number of seats won, e.g. 36.1 % of votes for Conservative equated to 47.2% of seats, 29% of votes for Labour equated to 39% of seats, whilst for the LibDems 23% of votes equated to 8.8% of seats.  Yes in part this is down to the boundaries for electoral wards and they too need to change, but it wasn't helped by having FPTP.

Some more readng on AV (Wikipedia Article is also informative)

[Drew]

I'm probably one of the least informed people on this forum regards the whole which voting method is best etc etc, but I'm definitely psyched to see some sort of reform. Surely FPTP is the worst possible option? No AV isn't the best option, but it's a step in the right direction?

Vote no, and we may never get another chance to improve it. Vote yes, and we may never get another chance to improve it, but we'll have done something at least.

I may be a pessimist, but this sums up my thoughts on it all. A victory, no matter how small, is better than no victory at all.

[Jaspersharpe]

The Sun (and therefore Murdoch) is vehemently behind the "No" campaign as is The Daily Mail. The BNP are supporting "No". David Cameron supports "No" along with most Tories and the "No" campaign is believed to be funded by Lord Leach, Tory life peer and noted climate change sceptic. Anyone see a pattern?

I'm struggling to find such a list of total scumbags supporting "Yes" but I'm sure someone will oblige.

[john horscroft]

You'll be a "Yes" vote then 'cause the last election was a fucking shambles when you look at the number of votes cast and compare to the number of seats won, e.g. 36.1 % of votes for Conservative equated to 47.2% of seats, 29% of votes for Labour equated to 39% of seats, whilst for the LibDems 23% of votes equated to 8.8% of seats.  Yes in part this is down to the boundaries for electoral wards and they too need to change, but it wasn't helped by having FPTP.

Some more readng on AV (Wikipedia Article is also informative)

not necessarily Slackers.  Given that the Lib Dems have proved themselves to be a craven bunch of tory cuddlers, why the fuck would I want to increase their share of seats!?  Sometimes you just have to say fuck democracy.... 

[Drew]

The BNP are supporting "No".

That surprises me. I would've thought that PR was their friend, and any change towards it would potentially get them more seats?

[john horscroft]

The BNP are supporting "No".

That surprises me. I would've thought that PR was their friend, and any change towards it would potentially get them more seats?

Aha!  Double bluff! They really WANT you to vote yes.  Not as thick as you think they are..... and any excuse to post the following...



Ahhhhhhhh, that's better......