Well.... how long have you got.
The reality is that AV wont actually change much - I think all the analyis shows that it will only affect the results by about 10 -15 seats.
It wont actually give more power to green views as such. For example, Caroline Lucas - the Green MP, won her seat on only just 30% of the vote! Which is astonishing when you think about it. I reckon that under AV, she would not have got a look in.
However, I am in favour of it because less than 40% of MPs win with >50% of the vote. This is so basically and fundamentally wrong. Almosts all the arguments used by the "No to AV" campaign are wrong/outright lies.
Complicated - What, ranking your vote "1,2,3" - Hardly
Expensive - Why?
Unfair - Like the existing system's really fair isn't it?
It'll lead to more minority party MP's - So, isn't that what democracy is about? Representing the will of the people
etc......

You go to the polls with a choice of, say, three candidates (to keep it easy), Conservative, Labour, LibDem.

Your preference is for one only, unless you're a particularly broad-minded individual who doesn't really care who gets in so long as the "democratic process" is followed. However, playing the game you then have to overcome all your natural aversion to the other two and place them in order of the lesser of two evils.

Errr. I don't think so.

If I want the Tories to win I'll be buggered if I'd even consider giving either of the other two a look in. Likewise, whether a Labour or LibDem supporter.

You're not voting just to fill the required number of parliamentary seats, you're voting to get in the party who best represents your own views.

It's why most of the Conservative Party and most of the Liberal Democrat Party are deeply unhappy to the point of barely being able to suppress their anger at what's happened since the coalition was formed.

Tim, just saying it how it is. We're used to accepting the inevitable outcome of the present system, there's a certain finality to it. Whereas compromise, as stated elsewhere, just seems like a cobble-up.

Oh all right.... About 60% of those who voted.....

No government can do anything significant unless the economy does well. For that you need strong government as markets hate uncertainty. Which method of voting delivers strong stable government?

still "err no" I'm afraid... but not really the right forum.

You will notice that I've said nothing here that, in any way, indicates that we live in a democracy.

We have the ILLUSION of democracy in the form of a parliamentary system.

We have a largely apathetic electorate because it has recognised that it is powerless. It isn't lack of intelligence that makes people behave that way, it's the supreme intelligence implict in the refusal to take part in a process that assumes they're all bloody idiots for believing it makes a difference.

Cwatters' point about strong governments is the reason the Germans have the system they do. They have better memories than us, but it doesn't give them a better democratic system, just one that avoids the mistakes of the past.

Our system of "strong government" works because there is a supreme authority over it, one that nominally represents us all and to which the real power in the land (the people with the guns) owes its allegiance - the Crown. Titular it may be; symbolic and outdated it most certainly is, but it works and has seen us stable for centuries. And that's a closet Rebublican talking!

I've taken the following from the Australian government site, it explains their system pretty thoroughly and fairly. I've yet to see the proposals for AV expressed as openly, without the spin from either side. I also suspect that some people have yet to understand that AV is not PR, in which case they really need to take note of the last two points below...



Advantages of the Preferential System

* It ensures that only a candidate with the support of an absolute majority of the electorate can win, eliminating the possibility of minority winners. Put another way, the winning candidate is the "most preferred" or "least disliked" candidate.

* It ensures that voters can support minor parties and independent candidates, knowing that their preferences may be used to decide the winner. Thus, votes for minor parties and independents are not wasted.

* It allows parties of like-minded philosophies or policies to "exchange preferences" in order to assist each other to win.

* It promotes a strong two-party system, ensuring stability in the parliamentary process.

Disadvantages of the Preferential System

* It is more complicated to administer and count.

* It can produce a higher level of informal voting.

* It promotes a two-party system to the detriment of minor parties and independents.

* Voters are forced to express a preference for candidates they may not wish to support in any way. (The use of optional preferential voting, as used in New South Wales State elections, is a solution to this problem.)


(And I know this describes the Preferential Voting system, but it's what you'll end up with if AV goes through because a rose by any other name has the same number of thorns. And can you see daylight between AV and PV?)

Nice idea Dominic but whatever system, I think it will only work if all are singing from the same sheet. Otherwise we'll end up with lots of post election wrangling about how the party who's supporters did the one vote bit, but yet still benefitted from the proportional bit of the others.

How does AV cope with low turnout. If the percentage of don't shows is larger than the the first places percentage then government should be abolished which is clearly nonsense.
I think that the real problem is that we are not comparing like for like. We vote in out local politico, of what ever flavour, and then add up all the elected politicians votes and then see who has either a clear majority or can form a workable majority (what we have today and I use the term workable lightly).
Thing is that we cannot vote of parties or people that do not stand, so say I wish to vote for Mebyon Kernow as I believe they will do the most for my country but I live in Buckinghamshire, where they are not standing, how does AV deal with this (how does FPTP deal with it as well.
Hardly representative if only 3 or 4 major parties stand in every constituency.
Just out of interest what do the 107 new 'lords' do for our representation?

AV seems to me to smack of bad losers and everyone gets a prize.

A +1 vote for the one you want, a -1 for the one you definitely don't. Tot up the +s and -s and you might end up with all candidates netting zero or near enough

Dominic, no you don't have to rank more than one candidate.

All elections should indeed have a 'NOTA' option too (Debian does, for example - we also use condorcet voting with modified schwarz dropping which has the twin properties of being very fair, and very inpenetrable).

I'm voting for AV because it really annoys me that I've had to be either a tactical or an irrelevant voter for much of my life. The (mostly) removal of tactical voting is more than enough to sell it to me as an improvement over FPTP.

I actually can't quite understand why anyone who's actually understood how it works would still prefer FPTP. I can see that a lot of people who haven't worked out exactly what the deal is would be inclined to stick with 'what I am familiar with'.

Oh, and looks as if we'll all have to democratically agree to disagree.

I've only a handful of times since I got the vote been able to vote directly for the candidate that I want; all the rest of my votes have had to be tactical, eg of the form "keep candidate X" out.

I will be glad of the opportunity to more closely reflect on the paper what I actually want to happen.

I always vote when I have the opportunity in local/national elections, even if in some cases it has to be for the 'least bad' option: I think it's a small duty in return for the opportunity to try to change the politicians regularly (like babies' nappies and for similar reasons).

Rgds

Damon

You'd upset them.

Thought I would chip in my thoughts to this discussion.

I am with those that would like to see a legal obligation to vote or at least register as abstaining or none of the above it should allow a much clearer picture of those who simply don’t care or those who feel they are not being represented. I’m also for a fully proportional representation electoral system even although I do have concerns about how much of a mess it will cause and the damage it could do because of uncertainty. However as Joiner pointed out one of the things that has delivered stable democracy is in an odd way the Monarchy because It still retains (I think) the power to step in prevent a power vacuum. The Monarchy in this country still seems to act as a beacon of light in the stormy muddy waters of politics and something to rally around in times of crisis they are very much still part of the national identity for some.

Ideally I would like to see a federation of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with most of the responsibilities residing within those nations but with a strong central federal government.