AV Leaflet

[D_Hailsham]

It's just over a week to the AV YES/NO? Referendum and I am still waiting to receive the official leaflet explaining how the AV system works.

How then can I make an informed choice?

The Poll just asks if you have received the leaflet - Yes or No

 

[Bahco]

I had it last week.
Seems a good idea to me but not fussed either way really.

 

[LooPrEvil]

Received it last week. I dont see the point in the AV.

They have it in Australia, and always end up with hung parliaments.

I shall vote to stay as we are.

 

[Steve]

I shant be voting. I dont care either way. And I cant believe how much this referendum is costing.

 

[cumbriahandyman]

Is it true, that under the proposed new system Gordon Brown would still be PM?

 

[joe-90]

Received it last week. I dont see the point in the AV.

They have it in Australia, and always end up with hung parliaments.

I shall vote to stay as we are.

No they don't.

 

[adlplumbing]

if we going to changing the voteing system i would like to change it to system like the french
they first round if no party gets 50% then the top 2 canidates go through to second round and go head to head
and i would also like to directly elect the prime minster so he can not hide behind party when doing stupid thing like going into iraq

 

[conny]

Haven't even received our voting cards yet we have been on the electoral roll at this address for over 14 years and received them every other time.

 

[joinerjohn]

Is it true, that under the proposed new system Gordon Brown would still be PM?

Sadly not. Anthony Eden would still be PM and the UK would be obliged to invade the Suez Canal Zone.(as he's now dead, things would have continued in this fashion). He'd be forced to resign, only to be re-elected as PM a week later... In 1964 Harold Wilson would still be in opposition. The pound in our pocket would still be worth a pound , and history would be changed forever. The Labour Party would have been forced to question the value of AV (which the Liberals wouldn't have conceded) and Jeremy Thorpe would eventually have became Prime Minister, reduced the age of consent to 6 and the Liberals would still be in power today. The BNP would have started in the late 60's before Nick Griffin was even born and gone on to hold the balance of power (with the conservatives and Labour fighting each other over this) The BNP wouldn't side with either party and would have gone with the Liberals (albeit with fall outs within the first few weeks over immigration) New elections would have been called (with the same predictable results) costing the country even more money.
In short, this country would be even more f****d than it is now.



This is what a few beers do to you on darts night...Teenagers beware of the evils of alcohol.

 

[Donkmeister]

I think the referendum is on the wrong question. What they have asked is:

Would you like:
A) a new system of voting where the party with the most votes doesn't necessarily win
or
B) to keep the current system of voting where the party with the most votes doesn't necessarily win.

Out of the two options, maintaining the status quo makes more sense to me as it reduces the chances of a hung parliament.

Proportional Representation would be a far more interesting option, albeit likely to cause a hung parliament every time. I feel that any non-PR system makes a mockery of the whole system of suffrage. Let us not forget the shambles of 2005:

Labour won 35% of the vote but 55% of the seats
Conservatives won 32% of the vote but 31% of the seats
Lib Dems won 22% of the vote but 8% of the seats.