Stuart Eels: "I would go further and say that after devolution the number of MPs at Westminster should be cut to 200, a good way to make cuts rather than cuts to cancer treatment!"

So, democratic principles should be driven by the transient (& ideological) imperative of financial cuts, should it?

Have you stopped for a moment to reflect on the principle of representative democracy? If so, perhaps you have come to the considered conclusion that you do indeed belong to a constituency of around 250 000 people, and that this constituency can indeed be effectively represented by 1 MP in Parliament.

Or maybe you haven't.

In fact why not do away with Parliament altogether as Cromwell did and rule by decree. At least the trains will run on time, the bins emptied and the M25 traffic actually move anticlockwise smoothly without disruption Junctions 23-16. MPs have become redundant a surplus to requirements.
Surely the ideal thing would be for the newly elected Lords to actually help out their colleagues in the Commons by sharing the caseload.

Carlos B, it depends what your idea of progressivism is. If you're a socialist then you're no better than the conservatives as you're simply swapping landed gentry for government.

I don't bother with words like progressivism as often people mistake you for someone who wants to take power away from people, rather than someone who wants to improve things.

Sam, If you read "The coalition’s boundary changes will disenfranchise millions" at http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/11/electoral-voters-...

you will see that the proposed changes don't affect Labour that much.

"Meanwhile, there is little evidence that the changes will correct the electoral bias in favour Labour. At the last election, it took 33,000 votes to elect a Labour MP, 35,000 votes to elect a Conservative MP and 119,000 votes to elect a Liberal Democrat MP. But this disproportionality is not the result of unequal constituencies.

"A recent report by the University of Plymouth concluded:

The geography of each party's support base is much more important, so changes in the redistribution procedure are unlikely to have a substantial impact and remove the significant disadvantage currently suffered by the Conservative Party.

"Professor Michael Thrasher added: "Labour's] real advantage currently stems largely from a better-distributed vote – it acquires fewer surplus and wasted votes than its rivals. It is also benefiting more than other parties from the general decline in electoral turnout, requiring fewer votes for its victories."

I'm sure that if the Tories had won outright they wouldn't be going as far with their cuts (though far enough i agree) having the dimdems with them has given them a sheen of respectability that they wouldn't have had say with a majority of 3 or 4 seats.

I dont want PR in any form or anything like it,i suspect it'll never get through anyway because in the end the general public don't give a toss about voting reform something i think the Cleggmeister and his mealy,weasily little pals will find out next may.

If this referendum fails, you can kiss a further step towards actual proportional representation goodbye for at least ten years. No one will risk their political careers bringing it up again. Even if the compromise of AV rankles, the capacity for change must e proven.

Wow, I cannot believe the reasons that people are using to vote against AV.

Even though it's not ideal, it's at least a step towards STV or AV+, whichever your preference happens to be.

If AV fails, do you really think that the referendums failure will suddenly lead to further reforms? Of course not. The politicians will simply hold the result up as a statement that "the people have spoken and want to stay with FPTP". And that's the last you'll ever see of electoral reform in your lifetime.

If you vote against AV in the hopes of holding out for "real" reform, you're playing right into the hands of the anti-reformers and will be simultaneously be voting against any possibility of any further reforms.

Take a look at what we've gone through in Canada and try to learn from our mistakes, please.

There seem to be a lot of STV or AV plus supporters here who assume that you can only vote yes or no on the referendum. Why lend your support to a referendum you know is bogus when you can spoil your ballot?

The step in the right direction argument that seems to be popular amongst reformers is rather bizarre as well. Do we really think that following a successful referendum in May Labour or the Conservatives are suddenly going to change their mind and support genuine electoral reform at the next election? Or is the next "step" reliant on the LibDems or the Greens winning a majority?

There is only one way that we can show our support for genuine electoral reform in May and that is by spoiling our ballots.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=135009553187548

Horse trading would of course be a reality in PR as it would be very unlikely that there wouldn't be a coalition.

A coalition can't exactly be held to its manifesto because it's two different parties coming together, so it could be that to get things that both parties wanted they have to get rid of things that neither had in their manifesto.

It's a great shame that people are focusing on child benefit being taken away from the rich, rather than the real suffering that is going to be inflicted on the disabled.

It just shows that the poor and weak have no representation in either left wing or right wing media, as both only cover stories that concern the wealthy.

Electoral reform was a relevant issue during the last 30 years, when a 3rd party claimed around 20%+ support.

Now that we're back to 2 party politics for the first time in a generation, it isn't.

(Definition of 2 party politics: A situation when only 2 parties enjoy double digit support. c.f. Today's You Gov poll).

Thank god. There's nothing wrong with AV but the sooner the coalition falls apart the better. Raining on the Lib Dems' electoral reform parade is a good start and should give them a nice kick in the teeth for collaborating with the Tories.

"There's nothing wrong with AV but the sooner the coalition falls apart the better."

So you'd like the referendum to fail because of your tribal loyalties? Proper PR can't come soon enough.

Surely the first-past-the-post system remains even with AV? Which, frankly, is why it's not worth supporting.

I'm all for PR, but in my opinion AV will make a true representative system less likely to be implemented as it will be seen as the final step in change rather than a first step towards PR.

Not bothered - I'm a huge proponent of electoral reform, I've sent countless emails, attended events, been on marches, bored my friends to tears, the lot. But AV is a sop to electoral reform. It is no more representative than FPTP, it will do nothing to increase diversity or to break the two-party duopoly of parliament and if the bill introducing it is bundles in constituency boundary changes then it will massively favour the Conservatives.
Whereas if it fails, hopefully the mounting dissatisfaction with Westminster politics that has so far led to parliamentary time for the issue will build and lead to genuine reform.

Given that as well as the referendum, The Coalition are culling 50 seats in the most naked Gerrymandering for over a century, all those with a "dont care" attitude, or those who believe that this will be the death knell of the LibCons are gravely mistaken. Unless we get AV through, we are likely to see at least a decade of Cameron. Do you really want that you imbeciles???
http://clemthegem.wordpress.com

I support AV as it will open up the political system. It's clear from elections fought under other systems that, say, the Greens and UKIP have significant support. At present, their supporters generally have to either support one of the big three or 'waste' their vote.

AV by itself may not be perfect but it will solve that problem: for example, a UKIP supporter can give his first preference to UKIP and his second to the Tories. The true level of UKIP support will be expressed at least in terms of votes.

Is anyone surprised that no one wants AV? It is a stupid system that we are only voting on because Clegg chucked out all his remaining principles to get a referendum on something that would only help the Lib Dem Party.

I don't want AV because I don't think we could have a proper left-wing government ever again if it were brought in. The Lib Dems would decide who was in Government and I don't see them ever consenting to a rise in taxes for bankers and business to help pay for proper welfare reform.

I will be voting against AV. I think the vast majority of Labour supporters will end up dong the same. Its not an improvement and why do anything to benefit the coalition?

Vote NO!

@Cliff

"it's at least a step towards STV or AV+"

can you provide a shred of evidence that it is a "step towards" either of them? Even the teeniest tiny bit to show that it would add momentum to real electoral reform?

Never mind about PR or AV, when are they going to reduce the number of MPs? I suggest somewhere about 400 would be enough for Parliament

You gov have just polled the Lib dems at 9%. Hilarious!

If the Lib Dems are wipped out at the next election, which I have to say is a very real possibility. PR would be pretty much academic. If we return to a two-party system then the Lib Dems will have inadvertently solved the problem for us (though perhaps not in the way they would have intended).

Perhaps we should turn our attention to the reform of main political parties to make them more responsive rather than PR to create more?