AV does not do what its backers say it does; it does not do what they want done.
As the independent Electoral Commission pointed out in its booklet ‘Local elections and referendum’, “an election can be won under the ‘alternative vote’ system with less than half the total votes cast.” (Page 8).
So AV does not do this any better than FPTP.
Some people seem to think a vote for AV is a vote against the government, because it is a vote against David Cameron and the Tories. But a vote for FPTP is also a vote against the government, because it is a vote against Nick Clegg and the LibDems. That's one of the disadvantages (for us) and advantages (for the politicians) of coalition government - it speaks with two voices! Under AV, one of these voices will always be a LibDem voice.

The LibDems are for the status quo that has given us a slump, vast taxpayers' bailouts of greedy banksters, three wars at once (against Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya), huge public spending cuts, planned destruction of the NHS, £9K tuition fees, etc, etc. The change that AV would bring pales into insignificance compared to the disasters that the ConDem government is bringing.

Menzies Campbell, the former leader of the Lib Dems, recognises that AV could be the issue that breaks the coalition. Which vote would be the more likely to break the government? A vote for AV or a vote for FPTP? The LibDems are the weakest link in the coalition; the Tories are the larger party and more disciplined - so we should aim to hit the LibDems by voting No to AV.

Voting No will destabilise this destructive Coalition government. When we reject AV, the LibDems will see that they have gained absolutely nothing from selling themselves to the Conservatives. They will be split. Some LibDems will not want to prolong the agony of being the loathed government’s human shield, saying that the sooner they leave the Coalition, the less will be their electoral disaster. Others will cling to the government even more tightly, saying that the longer they stay in the Coalition, the better the chance that an economic revival will revive their chances of avoiding electoral disaster. The LibDems will disintegrate and so will the Coalition.

No to AV!

My prediction -

Low turnout ~60%
No vote wins

We have never had Democracy, so I see no reason that people should lament over a no vote, it's not like party politics will ever change anything substantially.

We know the nasties (calm down dear) don't want AV out of self interest and Libdems are a busted flush and irrelevant.

But most interesting is the open split amongst Labour MPs who are realising they will no longer be able to rely on the 35% Bigot vote to carry them.

The AV vote has all the halmarks of a classic Labour mess -- the Elite have backed the no campaign because they thought tactically it would be the most vote winning position at the referendum.

I wonder what the Elite's next move will be (not that I have heared)? Perhaps they will shortly make a public statement about letting go of the whip for MPs to try to save face.

Pitty Labour elite policy always has to be about corting popularity rather than true Labour values and national interest - they have the wrong kind of Balls.

Erm what's with the huge NO to AV ads running on this site?
I thought NS came out in support of AV... /confused.

Of course the 'No' campaign is ahead!

Its Tory backers have spent a *fortune* on sending out leaflets full of anti-AV Lies to Cthulu-alone knows how many households.

And let's not forget the sterling efforts of Messrs Osborne and Cameron in propagating the said Lies on TV, on radio, in the pages of the right-wing press etc.

WillP your party-political mindset is exactly what has stagnated modern politics. It's not about tactical voting, it's not about which party would benefit. It's certainly not about stabalising or destabalising the coalition, it's a far longer term view than that. It's about the general concensus that politicians need to be held more accountable for their actions, that there are too many "safe" seats in the coutry, and there is far too much tactical voting and far to many votes just in order to keep tories/labour/the other guy out.

Under A.V. politicaians of all stripe will have to offer us their actual plans and viewpoints, instead of just rubbishing the opposition. It will add an element of competition which encourages creativity and positivity in politics, instead of carrer time-servers and naysayers.

We can't institute a political system that requires a greater than 50% support. Until people trust politicaians it will always be an us vs not us mentality which does nothing for our society, and everything to further entrench the political elite.

Please try to understand that it doesn't matter whether you'r Tory, Labour, LibDem or Monster Raving Looney, whatever your political stripe AV is good for democracy, good for politics, good for society. Try and take the long view and see where blinkered, short term support of the status quo will lead. Take the overview and you will see that, while A.V. might not be perfect, it is a massive improvement. If it doesn't work we can always go back. If we vote NO we are in for another generation of Labour vs Tory political spin and mediocrity with no real alternative and I, along with millions of others around the country, have completely lost intrest. This problem will not be corrected by the politicians who are directly gaining from the current system. We need to take this opportunity to improve things for ourselves for decades to come.

For crying out loud, Yes to A.V.

Not sure how accurate the polling is going to be for Greens or BNP. If you have 1% support in the UK, and your sample size is 4,000, then you'd have a sample Green/BNP size of 40 people. Is it fair to draw averages for all Green or BNP party supporters from a sample of c. 40 people?

NO to AV.

Voting for AV likens to a women who is going through a crisis and, rather than confronting the problem head-on, goes out and spends £3000 on her credit card. When she gets home, the problem is still there; but she is another £3000 in debt to the same system she hates.

Expensive. Inefficient. Unnecessary.

As a BNP supporter, I am surprised that more BNP voters aren't opposed to AV. Granted FPTP is positively prehistoric, a 'democratic' disgrace and should be junked immediately but AV is no alternative to replace it with as this website shows: www.av2011.co.uk.

I hope the Yes campaign loses not least because one of their main arguments has been that AV is the worst electoral system for the BNP. Being electoral reformers, they should hold the moral high ground against Tory and Labour dinasaurs and ordinarily they would have. Electoral systems should be campaigned for and against purely on how well they represent the people's will and NOT on how they advantage or disadvantage ANY party.

Victoria-UK your comment is complete rubbish. it makes no sense and has no relevance to the topic

AV is Instant Run Off voting. Two round run off is one of the most popular systems in the world, and AV is just a condensed version of that, so the idea that AV is a system no one uses is a bit of a misnoma. FPTP is a legacy of the Commonwealth, and is specifically designed to maintain the status quo with a 2 party system, thus woefully inadequate to proper democracies. Its not a coincidence that FPTP is used by many brutal regimes (like Zimbabwe to name but one).

ActionFitz: The answer is: Money talks.

We don't have real democracy in this country, because money dominates. Money looks like it is buying victory for the NO side.

A tragic and pathetic outcome, if it is what happens. Putting off real democracy even longer.

As an expat who cannot vote and increasingly views UK opinion with a mixture of despair and amusement I am at a loss to understand how any normal person could actively choose NO.
In particular the polls in this article show 26% of LibDems intend to vote NO: is that some sort of turkeys for Xmas thing?

Dorian - I'll be surprised if the turnout is above 45%. It'll be low, well low, low forties, no doubt. Put your money on that.

Petey McPeterson is quite wrong.
He claims that under FPTP, "there are too many "safe" seats in the coutry, and there is far too much tactical voting."
But AV does not improve matters.
AV would make no difference in nearly 300 safe seats where the sitting MP has 50% of the vote, or is close to it. And AV will actually create new safe seats where some voters’ second preferences consistently protect one candidate (e.g., third place Conservative voters supporting a Lib Dem).
So-called safe seats aren’t necessarily that safe anyway. Michael Portillo famously lost his seat (hurray!) despite holding 58% of the vote in Enfield Southgate, and Lembit Opik was booted out of Montgomeryshire in May (hurray!), despite holding 52% of the vote.
AV wouldn’t eliminate tactical voting, it would reinvent it. Under AV, the challenge comes in working out the order in which candidates are eliminated, and ordering your preferences accordingly. For example, in a three way seat where both Labour and the Liberal Democrats were in danger of coming last, a Conservative might be tempted to give their first preference to Labour, for fear a Labour elimination would mean a hefty vote transfer to the Lib Dems. As Dr. Roger Mortimore from Ipsos MORI puts it, “under AV there is a real incentive for tactical voting.”

======== http://ta.gg/51m ===========

======== http://ta.gg/51m ===========

======== http://ta.gg/51m ===========

======== http://ta.gg/51m ===========

======== http://ta.gg/51m ===========

======== http://ta.gg/51m ===========

Here, in Ceredigion, Wales. I have not had a single leaflet from the No campaign, and the only leaflet I had from left came in along with a Fib Dem leaflet for the Welsh general election (which, made me less likely to back the Yes vote). It was a massive mistake to hold the AV campaign at the same time as the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish general elections, it will only benefit the No campaign and, at least here, hasn't had much discussion, due to the more important elections.