http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8505255.stm

It's obvious Gordon's doing this for all the wrong reasons, but the outcome should be much better for the UK in the long run IMO

I am not sure which version of PR is better but it is better than what we have now. I live in an area that has never voted for any other party than Conservative. Not even the Whigs got a look in.

It is a tricky one

1st Past the post
Generally a minority vote for the winner
But we tend to have stronger / stable governments
Keeps link between MP’s and their constituents

Alternate Vote
“Least worst Candidate” gets in
Compromise candidate may get in pleasing no one
Keeps link between MP’s and their constituents

PR
Minority / weak governments – just look at Italy etc
Parties have total control over the list – i.e. who gets jobs as you vote for a party
NO link between MP’s and constituents

Personally I still think 1st past the post is the best (“worst”) option
We already use PR for the EU elections and that has not “Galvanised voter turnout” as supports for the other two systems claim it would

Its also funny how only with the threat of losing does the government, who have had 12 years to try voter reform, suddenly want to change the system as it might mean they can hold on to more seat

It says UK wide but do you think it'll apply to Northern Ireland? As people over here can't vote for the main mainland parties I'm just mindful that it may not apply to us.

Mark

AV isn't ideal, but it's a start.

I've been wondering that myself, nobody I've asked so far is certain...

Wew can have one on this when ther'e an election inthe offing and they want to look populist.

But can't have one on European constitution/Lisbon Treaty and union........................

Another Labour deception/ obfuscation of the issue?

It'll just make it harder for the leading party to get a majority which will bog any government down. Stick with the current system.

Plus it's stupid systems like proportional representation that have allowed the BNP to get MEP's.

The lack of trust isn't because of the way we vote, it's because politicians are lying crooks.

But it will spell the end of "safe seats" and thus cocky politicians.

I don't know how anyone can argue against people being able to vote for a Party that actually best represents their views rather than tactically voting. The only reason the BNP get voted in is because people vote for them, perhaps if the BNP started gaining more seats then the incumbent government might actually take the population's concerns about immigration seriously.

Any improvement in representation for the people is fine by me, for a start a PR system will double the number of seats the Lib Dems have in Parliament.

I'd love to see AV come in.

But it won't - the Conservatives would lose too many seats.

I think that mandatory voting might help, though with the addition of "None of the Above" as an option. If there are insufficient votes for the candidate because many voted "None of the Above" then they do not get a resettlement grant when they leave.

Oooo

Good call

Even better, that area doesn't get representation in the House of Commons. That should shut the cynics up.

A better idea is if "none of the above" gets the highest votes, all candidates must be replaced and the ballot run again until there is a winner.

+1