Ahhhhhhhh, that ok then.
My polling station is at the end of my road.

I would prefer a more proportional system but this is a step in the right direction. I doubt that the BNP will benefit as many will not even consider a BNP vote at all, or put them at their last choice.

That's been the daft thing about the 'no' campaign. Saying the BNP will benefit and yet then saying why should their votes count 5 or 6 times more than someone elses because they'll be knocked out in the first round...

That's just contradictory and b0ll0cks. If it was so good for the BNP I'm sure they'd be voting 'yes'.

Pretty much a smokescreen and not a good one at that. I mean seriously, how many voters from the main 3 parties will even rank the BNP? It's not Australia, we don't have to rank every candidate, we can vote just for one if we like.

But Australia has mandatory voting and you have to rank all the candidates. So while the BNP would get ranked it would be low and so many others extra votes would wipe out the benefits for them. It will benefit moderate parties.

I have hardly taken any notice whatsoever, but the part that gets me is that we vote once for our favourite, second, third- am I right so far?

In the party leader elections, the lowest place candidate gets voted out and then the votes are cast for the remainder- yes?

So, are we, the people, expected to go and vote a second and third time? or is it a case of the person with the most points wins- even if everybody voted for them as second choice. A bit like an F1 World Champion who never won a race, but came second in every one.

I guess it's time I went and read something somewhere.

EDIT



EDIT

Still none the wiser

Aye, that's what I said...


No, just the one vote.

Pretty straight forward, you can rank as many of the selections in order of preference, or just 1 if you like.

Somebody gets 50% in the count of number 1 prefered choice wins. Yay! Simple and how it should be.

If nobody gets 50% then the candidate with the lowest score drops out. Peoples 2nd ranked choices are then counted and added to the original count. The one with the highest score (above 50%) wins. That process goes on until someone breaks 50% of the vote.

Pretty straight forward really. It's used in many places in the UK already, for picking party chairmen and so on.

There's been a lot of misinformation trying to complicate the matter and guess what would have happened in previous elections. There's no way of knowing in reality.

Personally I think its a complete coc!up

If it had been full PR may well ahve voted yes - but this typical political compromise - I will be voting NO

Yes and does the Labour party realise that it needs computers to count the votes for its leadership? /s

This is the leaflet I got. It convinced me to vote yes. http://imgur.com/a/hgmbQ

I've voted.

I will probably put the Liberals as my least preference until they have got rid of Clegg.

I just had my first leaflet about it through the door... from the Yes campaign. I'll be voting yes and had decided to do so before most of the campaign had kicked off.

I have to thoroughly agree with Mr. Brooker that the No campaigns charge that people are too think to understand AV and that's a reason to vote against it is epically insulting to anyone with half a brain.

My polling station is at the bottom of my street so I'll be voting on the day. At the last election I was third or fourth in the queue at 7 am when it opened. Vote early, vote often, that's what I say

So how many identities do you have?

Just to clarify, it’s the second choice of the people whose votes were discarded that are re-counted.

Indeed, sorry, I should have specified although I thought that was obvious.