Well, Newsnight tried to get all enthusiastic about it last night, and failed. It seems that the proposed voting system that this country might get is used by very few nations. I think the most famous one would be Fiji. Hardly an endorsement - if it were a good system then larger, more leading democracies would be using it, wouldn’t they?

The problem with it is that Paxman, the “yes” panel and the “no” panel, the editorial pieces and the Ashdown/Prescott segment totally failed to explain WHY it’s a good idea. I get how the system works, what I don’t get it why it’s better, nor do I get how it will benefit the country in the long term. If an hour of TV can’t convey that, then it’s clearly not a good idea and something else should be considered.

Anyway, the problem is this. Instead of picking one candidate, you rank the candidates on the ballot paper in order of preference. The counting then checks for candidates who go over 50%. If none, the lowest count candidate gets discarded, and those second choice votes are used. Repeat until someone gets over 50% of the votes.

However, when your ballot paper has this kind of choice:
• Labour
• Lib Dems
• Conservatives
• BNP
• UKIP

I can’t see how you can go past selecting 2 (and that’s being generous) without straying heavily into “I’ll never vote for them ever” territory. Newsnight seemed to suggest that this would encourage more tactical voting as people hedged their bets with their other choices.

I think we need to change the way we choose our leaders, but I am not convinced that this is the right one.

You can just select 1 if you like.

I wonder how many people will do just that.

I had trouble picking a first (and only) choice last time. If I had to rank them in order of priority, I'd be there all day - or more likely, wouldn't even bother.
I'm of the opinion that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the system - yes, we got an unusual result last time round, but that wasn't really a failing of the voting system in general, more a failing of the parties for not coming up with genuine and transparent policies in their election manifestos. Hardly a reason for a knee jerk reaction to change the whole system - why not come up with policies that people want to vote for - or maybe that would be too hard for them?

I'm of the opinion the party system is broken anyway.

We ping-pong between Labour and Conservative governments, each time with a dwindling number of voters bothering to turn out. When one or the other lot gets in, it's business as usual. Nothing gets through the parliamentary system without being whipped by the party in power. There is no room for conscience or independence of thought - once you've gained the seat, you're just lobby fodder for the government to push stuff through.

AV seems to be just a way of placating the Lib-Dems. It's not the system they wanted, but it's the one most likely to be rejected, or at best simply maintain the status quo as most voters won't bother with second choices.

True. AV+ isn't the best option but, going by the Australian experience, it would mean that a hung Parliament will become less likely. Sticking to the current system may see us having more and more hung Parliaments, like Canada.

Personally I don't get what people find so unfathomable about AV. It's really rather easy.

It might not be the best system out there but it's one hell of a lot better than the pile of horsesh*t that is First Past the Post.


AV was voted for in committee stage by the House of Commons in August 1917, proposed again in 1923 by the Liberals and would have been introduced in 1931 had the Labour government not fallen and the Representation of the People Bill lost.

STV was recommended in January 1917, introduced in university constituencies in (I think) 1918, was tabled in Private Member's Bills in 1921 & 1924 and was proposed by the Lords in an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill in 1931.

I'm not sure nearly a century of discussion can be called a knee-jerk reaction.

+1 to the above.

The thing is all the Parties already use it. Party Leaders and Committee Chairmen have been picked this way for ages as it's deemed the fairest way and yet now some whinge about it when wanting to apply it to the General Election?

After this coalition would anyone trust the Liberals with a second preference vote?

I understand the mechanics of it. What I don’t understand is how it will affect the outcome - and the pundits don’t seem to be able to agree either.

This was used at universty to elect student officials. There was a re-open nominations box too. A none of the above option.

RoN sometimes won. there were vote Ron campaigns.

I am not so worried about voting systems as long as they has to stick with their manifesto or have a referendum on the issues that they have gone against. I think many would like to punish the Liberals for abandoning their principles at the first opportunity.

STV or simple, national PR plz.

It would be nice if there was actually an in depth review of the various systems that could be employed rather than just AV.

I probably would. My first vote would always be for the main party I vote for, so there'd be no point adding a minor party as the second vote as they'd be knocked out first.
I certainly wouldn't risk voting for a minor party first so their vote could be transferred. If everyone had that idea, the main parties would be out first and we'd have a Monster Raving Looney / Green coalition.