Prime Minister David Cameron has said a proposed change in the UK voting system would be "bad for democracy" - as he lines up against his own deputy.

An hour earlier, Nick Clegg called for the first-past-the-post system to be replaced by the Alternative Vote method, which he said was "fairer".

Both men insisted their opposing views would not wreck the coalition - whichever way the public vote.

The referendum on changing the voting system will be held on 5 May.

If the public votes for change it will mean an end to Britain's traditional "first-past-the-post" voting system, which would be replaced by the Alternative Vote (AV).

AV is not a form of proportional representation, as the Lib Dems have traditionally demanded, but a preferential system, in which voters rank their choices.
'Wrong reform'

Those who want change claim it will mean an end to wasted votes and ensure that all MPs have the backing of at least 50% of their constituents.

But opponents say it will produce freak and unrepresentative results and lead to more hung Parliaments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12498624

More at the link...

If you go by the Australians it generally results in the opposite. Sticking with first past the post may see us ending up with more hung Parliaments like Canada.

They use a simplified form to vote for the Mayor of London, for Party Leaders and Committee Chairmen. When we impose democracy on other countries it's never the first past the post system, no population would see that as fair.

It won't produce freak results, I know a monster raving looney won Mayor of London but he's a Tory.

The principal problem for change to the electoral system is that it's mainly being fronted by the Lib dems.
While I'd hope that people will look dispassionately at the pros and cons of each system and make a decision the simple truth of the matter is that people are generally furious with the Lib Dems so will more than likely vote directly against something with clear support from the Lib Dems as a protest vote (assuming they vote at all ) for all the broken promises littering the floor since the election.

Interestingly, the No campaign already know this is the case but have to be very careful about how they go about it as the majority of the No campaign are Tories so they have to be careful about vilifying their coalition partners (which would be very effective but would quite possibly bring down the government).

I can't believe that this is anything more than orchestrated bickering between the coalition parties. The opposition, the Labour party, seem to be in favour of it but si far the media focus is on the Tories vs LibDems.

The real story will be the fallout after the referendum when someone will get a real spanking.

I don't see the need to change. In 1979 and 1997 two hugely unpopular governments (One Labour and one Tory) were booted out by a landslide giving the new governments a huge mandate for change. ie The system works
There's a good chance that AV will lead to nobody having a majority and the Lib Dems always holding that balance of power, even though less people vote for them than the other main parties. If the current system didn't work, I'd be up for change, but it does.

AV would have made no difference to the elected Govt.(s) in both of those elections (1979, 1997)

AV is the way forward ...

The current system doesn't work at all.

How can a system where seat share and vote share do not correspond possibly be described as anything other than a complete shambles?

I like what Jimmy Carr said about AV on Thursday Night LIve last week. “I’d vote for it, but it wouldn’t be my first choice”. I think he’s put his finger on it. It’s not a first choice system. It’s a fudge - a compromise choice to make the LibDems feel that they are more than the buttress propping up the overwhelming Tory edifice of cuts and social deconstruction that they are putting us through.

Why is it a compromise choice? If the LibDems had got what they really wanted - Proportional Representation - they the Tories would have had a real problem trying to smack it down. However, AV is so flawed that even the proponents can’t really argue the benefits, and those opposing happily point out that AV will offer minuscule differences to election results which are so insignificant that projected results from previous general elections would not have been any different.

What will happen? The electorate will want to punish the LibDems, who will struggle to maker their case. So they will vote against it, making them weaker in the coalition and robbing them of their only tent-pole policy which they have got around the cabinet table.

We’ll lumber on with First Past The Post, safe in the knowledge that the notion of electoral reform won’t be brought up again for decades and that the whole notion was cocked up by a gun runner and his yellow apologist.

AV isn't my preference, but I'll vote for it in the hope it will lead to proper PR down the line. My vote will be for change rather than AV per se.

+1
as stated, its the way forward ...

+1

It’s a toughie as the government wants both and is orchestrating an argument. Labour wants it too, so there is no real non-governmental opposition to it, which means we won’t get a proper debate. Personally, this isn’t the choice I want, and I don’t feel that there is a proper democratic process leading up to the vote either.

Now PR is something that would be really terrible. You'd never EVER jet a majority government. You'd always have coalitions governments, dodgy dealings, back stabbing and a lack of true direction.
AV I could tolerate, but PR, never.

In your opinion.



Is that such a bad thing? The last majority government passed such an enormous amount of unnecessary legislation I don't suppose most if it will ever be repealed. Perhaps we should only change the things that are really necessary that more politicians can come to a consensus on.

And that's different to the situation we're in now using the present system how exactly?