Stop heydon windfrm..

You really think any other government in the so called democratic world is any better?

The problems of government have virtually nothing to do with the electoral process. That's a complete non issue.

What we will get is full PR and perpetual coalitions held to ransom by extremist minorities holding the balance of popwer.

MBQ

Right, and in order to defeat it, folks have to actually vote NO. Otherwise we'll have it passed on a piddley turnout.

a. What's wrong with tactical voting. b. Why would a vote under AV be any less 'tactical'

It won't make any real difference. The same sort of people will still stand for election, whoever you vote for the government will get in. Some constituencies may be a little less 'safe', some marginal constituencies will become 'safer'

I definitely WILL be.(voting NO)

And a lot of polls suggest I wont be in a minority either.

If vince cable wants it and Chris Huhn wants it its bound to be utter crap.

What's right with tactical voting?

You vote for someone you don't want to elect in an attempt to stop some other person you don't want to elect.

Because you can vote for who you /really/ want to win (if there is anyone) without losing the chance to block those who you dislike the most.

All seats will become less safe. AV is likely to engage more voters and candidates will need 50% of the vote to win.

What we have now is where a few voters in a few marginal constituencies decide the government. The rest of the population get virtually no say. AV is not perfect but it's a lot better than what we have now.

So you'll be voting for less democracy. That's clever.

That's right. :-)

You can't vote for who is not on the electoral register or whatever its called,

It wont make people more likley to vote, since the whole system is about electing an executive twho then utterly fail to address the issues that they have the proised to affect, and fiddle with the ones they didnt., leaving the country in even more of a mess.

The reason those marginals can do that, is because the marketing (spin) departments of the two major parties are almost as good as each other.

This is a foolish specious argument. The seats are "safe" because a lot of people bothered to turn out to vote in them. That's those who you are referring to as "the rest of the population", above. And guess what - in those seats someone probably gets more than 50% of the vote. I thought that was what you wanted.

No. But you can vote for more than one candidate if you wish.

I disagree with the first part. Most people don't think like this so they are more likely to vote.

The reason it happens is because it /can/ happen under the current system.

So anything you don't agree with is foolish and specious then?

No. Seats are safe because some people turned out to vote for them and fewer people for the other candidates. Many people do not bother to vote at all, especially in a "safe" seat.

Some seats do get more than 50% of the vote and they are not all safe seats. Many safe seats get a lot less than 50% of the vote.

No, because it's cobblers.

So you agree they all voted and that they therefore had a substantial say, rather than "virtually no say", as you put it. So substantial, in fact, that the bloke won. Perhaps if those who don't vote because it's a "safe seat" were to vote, it might no longer be "safe". Their choice, seems to me.

Given that all seats are contested by the three main parties, I'd have called any eat where the winner gets more than 50% a safe seat.

Just like AV then. Because I have no wish to elect any of the self-important, self-serving busybodies who are offered.

There's no proposal to making voting compulsory.

One thing that could be done with AV is add a "no candidate" option, which might appeal to some of the posters here.

Spoiling ones ballot paper does that surely? Isn't your vote still counted as part of the turn out or at least as a number of spoiled papers but not to any candidate.

What we should certainly *not* do is make voting compulsory. Why not? Because low turnouts are another signal to the political establishment that things are not as they should be. Compulsory voting masks that important signal.

The low turnout in Euro-elections is a good example. Because it's done under the worst form of PR (thanks, Labour), you can't get rid of any of them.

Spoiled ballot papers are noted but cannot affect the outcome. However in AV with the "no candidate" option enough votes could stop /anyone/ being elected.

A signal which they utterly ignore.

... and perhaps more importantly are shown to the candidates in order that they can agree that the ballots are spoiled. So, write "You're all self serving grasping corrupt bastards" on the ballot ...