We are having a referendum!

[Gromit]

It's going to cost £80,000,000

It is about changing the voting system. It bought Nick Clegg support for the Con/dem coalition.

It will probably be a very low turnout.

Is it worth it?

http://www.independen...d-in-may-2016495.html

[rowanwitch]

It will be interesting to see what the options are and model the potential results against previous voting patterns....

[LazyGun]

@gromit - one of the reasons that it is thought that May 5th next year will be chosen is thats because thats the date of various local and council elections, so is a method of ensuring a higher turnout than might otherwise be the case.

As to its worth - well that depends on whether or not you think the existing first past the post system is a system that is both fair and allows voters to feel that their vote counts, that it matters. For a huge number of voters, that is not the case at the moment, so some form of PR would be preferable. Given that any change to the voting system is likely to be around for a while, £80,000,000 doesnt seem that unreasonable to me.

[jno]

sorry, but I shall be washing my hair that day.

[jake-the-peg]

I've noticed that certain media pundits like to bandy about what seem to be big numbers when they disapprove of something without putting it in context.

£80 Million is less than the price of a pint for everyone in the country

Giving people a say in how they are governed is got to be worth that

[R1Geezer]

waste of time completely because the proposed change is virtually no change at all. The voting system could do with some tinkering perhaps but this "change" if implemented will make no difference except at a local seat level, even then fairly minor.

[jake-the-peg]

I thought you favoured first past the post Geezer

Now you seem to be arguing that it's not worth doing because the change isn't big enough

[bizzylizzy]

I guess the initial investment is worth it, if it ushers in a fairer system. Mind you, there are several PR systems they could choose. What I have more of a problem with is the money that will inevitably be spent garnering public opinion, forming committees and commissioning opinion polls before the public ever gets to vote on the issue. And who knows, we may see the return of the beloved Quango.

[joggerjayne]

It IS worth it.

The nation will vote NOT to change the voting system.

Then, the LibDem's will stop bl00dy bleating on and on and on about it.

It is worth it, just to shut up the whingeing LibDem's once and for all.

[jake-the-peg]

Actually bizzylizzy that's already been done - there was the Jenkins report on it all some years ago which recommended the AV+ system.

The plan now is for a vote in May on changing to simple AV

I have to say I think that they may not win - certainly if the Tories chums in the Newspaper industry get behind them and effectively rubbish it which I'm sure they will.

Still it wasn't much easier prising their claws off of Rotton borroughs or getting the vote for women

[olddutch]

"The system is not a form of proportional representation but would ensure that every MP has majority support in their constituency" - a small step towards a chance of fairer representation - but would much prefer full blown PR

" Labour backed AV at this year's election but its MPs are now divided on the issue. The formation of the Liberal-Conservative coalition has allowed Labour opponents of reform to argue that the coalition partners could combine to freeze Labour out of power under AV. Previously, it was thought the system might encourage anti-Tory tactical voting, with Labour and Liberal Democrat supporters putting the other party's candidate in second place." - difficult to judge so far as pure Labour Party interests are concerned, but still a small step towards fairer voting in my view - so yes, £80m (reluctantly) is worth it to give evolution of greater democracy a chance

[Old_Geezer]

I bit isn't binding,but just an opinion collection.

If one must have one of these awful PR type systems then AV is probably the best of a bad lot. Even then it will favour middle of the road candidates (which is probably why the Libs are interested in it) since who, having voted say right wing, is likely to choose left wing second choice ? Or vice versa. Relatively few; which means the centre picks up the redistributed votes. More hung parliaments anyone ?

[sandyRoe]

If the lib-Dems want electoral reform they must think it will be to their advantage. If that's true then the Tories and Labour would be disadvantaged. I can't see turkeys voting for Christmas.

[R1Geezer]

No jake, I prefer the current system but what I'm saying is that if you are going to have a referendum on change then propose an actual change. The changes I would make are to things like constituancy size etc. This proposed "change" is just a waste of time and money and would achieve virtually no change. I'm saying it's not worth bothering. Looking at it from a PR fans point of view they would still have the same issues with numbers of votes needed to elect one of their MP's v the others. All I'm saying is that it's a pointless excercise to have referendum, the results of which regardless will produce the status quo. Although I suppose the libdems will stop bleating about it so maybe there is a plus side.

[bazwillrun]

Why wont they give us a referendum on Europe ? its because they know what the likely result will be, same as this one, but in this case it will suit them so they will let us have it.

Our governments doesnt like us having referendums unless they are pretty sure of the outcome in advance and it is favourable to them

[jno]

you do however have things called 'elections', bazwillrun, in which you can vote for the party that offers you what you want. If there is no such party, start one. If you're always outvoted, consider whether PR might give you a better chance of having your voice listened to.

[bazwillrun]

no government will offer the public a referendum unless they are pretty sure the outcome will be the one they want, voting has nothing to do with it

[rov1200]

FPTP has given us see-saw politics where the only way of changing the system is to vote for a party where some of its policies are an anathema to your intentions. Any system that changes this would an advantage.

If these elections are to be held at the same time as the local elections then the only cost should be that of extra paper. Cameron is also trying to make the voting fairer by changing the boundaries so this could be done at the same time.

[modeller]

I have voted in alternative systems and they do not represent what the electorate want for the reason people vote tactically.
1. Those electors with strong views only vote for their choice they do not use their second vote at all.
2. Those who do use their second vote choose the middle candidate. So you get the situation where the final winner is the middle candidate who originally only a minority voted for .
As a result you could get a parliament where the strongest party is the one in which on the first vote came third.
I saw this happen in Trade Union ballots where the least popular candidate was elected.

[rov1200]

The problem is as its with a local election which only has a 30% turnout then can we assume the other 70% prefer the status quo?

We should copy Australia and make voting compulsory.