With less than three weeks to go until the AV referendum, we need to do everything we can to convince people to go to the polling stations and vote ‘No’ on May 5th.
I’ve been on the campaign trail the last few days, and it’s been great to meet voters from right across the political spectrum supporting our campaign.
But it’s clear that lots of people still haven’t made up their minds – so we’ve got to keep on working to get the message out there that AV is an unfair, expensive and discredited system.
This is not just about how we vote in General Elections. It’s about how politics works, how governments are formed and ultimately, how our country is run.
WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE ‘NO’ TO AV
- AV is unfair: With our current system, everyone gets one vote. But under AV, supporters of extreme parties like the BNP would be more likely to get their votes counted more times, meaning their votes are worth more than yours.
- AV is unclear: Under AV, the candidate who finishes third can be declared the winner thanks to an unclear, complicated voting process. It’s like someone coming third in a running race winning the gold medal.
- AV is unpopular: Just three countries in the world – Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Australia – use AV, compared to almost half the world’s electors who use our current system.
- AV is expensive: Calculating the results is a long, complicated process, which could cost the taxpayer millions.
JOIN THE NO TO AV GROUP TODAY
One way you can help is to join our No to AV Group today. Over a thousand people have already signed up, and they’re helping to shape our campaign, giving us vital feedback and getting exclusive previews of all ad campaigns.
It’s a great initiative and a great way to help make sure Britain votes ‘No’ on May 5th.
( 15 comments ) Tags: Australia, AV, AV referendum, BNP, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, polling stations
Comment by john edwards on April 17, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Yes we both will – lorraine white & myself will be votong NO to AV – and while you’re at it, could you please secure the loose cannon – Mr. V. Cable. Thank you.
Comment by Grace on April 18, 2011 at 12:37 am
The thing that concerns me is that I really, really don’t want proportional representation, because we’d have continual coalitions.
If we accept AV, the arguments for PR will sound less “convincing” because we will already have a “fair” system etc.
If we vote no to AV, they will try again later & will probably try to get PR next time.
That’s my worry.
Comment by vishnu on April 18, 2011 at 3:14 am
One Vote ! One Count! Good Bye to AV!
Comment by Patricia King on April 18, 2011 at 9:38 am
If it ain’t broke, why try to fix it
Comment by Arnold Whittle on April 18, 2011 at 10:44 am
I will vote ‘NO’ to AV on May the 5th you can count on me, I will not have a stupid system of electing a candidates for parliment this is utter madness to think of such a system that is only used by Australia, Fiji, and New Giunea, only a bunch of lunatics would consider such changes to the electorial system of a Western nation like Britain, this country has enough to think about and to sort out without talking about electing MP to parliment with a stupid voting system like AV.
Comment by Tom I Balmain on April 18, 2011 at 10:49 am
My wife and I will be saying no to AV. The thought of having the LIBDEMS or the BNP, or the Greens as the government of the Country would be criminal. First past the post has served us well. Do not change it.
Comment by Evan Jones on April 18, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Forget AV. I will be voting NO on May 5.
To deal with the problem of low-turn out, which is one of the arguments of the pro-lobby, why not make voting compulsory. Failure to do so to incur a fine. Australia have had this system since the 1920′s & their turn-out is always above 90 percent. Voting should be a civic duty like jury service.
Comment by Matthew Anthony Hopkins on April 19, 2011 at 6:51 am
We must vote no, or else, British politics will be destroyed forever!. Not only that, it will risk allowing the BNP, and green parties to get a look in. It will also split the vote way too much. I will vote a very firm NO
Comment by John on April 19, 2011 at 7:16 am
I feel, if AV was accepted, there would be no point in me ever voting again.
When I go to the ballot box and put my cross down for the candidate of my choice, I wish it to remain that way.
I do not want my vote to be used, in any way, other than for the candidate of my first choice.
I cannot speak for my late father and his father but I somehow feel sure they would be annoyed by the so called A.V. proposals.
Comment by Charlie Sussman on April 19, 2011 at 12:37 pm
AV is just a political buzzword for Nick Clegg, let’s keep it that way!
Comment by Quinton Hill-Lines on April 19, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Dear Sir,
I think that I understand the analysis of AV and think that I am in your camp however it is not that clear from the information in the public realm and I am a little more animated about something else. Spin or not how can you only “hint” at blocking Mr Brown from being Head of the IMF. This should be a given! Having worked in the investment banking world and in a listed property company I have reached and age and experience level where I firmly believe that there has to be a penalty for failure. I know that this is an alien concept to many of our post-crash era but when do people learn.
The man could not run a single country never mind commenting on many that do.
Kindest regards,
Quinton Hill-Lines
Comment by Derek Wilson on April 20, 2011 at 4:08 pm
The AV voting system is claimed to be fairer than our present system of who gets the most votes is the winner. As a lifetime supporter and paid up member of the Conservative Party how can it be fair to make me choose as second or third choice candidate for another Party for whom I would never vote and whose ideologies I abhor? My alternative votes will go to the candidates with the best chances of losing their deposits.and never to bolster the LibDems or New Labour. This way I shall still be voting for First Past The Post.
Comment by William B on April 22, 2011 at 10:43 am
No to AV please.
Phrases like ‘second preference’ or ‘third preference’ contain a contradiction around what it means to prefer. How can you have a ‘fourth preference’ in an election with four candidates and claim to be an English speaker? It makes no sense.
Ultimately AV is too complicated to function fairly even if it was fair. There is too much apathy in politics away from elections anyway, and so the costs and complications of AV would increase that cynicism.
One segment of the population would be in danger of boring people with arguments about why they had allocated their third ‘preference’ to one party rather than another, whilst another segment of voters would not have even voted.
So AV in reality (rather than in theory) might not be more democratic and with tactical voting it might even be less fair. It would add complication and it would be costly.
Comment by Bob Spree on April 26, 2011 at 9:35 am
Surely the only decision we have to make on 5th May is between:
“First past the Post”
or
“Worst past the Post”
Bob Spree
Shearsby
Leics
Comment by Richard Taylor on April 27, 2011 at 12:08 pm
AV is not fair! Suppose there are 3 candidates (A, B & C); 100 people turn out to vote; and the first choice votes are cast as 35 for A, 33 for B and 32 for C. Under AV, a second round is required. Now suppose that of the 32 voters that had a first choice for C, nobody specified a second choice. Under AV, candidate C is eliminated and candidate A wins.
But also suppose that all those whose first choice was for candidate A or B, put candidate C as their second choice. In terms of the total number of votes placed (first and second choice) candidate A has 35, B has 33 but C has 100 votes.
Surely if AV is going to work fairly candidate C should have won and not candidate A as the AV rules would have selected. If second choice votes are going to apply, they should apply to all candidates and not just those who were narrowly beaten in the first round.