At 4/26/11 04:41 AM, Dogbert581 wrote:
I'm voting no, because tbh to me it seems like a waste of time restructuring the entire system. I also read somewhere on BBC news (if I can remember exactly where I'll post a link) that in Australia (the only major country to use AV) 99% of the results would have been exactly the same if First Passed the Post was used.
Predictions show that here in the UK, the result would very much alter the outcome, giving the Lib Dems more MPs (that they should have, considering they get a quarter of the vote but less than a tenth of seats). I think it'd move them up to just short of 90 seats, which is an improvement.
In the case of Australia (Aussies, feel free to correct me), I believe that the reason they wouldn't have changed is due to that they have a stronger two party system than we have here (ours is only maintained because of the system, not the voters).
One of the arguments the no group is making is that it will eliminate safe seats and thus make the MPs more accountable since they need to get 50% of the vote. There are a lot of seats in the UK where the current MP already holds over 50% of the vote thus meaning AV will have little to no effect in making the MP work for his vote.
I think little over 200 seats have over 50% of the vote (according to the No campaign anyway) which means that only 200 constituencies are truly represented by their MP. that makes around 400 seats of people who aren't being represented properly. There are many seats where MPs barely scratch a third of the vote, nevermind 50%.
On a national scale, like I mentioned with the Lib Dems, they do not receive the amount of seats that they deserve. The vast majority of their voters are unrepresented and their votes wasted. I live in a safe seat with a low turnout, mainly because people believe their votes to be wasted, which is certainly true.