New Voting System?

[NW2013]

Voted yes to AV a couple of weeks ago thanks to the postal vote. One thing I wondered was can you opt out of ranking all candidates? For example, in my area for this local election there was only a choice of the three main parties but I'd rather not vote for at least one, maybe two of those. What then?

Apologies if this has already been covered.

[charlesr]

You can vote for as many or as few as you want.

[abigsmurf]

Wow, those posters are really sickening.

Has to be said though, the "Yes to AV" campaign has been an utter joke. No clear message, no strong voices behind it.

[Number45]

It'll be effective though, for the people it's aimed towards.

I have to say I hadn't intended to vote. Just reading up now (sorry) to see if I can be swayed that there's any point.

[Skull Commander]

Just went and voted for the Scottish election and the referendum. I can only echo what others are saying, in that both of the campaigns in the referendum have been a complete joke with the "no" campaign adopting tabloid style tactics and petty name calling and the yes campaign also slinging mud and having an air of smugness about it. Both have shown the worst of modern politics.

[MartyG]

Wow, those posters are really sickening.

Agreed, I hadn't seen those before, but if they're genuinely being used that's disgraceful. Furthermore, if people believe it ...

[EJG1980]

Sadly, they are indeed genuine posters.

[Daragon]

Nothing sickening about it IMO, if the new system does indeed cost that much then what image would you use to campaign against it with? A box of kittens?

Didn't think so....

[Dogg Thang]

Daragon is right. It was clearly a real mistake to actually put in a budget that the money will come from that child's cardiac unit and a bulletproof vest for that soldier. Unless... they didn't? But then that would make those posters a lie. And a manipulative smokescreen designed to illicit an emotional response based on an unrelated subject.

[charlesr]

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/05/campaign-figure-blunkett

The ?250m number was completely made up.

[egparadigm]

The above link proves just how low the No campaign sunk. They didn't just argue the cost wasn't worth it, they MADE UP the figure.

I think the Yes campaign probably was poor. It's difficult for me to say because I had hardly anything to do with the official campaign.

From what I've seen and the conversations I've had, the only thing they should have done was to explain the system. People want to understand the complexities and be sure they've made the right choice. This is what I've focussed upon when talking to undecideds: should an MP require >=50% support, or is the single biggest minority the best way. All the other stuff's just guff.

[Daragon]

I think the problem wasn't that the Yes campaign didn't explain the system, they did.

The problem was they explained it in far too a complex and confusing way.

[egparadigm]

Well the leaflets I've seen were all about "make your MP work harder", which although technically true in terms of winning elections, it is quite a negative message.

I think the cottoned on a bit at the end, making Dan Snow's independent video into a political broadcast on TV.

EDIT: I hope that if the vote is lost, the Electoral Reform Society will pay for research to determine the real reasons, as from an individual's POV it's all speculation.

[MartyG]

Misinformation, not liking Nick Clegg, not really understanding what AV is and not bothering to find out, general political apathy?

Bottom line is: It's a sad day for democracy in the UK when people don't vote for a fairer electorial system

[abigsmurf]

Surely there's a precedent for using outright lies as a scaremongering tactic?

That Labour counciller who was removed for saying her opposition was sympathetic to extremists.

The Yes campaign was playing catchup from day one, they should've started out guns blazing.

The main argument (although they were a bit fuzzy with their main argument) was pretty much "it makes your MPs work harder". A far more powerful example would be "FPTP makes most votes meaningless" or "FPTP elects people most of the country doesn't want". Even "FPTP is a sham designed at keeping the same people in power forever".

Fark had a pretty good parody of the arguments:

The UK will hold a referendum to change its voting system, which could lead to the destruction of democracy, turn Britain into a third world country, and babies being eaten by rabid liberal fascists

The UK will hold a referrendum to change it's voting system, which could lead to a fairer system with more competitive minor parties, a greater choice for voters, with sugar and spice and a Unicorn for every child