Why would anyone vote yes to AV?

I don't like FPP is a particularly great system but at least we get a decisive government.

Tom isn't being an idiot (except maybe around ukip) people these days only vote for labour, conservatives or maybe lib dems because they think they're the only ones who have a shot even if they don't really want to vote for them because they feel that a vote would be wasted, I heard people say in the general election that a vote for lib dems is a vote for labour (ha ha), meaning the parties so small few would vote for them, under AV that scarmongering won't mean anything

And for the bnp to get in it would require at least half of the area to like them, no chance and what the hell would 250 million be spent on? There's no fancy machines.

One person, one vote? Since when have most people had one vote? I grew up in a Tory stronghold, what was the point in me voting? My vote did not count towards anything.

Secondly, in other places I have lived I have had basically a choice between two parties, it is either this party or someone you don't like, so not much of a choice really. AV will give people the chance to vote for THEIR party first, and then the party they would rather have second. Much more democratic.

In 2010 in Plymouth, the two MPs, Tory and Labour got the same votes, they cut cards to decide who would win, Labour won by getting a higher card than the Tories, is that the fairest system?? I don't think so. AV is not either, i like the German system, but AV is fairer than FPTP.

China, the world's most populous country does not have one person one vote. In fact many countries don't. In the US the presidency has different rules, and many people in many states make no difference to the election of a president whatsoever, there are a few states. And the US political system is quite corrupt, only two parties get a say and they scratch each other's backs.

German has a one person one vote, this is called Proportional Representation. First past the post is nothing like it. In Germany if you and 5% of voters vote for a party, then you get in, no matter how well you do in a constituency. If you do well in one small area of the country and win a constituency, you also get a seat.

There are only three countries that use AV, that is a lie. There are only three that use it for their national parliament. AV is used in the Irish presidential election, it is used at various levels in places like Canada, New Zealand. But best of all, a kind of AV is used by the TORY PARTY to elect its leader, Cameron came second in the first vote, David Davis came first yet Cameron won the AV vote. The same with labour, Ed was behind his brother the whole way, but won on the last vote. So it is good enough for Cameron to get elected, but it is not good enough for the Tory party nationally. Hmm! Hypocrisy?

As for only three countries use it, perhaps we should convert to a dictatorship or a system with no voting, there are many, many countries that have this. 1/6 of the world's population live in China and it serves them well. So your logic suggests this.

But besides, it is a pathetic argument to say others don't use it. How many countries had women voters when we introduced it? Like one or two, does that mean we should not have done because it was not popular? Are we just sheep who do what we are told by the politicians. In the US the political system will not chance because it is not in the interests of the republicans or democrats. In the UK it is not in the interests of Labour or the Tories. Surely it is better that WE tell politicians what we want, and not them tell us what we want.

The person with the most votes. Who is that. If you have 10 people running in an election, 10,000 voters. One person get 1,001 votes, 8 get 1,000 and one gets 999, is it fair in any way that the guy with 1,001, who was not supported by 8,999 people wins? How is that fair.

Under AV people can choose how many numbers they put. So if they put greens second, UKIP first, then only these count. That means I give them my support, but i give UKIP more support than the greens, but i give everyone else no support.

How many small parties do not get their support because people won't vote for them, even though they like their politics? Democracy is not all or nothing, or it should not be, it should be my opinion directing the government and parliament. AV does this much better than FPTP.

The BNP do not get a better chance of winning. They came third in their best result, but if people want to vote for smaller parties, is that not better?

£250 million to have democracy? Is it not worth it? And how much would it cost to do nothing. £225 million? The figures are not to prove a fact, they are to force their will on people, making them think it is better.

The system is better than FPTP.

Edit: Dave Jackson, if you want to start insulting people, then go somewhere else, you asked a question, i answered. How many people in the UK have the ability to change the result at the election? The answer is not many, only those in marginal seats do. PR is one man one vote, FPTP is not, your vote may be worth more or less depending on where you are voting. Also there is no point in voting for many parties in places because they have no chance of getting in. That is the reality, you want to believe some nonsense about FPTP being fair, go ahead, but Plymouth was not fair. Lib Dems and Labour got 52% of the vote, the country voted more liberal, yet the tories are running things, fair? You can have 51% of the seats but only 35% of the votes, fair? I don't think so!

Well, David Cameron was elected using it. If the Conservatives had used First Past the Post, then David Davies would be the leader of the Conservative Party.

The system is used by many political parties for leadership elections to ensure that any leader who is chosen has the backing of 50% of the party.

Many would vote for a different party if AV was being used. Look at how many voted for UKIP in the European elections with PR (2,498,226 votes) and how that vote dropped in the general elections despite a bigger turnout to 919,546 votes!

I think if it is good enough for members of the Conservative party to elect David Cameron to be Conservative party leader, it is good enough for me to vote for my MP.

Unless you think that members of the Conservative Party should be allowed to use a system that most of the rest of us are to be prevented from using that is.