Why did people decide to vote NO to AV?

I voted YES, & campaigned for a YES vote.

I found that people had many reasons for saying NO, most of which *was* either misguided (like the finances argument), or could be countered, but crucially - it wasn't. If their newspaper (particularly the tabloids) decided that it was going to push for a NO vote, then they weren't going to give a balanced view of both options - just push the lies & scaremongering.

People aren't that politically aware in the uk & can be swayed by the press very easily. People came up to me thinking that AV meant "whoever comes 3rd, wins". You know & I know it's not true, but crucially - THEY didn't, and I couldn't convince them all.

There were some NO voters who had given the issue some thought. There was a BNP voter quite hostile towards the idea (I could see her face contorted with rage as she spoke to me) because she knew her party would be worse off under AV.

This wasn't just BNP voters though, many tory & labour voters knew their party would lose seats under AV.

Some of the elderly were just frightened of change.

Many saw it as a referendum on Nick Clegg.

One person was a little more shrewd. His analysis was that - the economy is doing badly, and he didn't expect things to get better any-time soon. People are already blaming the economic state of this country on the fact that we have a coalition government rather than a single-party majority. If it gets worse, he could see that being blamed on AV, and then the prospect of PR would be gone forever.

That was probably the only reason that cast any doubt in my mind, although after some thought, I disagreed with him. If you wait until everything is perfect before making changes, nothing good will ever get done.

ETA: @ Mac the Knife:

In the scenario you put forward, "C" isn't elected under either system. You are making a strong case for a move to the "borda count system", and to be honest - I'd prefer that to FPTP, but nonetheless, arguing that AV is less fair because of something that happens under both systems shows a flaw in your logic.

As for getting who you voted for, you do - up to a point. Those of us who aren't absolutely delighted with the labour/tory duopoly (and I include myself in that) have to choose between voting for the party we really like, or voting to have a say in who wins in our constituency. I live in a safe labour seat - the tories regularly come 2nd. A vote for any other party means forgoing your chance to have a say in who wins (personally I'd rather lose my chance to have a say than endorse either labour or tory). Under AV - ONLY my 5th & 6th choices would matter. I don't get a 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice.

You and I disagree on many things, I accept that - but are you really saying it's more democratic that I have no say?

" the Tories would get the blame for things they do wrong"

.... and short of selling our houses & moving to a marginal constituency en masse, there *still* wouldn't be anything we could do about it.

"ALL Libdem MP's should have VOTED against the rise in tuition fees"

I still don't understand that. The pledge came in two parts:

"To vote against any increase in tuition fees in the next parliament **AND** to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative"

(my emphasis)

Why would it be better to break the 2nd half of the pledge than the 1st?

I accept that they should have thought the pledge through better before making it - but having made that pledge, would refusing a fairer system be consistent with the pledge to "pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative"?

The new system makes it easier for people from low income backgrounds to afford to go to university. It levels the playing field and removes some of the unfair disadvantage that comes from being born into (relative) poverty.

That wasn't a coalition problem, it was a problem of naivete on the part of the LibDems.

ETA:Kit Fang:

"it means some votes are worth more than others"

Well, yes it does - but so does our current system. A vote cast in Coventry North East is not worth anywhere near as much as one cast in Colne Valley for instance. However, the gap between the most valuable vote and the least valuable would have been reduced.

"does NOT give you MPs with 50% support"

Yes it does. FPTP doesn't.

"You do not have to vote tactically"

True. If you genuinely feel that one of the front-runners is best, then you aren't wasting your vote. If not, you have to choose between voting tactically for the front-runner you dislike least (thus voting against your favourite candidate) or for the candidate you like most (and sacrifice your chance to have a say in who wins).

I would advocate voting for who you like most, even under fptp. Voting tactically for the lesser of 2 evils gives that party license to become *almost* as bad as the front-runner you hate. Still I can see why people do it - I've done it myself.

I wasn't swayed by the propaganda - I studied politics at uni and from the first time I read about it, I thought it looked like a stupid, undemocratic idea. This is why I voted against it - it means some votes are worth more than others, does NOT give you MPs with 50% support (how is winning on people's third and fourth choices their support?), and the argument that it is fairer just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Your arguments don't work - we live in a constituency based system, and so even under AV no party will have the support of 50% of the public. You do not have to vote tactically - I have always voted for who I think is best, regardless of whether or not they are likely to win.

I can pretty much guarantee anyone who votes yes has never studied politics. It is not democratic, and even less fair than the current system. Even the Liberals thought it was a waste of time.

AV was the least attractive form of moving towards more proportional representation. That's why the Conservatives would only agree to AV as an option - They knew it would not be popular. If it had been accepted, we would be stuck with it and unable to bring in something fairer/more representative of the wishes of the people. It is ludicrous that second and third choices should carry the same weight as a first choice in later rounds of vote reallocation.

I voted no because it's not what i wanted, i want a PR system and AV is far from being a PR system.

I some constituencies under AV someone would be in the lead for the first 4 rounds, only to come second in the 5th round of voting.

I think the tories just did as their party leaders told them.

I think that it was also a reaction to the coalition. The idea, right or wrong, has taken hold that A/V would lead to more coalitions. The coalition is disgusting mainly due to the disgusting, greasy, ho mo sexu al liberals. This is why, in addition, the liberals were slaughtered at the elections on the same day. Had the liberals been attractive then things may have been quite different.

i actually do not understand a understand that, different than for "technically, maximum voters are dependable to Labour and Conservatives" which i assume is with regard to the form of sheeple that could desire to vote for a lamppost in case you caught the suitable suited colored rosette on it. I assume i'm going to be voting "sure" to AV although: a million) AV ensures that applicants ought to artwork in direction of getting vast help from the voters, in comparison to first-previous-the-post the place you basically want one extra vote than the subsequent guy. i don't think of that is ideal that MPs could be elected on a 0.33 of the vote or maybe much less (Brighton Pavilion, Norwich South, top Bann). AV won't whether be certain that each and each MP gets an outright majority because it does not be needed to rank each candidate - some MPs in extremely-marginals may be elected on 40 six-40 seven% of the vote. 2) AV won't unavoidably make hung parliaments and coalitions extra consumer-friendly - in Australia they have used AV in view that 1919 and had 2 hung parliaments (1940 and 2010), on a similar time as the united kingdom has had 3 interior the comparable era (1923, 1974 and 2010) using first-previous-the-post. 3) AV will demonstrate the tiers of tactical voting - below first-previous-the-post there is not any telling whether you're extremely voting for a candidate in view which you think of they had be the suitable MP or whether you basically think of they're much less undesirable than the different guy. As for "it extremely is basically approximately impossible to believe them (the Lib Dems) back" - people have short recommendations. all people seems to have forgotten approximately Tory B Liar and his "New Liebour" bunch of closet Thatcherite conflict criminals already - the occasion that initially presented training fees and then trebled them regardless of pledging to not of their 2001 manifesto. Sound commonplace? individually i don't think of AV will make all that plenty difference, and picture we could desire to constantly be voting on a ideal proportional device like the extra member device (used for the Scottish Parliament). i think of if a occasion gets a 0.33 of the vote it is going to easily get a 0.33 of the seats, not a popular-previous-the-post lottery which favours some events over others.

What totally astonishes me is people like yourself that think over 50% of people get the person they voted for, they don't. You cannot class someones 2nd vote at the same value as someones 1st vote, it doesn't make sense. You also can't count some peoples 2nd vote and not others. I have put a simple scenario up before to try and explain this and can't for the life of me see why people don't get it, so I will try again.

100 voters vote for A, B and C

The votes are: 45 votes for A with the same amount of 2nd votes for C

35 votes for B with the same amount of 2nd votes for C

20 votes for C with the same amount of 2nd votes for B

C gets knocked out and his/her 2nd votes go to B making B the winner. BUT WHAT HAPPENED TO A's 2ND VOTES. If 2nd votes as classed as high as first votes, then by counting A's 2nd votes, C would have been the winner 65 votes to 55 votes. Even if you counted A, B and C's 1st and 2nd votes, C would have been the winner, and if you counted A, B and C's 2nd votes only C would have been the winner. My scenario disproves what people keep saying that the winner gets the backing of over 50% of voters, it doesn't.

My other reason for voting against it is that I don't think coalitions are a good thing. I'm a Labour supporter, but I would quite honestly sooner see the Tories running the country on their own. The Libdems could then vote against things they don't approve of and the Tories would get the blame for things they do wrong. In coalitions you get a party that dominates the other party, in this case the Tories dominating the Libdem's. The dominated party then looks like a clone of the dominating party and takes all the flak for betraying their core values. If a coalition partner can't vote openly on issues it feels strongly about, then they cease to be the party that voters elected. ALL Libdem MP's should have VOTED against the rise in tuition fees. NONE of them should have been allowed to get away with abstaining. The fact that the NO vote caused damage to Clegg is a bonus, but I hate Cameron just as much and he benefited from it, so theirs just as much sorrow their for me as their is joy.

Edit: Terrier, the only reason that C wasn't elected under my scenario is that they were knocked out by the lowest count of 1st round voters. If they had been left in and voters 2nd votes counted, then they would have been clear winners with the 2nd votes of both A and be giving them 80 2nd votes along with their 20 first votes. As AV stands though, B would have been elected with just 20 2nd votes and 35 1st votes. As AV is treating 2nd votes the same as 1st votes then the votes would have been 100 votes for C and 55 votes for B, so how do you come to the conclusion that it would be fair for B to be declared the winner? IT'S ABSURD.

Because #2 can be #1 with the help of #3.

It's like a second chance, but when the #1 loses #1 to #2 & #3 they don't get a second chance.

You vote for one, not two, three etc.

I looked at the way AV works and decided I did not like it. I want to vote for the person I choose. I do not want my vote to go to someone else. I want a decisive result not a drawn out result and I most certainly do not want minority loons getting in and upsetting parliament process on important decisions. One or two don't count such as the Greens.

It's not about propaganda. People just weren't persuaded by the AV case.