The referendum has finally been confirmed for 5 May after a battle in Parliament finally ended tonight, a day before the deadline (it could've been set much earlier had the Coalition not insisted on bundling it up with their attempt to fix the electoral map in the Tories' favour).

 

For anyone confused about what the referendum is about, this is from the BBC News Q&A:

 

What will the proposed referendum be about?

 

It will ask the public whether they want to replace the existing first-past-the-post system for electing MPs to Westminster with a method known as the Alternative Vote.

 

What is the current voting system?

 

For Westminster elections, it's first-past-the-post. The candidate who gets the most votes in their constituency is elected as the MP. If one party gets an overall majority in Parliament - more MPs than all the other parties put together - they form the government. If no party gets an overall majority it is called a hung parliament. In this situation, as happened after May's election, two or more parties would be expected to work together to form a government.

 

How is Alternative Vote different?

 

The Alternative Vote - widely referred to as AV - system sees voters rank candidates in order of preference. Anyone getting more than 50% of voters' first preferences in a constituency immediately gets elected as MP. If no-one gets 50% on first preferences, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their second choices allocated to the remaining candidates. If one candidate then has more than 50% of these votes they are elected. If not, the remaining candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their second preferences (or third preferences if they were the second choice of someone who voted for the first candidate to be eliminated) reallocated. This process continues until one candidate has 50% or more of the vote in that round.

 

Is the Alternative Vote system proportional representation?

 

No. Parties could still form a government with less than 50% of first choice votes. Campaigners such as the Electoral Reform Society want a proportional system where the number of seats a party wins is more closely aligned with the number of votes they get. For many years, the Lib Dems have supported the fully proportional Single Transferable Vote system.

 

What are each political party's positions on AV?

 

The Lib Dems are generally in favour of changing to AV, saying it is a "first step" to proportional representation. The Tories are generally against AV, and David Cameron is due to give a speech in favour of keeping first-past-the-post on Friday. Labour seem split down the middle: Ed Miliband is in favour of it, as are other key Labour figures such as Alan Johnson and Lord Mandelson; but others have said they are against it, including Lord Prescott and Margaret Beckett.

 

Q&A in full here

 

 

The result of the referendum seems unpredictable: a ComRes poll for NewsNight tonight had 41% of people saying they'd vote "Yes", and 41% saying they'd vote "No", with 18% either saying "don't know" or undecided. Various YouGov polls have shown "No" with a big lead, but a poll at the weekend put "Yes" ahead by 10 points - so it's hard to say with any certainty what the result will be.

ESTIMATED GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS UNDER AV (with their actual results, from first-past-the-post, in brackets)

 

2010

 

Conservatives 281 seats estimated under AV (307 seats in real result) -26

Labour 262 seats (258 seats) +4

Liberal Democrats 79 seats (57) +22

 

 

2005

 

Conservatives 171 seats estimated under AV (198 seats in real result) -27

Labour 377 (356) +21

Liberal Democrats 68 62 +6

 

 

2001

 

Conservatives 140 (166) -26

Labour 423 (413) +10

Liberal Democrats 68 (52) +16

 

 

1997

 

Conservatives 70 (165) -95

Labour 445 (419) +26

Liberal Democrats 115 (46) +69

 

*I'm really not sure if this can be right, because the Tory and Lib Dem seat estimates look WAY too weird...

 

 

1992

 

Conservatives 328 (336) -8

Labour 268 (271) -3

Liberal Democrats 31 (19) +11

 

 

1987

 

Conservatives 381 (376) +5

Labour 202 (229) -27

SDP/Liberal Alliance 44 (22) +22

 

 

1983

 

Conservatives 391 397 -6

Labour 190 (209) -19

SDP/Liberal Alliance 48 (23) +25

I'm not sure whether the full figures for 1997 are right but it is certainly true that the Labour majority would probably have been even greater under AV than under FPTP. However, that election was so exceptional that I still plan to vote Yes.

 

In general, the polls which have asked the actual question which will appear on the ballot paper have shown a lead for the Yes vote while others have shown a small No majority.

 

The main themes of the No campaign are a gross distortion of the truth. I'll post more on that in the next day or so.

I'm genuinely undecided. I'd vote yes if it was something properly proportional, but the fact AV is something which is just going to tweak the margins makes me wonder if it's worth it, when voting No could bring about the end of the Coalition immediately (by making the Lib Dems so pissed off that they withdraw) before they have a chance to wreak the real damage on the country with their plans to destroy the NHS. Plus the idea that Lib Dems and Tories would tactically vote for eachother (made easier under AV), to lock Labour out and keep this right-wing government in power next time, is shocking; we already saw it happening to an extent in the Oldham by-election.

 

That said, it probably is true that AV would benefit Labour and the centre-left generally more over the long-term, because hard-left-wingers are more likely to desert Labour in protest (even though those types of people aren't going to be going back to the Lib Dems, anytime soon, there's still a chance that they'd go to the Greens or Socialists in protest at a Labour government being too "centrist") than hard-right-wingers are likely to desert the Tories. And the "No" campaign has made an awful start, chatting a load of BigSociety about how changing to AV would cost us £200m or something.

 

I'll make my mind up nearer the time - but if I were director of the "Yes" campaign, my rule #1 would be to keep Nick Clegg as far away as possible, if I wanted any chance of success.

I agree that Nick Clegg should not have a major role in the campaign. I'm no great fan of AV and would prefer the Single Transferrable Vote. However, I will vote for AV partly because it will get people used to preferential voting.

 

As for the idea that Lib Dems and Tories will give each other their second preference votes, I can only speak for myself and I can safely say "No chance". There is no way the Tories will get my second preference vote, or any vote for that matter.

Thanks for the reminder. I'll need to get my postal ballot ready so I can vote in this.

 

How will the results for this be decided? Is it by how many votes overall, or by how many people in each constituency vote for it?

 

As it stands, I would probably vote against it as I believe it could lead to minority powers such as UKIP and the BNP sneaking in through the back door, but I'm willing to change my mind if I come across a more compelling argument.

I'm pretty sure the result will just be based on which gets the highest share of the vote nationally.

 

And I have to say, even as someone who's far from persuaded for voting "Yes", AV would actually make BNP getting seats LESS likely rather than more. The BNP are such a "Marmite" party, that most people would either make them their first preference, or their last preference (or not give them a preference at all). For instance, under the current system, it's vaguely possible that, in somewhere like Barking, the BNP might get 30% of the vote, which could be enough to put them in first place and give them an MP - whereas under AV, outside of that 30% of first preferences that the BNP would get, they'd be unlikely to pick up many second/third/etc preferences from other voters, meaning they'd find it hard to hit the 50% mark they'd need to get an MP.

 

It's really techy and hard to explain... lol. Basically, the parties that are most hated and most polarising would fare worse under AV. The small parties who might do better would be more moderate parties like the Greens or possibly UKIP, who'd have a better chance at picking up second preferences from Tory/Labour voters.... although I'm not really convinced much power would be shifted from the main three parties at all under AV.

ESTIMATED GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS UNDER AV (with their actual results, from first-past-the-post, in brackets)

 

2010

 

Conservatives 281 seats estimated under AV (307 seats in real result) -26

Labour 262 seats (258 seats) +4

Liberal Democrats 79 seats (57) +22

2005

 

Conservatives 171 seats estimated under AV (198 seats in real result) -27

Labour 377 (356) +21

Liberal Democrats 68 62 +6

2001

 

Conservatives 140 (166) -26

Labour 423 (413) +10

Liberal Democrats 68 (52) +16

1997

 

Conservatives 70 (165) -95

Labour 445 (419) +26

Liberal Democrats 115 (46) +69

 

*I'm really not sure if this can be right, because the Tory and Lib Dem seat estimates look WAY too weird...

1992

 

Conservatives 328 (336) -8

Labour 268 (271) -3

Liberal Democrats 31 (19) +11

1987

 

Conservatives 381 (376) +5

Labour 202 (229) -27

SDP/Liberal Alliance 44 (22) +22

1983

 

Conservatives 391 397 -6

Labour 190 (209) -19

SDP/Liberal Alliance 48 (23) +25

1997 would have seen tactical voting far more powerful under AV, as there were loads of seats where Lab/Lib were just 1% away from the Tories who won, who'd have made it over the finish line easily under AV. But I think the greatest argument to Labour voters about AV (voting concerns aside, but I've done an essay on AV which I can pop up on those tomorrow) is actually that it's pretty much impossible for the Conservatives to get a government anymore under AV. Lib Dems in future will just stick to Labour I reckon if coalition comes up.

This is bundled with the MSP elections up here, so i will be voting. I think i'm going to be voting Yes.

I'm a definite 'Yes'. A 'no' vote is not showing your opposition to the idea of the AV system but more saying your want to stick to FPTP. This is a very small step towards a system that returns representatives based on vote count.

 

Although I find myself agreeing with Danny (for a change) that a 'no' returned overall would indeed hopefully lead to the Lib Dems finally clearing out of this poisoned partnership. For me that would be the only silver lining.

 

I'd also certainly never vote Tory as a second choice, I don't think many Lib Dems would, Nick Clegg aside. Had we had AV in the last election I'd have given Labour my 2nd vote. Mainly because I agree with our current MP on a lot of things and not based on their 21st century performance...and also because I went to our local hustings and the Green candidate sounded horrendously clueless.

 

It is also true that this system will help keep the likes of the BNP and EDL out unless, God forbid, they ever do poll more than 50% of top votes in any constituency.

Another downfall of the "Yes" vote winning is that it's pretty obvious that Tory MPs will be so furious that they're going to steer the Coalition even more right-wing than it is at the moment, especially because they're going to feel Cameron wasn't "trying" and ran a half-hearted campaign... for instance, if "Yes" wins, I can almost guarantee that they'll U-turn on the one good Coalition policy (cut in prison numbers) as a minimum. It's not even impossible that they'll sack Cameron and install someone more right-wing like David Davis. And I'm yet to see any evidence that Lib Dem MPs will have the guts to stop it from happening (at the time the Coalition was set up, Chris Huhne "made it known" that he would resign if the Tories ever tried to scrap the Human Rights Act... now it's happening, he's saying f-all... shows their "red lines" mean nothing).

 

The way I see it, a "Yes" vote will mean much worse for the country for the next 4 years... and I really don't know if any long-term advantages will be enough to outweigh it.

The Lib Dems cannot choose the Tory leader and cannot stop the Tories dumping Cameron. Whether they would choose to work with someone like Davis is another matter.

 

There is no current government proposal to scrap the HRA. They are in the process of setting up as commission to look at it. The Coalition Agreement states

 

"We will establish a Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in British law, and protects and extends British liberties. We will seek to promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties."

 

If they stick with that, it shouldn't be a problem.

I have just moved to london for uni but my official home is in an entirely different constituency up north, will I be able to vote here?

I have just moved to london for uni but my official home is in an entirely different constituency up north, will I be able to vote here?

You are entitled to register in both places. If you are only registered in one place, you can still get a postal vote if you won't be there on the day.

 

Check with your parents whether you are registered there. If you are in hall, they should have registered you - as long as you've been there since October. You can also check with the Council - the sooner you do so, the better.

 

EDIT - Although you can register in two places, you can only vote in one.

The polls appear to have shown a trend towards the "No" camp in the last few weeks. With that said, turnout is going to be so unpredictable that it's really hard to say.

 

I have to say, though, that Nick Clegg's stupidty never fails to amaze me: he was having another big dig at Labour earlier, apparently not realising that it might be a smart idea to keep Labour voters onside given they'll be decisive in the referendum (virtually all Tories are opposed to AV, and virtually all Lib Dems are in favour; Labour voters are split down the middle).

TBH i'd be far more amazed if the idiot actually used his brain for the first time since the debates.

Something I hadn't thought of before... does anyone know, if AV is passed, will it start being used for by-elections immediately? Or will it only kick in at the next general election?

I'm pretty sure it won't be used until the next General Election.

Interestingly, it looks as though, if AV were to pass, it would only take effect from 2015 onwards (i.e. NOT at any general election that takes place before that). It was presumably devised as a blackmail clause to try to keep the Lib Dems in government until the end so that they could get the rewards of the new electoral system - but it looks as though that could backfire, as there's talk among Tory MPs of bringing down the Coalition and forcing an election, if "Yes" wins, before AV takes effect. Hmm...

Does it say 'from 2015' or 'from the date of the next general election'?