The referendum on whether we should change the way we elect our MPs is just 48 hours way. Yakub Qureshi reports ...
YES:
COMIC Eddie Izzard has urged voters to back the campaign to change the way MPs are elected.
Izzard, one of the celebrity faces behind the Yes campaign, visited Manchester’s People’s History Museum, which tells the story of how British democracy evolved over the last 200 years.
The funnyman said: "This is a historic opportunity to make our system fairer. So hopefully people will take the opportunity and make their vote count. I think it is a situation where people might not have found the issue fantastically interesting but I think it is really important.
"At a time where there has been such discontent over MPs, it would get rid of the idea of seat seats and make the people we elect more accountable."
With just days to go before voters go to the polls, Izzard has embarked on a tour of 18 cities to drum up support for reform.
Celebrities such as Jonathan Ross and Colin Firth have also joined the debate. But Izzard acknowledged the public are wary of celebrities who wade into politics. He said: "I would argue that people should be judged with what they do with their lives, and whether that adds up to something."
The referendum will ask whether the current first-past-the-post system, where the candidate with the largest number of votes wins, should be ditched.
Instead, reformers say MPs should be elected using the alternative vote system, where the public rank candidates by order of preference.
NO:
RIVAL politicians patched up their differences to fight against the shake-up of the voting system.
Labour MPs Tony Lloyd and Graham Stringer stood side by side with Trafford council's former Tory leader, Susan Williams, as part of a No to AV campaign.
To make their point, the politicians and their supporters boarded a double-decker ‘battle bus’ before taking a spin around Manchester city centre.
The unlikely alliance reflects how Thursday’s referendum has split the political parties, seeing unusual partnerships forged. Quizzed whether the two largest parties had the most to lose by the proposed electoral reform, Mr Lloyd said: "This is not about protecting vested interests.
"We believe the current way of voting for MPs is the fairest and delivers strong government and strong opposition."
Ms Williams, who unsuccessfully stood for a seat in Bolton during last year’s general election, said: "In my view, the first-past-the-post system we have is the fairest system in the world.
"I might have won at the election under AV, but I still feel strongly that it is not the best way of reflecting what the electorate wants."
Senior figures in different parties have thrown their weight behind the rival campaigns, with Labour’s John Reid lobbying against reform in opposition to party leader, Ed Miliband.
Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
I was going to vote NO until I saw that Graham Stringer was involved. The architect of so much of Manchester's political lunacy wants a No vote so what do I do now?
I'm spoiling my ballot paper.
This is Clegg's scheme, in exchange for supporting the Tory's tuition fee hike.
Why should I be involved in a Lib Dem scheme to try and get them more MPs, especially when he's destroyed the university system just to get his selfish vote.
Clegg can stick his referendum.
I'm just hoping that people vote for what they believe, not to "stick it to the (whichever) man".
Vote "Yes" if you want your MP to be elected by gaining majority support.
Vote "No" if you're happy with the current system where the biggest minority elects your MP
If the main parties want a "No" vote it is obviously to their advantage to retain the present system.
Think about it if you feel it is in your best interest to vote "Yes" and not the main parties.
Austrailia has been using AV for years and it works for them (they have a better democracy than us) and a better way of life.and their government actually listens to the voters and takes notice not like our democracy (or lack of it) Vote yes for AV and lets have a change that may well work better than this system that weve had for generations and is a waste of time.
What's all the fuss about voting for Aston Villa? I won't,I support United!
The AV is unfair by the fact the people whose votes result in 3rd or 4th place for their choices will be hijacked to support the second preference. In other words I would like English Democrats to win or UKIP. But by the majority of core voters, my convicted choice is hijacked to squander on pressured second voting.
David Blunkett asked us, over the weekend to "if you think we should keep the system that is simple and straightforward ", so if you agree with David Blunkett that we are stupid and need a simple sysytem, vote NO.
Why do Arbuthnot Banking Group plc (20k), The Shore Capital Group (25k) and Odey Asset Management Group Limited (20k) all think the current system is in their interest?
If you vote for AV you will get nothing but hung parliaments. Just look at Australia for example, no one party has led for a long time.
AV delivers one person, one vote. In every round of vote-counting every voter has one and only one vote that counts. The only exception is if the count has to go to more rounds than a voter has specified preferences. David Cameron's slogan for the "No" campaign "One person one vote" is therefore utter nonsense. He either doesn't understand AV himself or thinks that we're all suckers.
The "No" campaign also thinks people are not bright enough to rank candidates by preference. AV is a much more intelligent system than FPTP. In FPTP if you haven't voted for the candidate with the most votes your vote is simply ignored. In AV you still have a chance of a say. In many constituencies FPTP can be considered "ONE person, NO vote".
Vote "NO" if you want to keep a dumb antiquated system that delivers smug complacent MPs. Vote "YES" if you want your opinions to be counted and not ignored. Don't be fooled by the "No" campaign's scare tactics - we probably won't get another chance in our lifetime.
This vote is a waste of public money t is not mandatory to make your vote in the order of 1,2,3 or 4 if the candidate you want is at #3 then just vote for #3 leaving 1,2, and 4 off the ballet sheet. The only disadvantage I can see for the present system is if a leading Labour or Tory loses their seat say in London and a safe seat becomes available in Manchester then either of the parties would ship them out to the safe seat.
If first past the post is good enough for the AV vote then its good enough for me.