NO2AV's launch ad: 250 million reasons why the country can't afford the Alternative Vote

Comments

[T.England. Very working class.]

Remind me why we need to have AV?
We haven’t got AV at the moment but we still have the wetdems in power & getting more than their fair share of their demands meet, & yet they still want to spend quarter of a billion changing things.
Spoilt children can make some crazy demands can’t they?

[HYUFD]

Nore like 250 million reasons why the NO campaign is going to guarantee a YES vote in the referendum!

[anooon]

Accepting that AV is a rubbish idea the use of the £250m argument when it is a mere FIVE DAYS contribution down the the CLEGG EURODRATN seems a bit silly.

[Anon R]

Where is the evidence that it will cost anything like £250 million ? Who says we'll need Voting machines ? Come off it anti-AV campaigners - tell the truth.

[anon]

This is a really poor effort by the NO campaign. A large proportion of that £250m is the cost of the referendum itself, not a 'cost of AV' as that money will be spent even if people vote NO.

I'm against AV and will vote NO but this kind of message really annoys me because it's so misleading.

[Labour Loyalist]

If you scrape the barrel any more, you'll have no barrel left.

This is desperate stuff.

[Ash]

Every anti-AV arguement I've heard so far has been crap. Give me a proper reason to vote no. So far, I'm voting yes to AV.

[Denis Cooper]

As NO2AV is knowingly propagating the lie that switching to AV would cost £250 million, can we even be sure that these people are random members of the public rather than hired actors? Perhaps Matthew Elliot or somebody else from NO2AV could provide solid proof that they are NOT hired actors?

[hector]

The NHS reforms will no doubt end up costing significant amount of money as well. There is no public clamour for these reforms and they werent properly outlined in the conservative, lib dem manifesto or coallition agreement. Electoral reform will cost money as will many significant changes, however the argument that labour and conservatives should continue to play pass the parcel with the government as we cant afford anything different is ridiculous.

[Robert Renshaw]

And the arguement for keeping FPTP is? After watching the ad I'm none the wiser.

[Account Deleted]

Does the no campaign think that if they tell a big enough lie everyone will believe it? The 250m figure is nonsense.

[Victor Southern]

I have veered towards the No vote recently but this is rubbish. The sum is unquantified and includes, apparently, £82 million being the cost of the referendum itself - spent whatever the answer is. It also includes a largish sum for voter education on what the proposal is - also expenditure occurred whatever the result.

Like most of us I prefer the truth as that does enable us to make correct decisions. I feel that this claptrap will make many hostile to the No vote in reaction to the deceit.

There are some very good and cogent reasons why we should vote No to AV - but this poll is a con, reporting selected answers to a loaded question.

[robert]

The cost of AV will be even more than the £250 million quoted. The numerous preferences and the complication of the voting will require substantial investment, time and manpower.
The reason to vote NO2AV is that it is even more likely that the politicians will decide who governs Britain rather than the electorate.
These politicians will probably be the Liberal Democrats.
AV is grossly unfair to the electorate - say NO2AV.

[Ultimo Tiger]

So 250,000,000 reasons not have referendums on anything I guess.

Morons.

[Ian]

I dont see why the cost of the vote is a reason for voting one way or the other?

[michael mcgough]

In the national interest Clegg should abandon the referendum.
Speaking at the Hugo Young annual lecture he himself said nobody understood or wanted a referendum --- so why are we having one?£1m or £250m it is too much to spend on fixing elections in his party's favour.When the deficit has been substantially reduced and the national debt paid off he can do a resell job on us but now is not the time.No wonder his uninspiring pensions minister Steve Webb is having to wreck late 50s women's retirement plans --to pay for this.

[Denis Cooper]

Here's an example of an Irish parliamentary by-election held under AV:

http://electionsireland.org/counts.cfm?election=2007B&cons=85&ref

Exactly the same way of voting, which is dead simple, and exactly the same way of counting the votes, manually, as we would have here.

By my calculation for that Irish case with eight counting rounds the work of the tellers was increased by 59% compared to FPTP, so either the time needed for the count would be extended by a few hours or if necessary more tellers could be employed.

There would be no need for voting or vote counting machines, no "substantial investment, time and manpower" - all that's nothing more than a fable invented by NO2AV.

[Michael]

No2AV..

Let's just dispel this 50% myth..clambering over the line on the back of the scrag end votes of the BNP or UKiP..yeah dead democratic..

More hung parliaments..no thanks (don't trot out the "we've had more hung parliaments than Australia" line..there's no third party in Australia)

More tactical voting..no thanks..
There will be less safe seats..no there won't

A miserable little compromise designed to keep the Lib Dems in power

[Wearside Tory]

Why don't we just abolish elections if it is just about the cost. Unless the no campaign comes up with a better campaign I might just vote yes.

[Ultimo Tiger]

"there's no third party in Australia"

Yes, let's just pretend the National Party and the Green Party don't exist.

[Michael]

"Yes, let's just pretend the National Party and the Green Party don't exist"

Yep with their combined 7 seats let's!

[robert]

In Australia 60% of the electorate want to scrap AV and return to FPTP.