Talk:2011 United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum/Archive 1

2010
Are there any reliable sources that say that this is going to take place in 2010 rather than in 2011 or later? I have not seen anything personally that gave any time scale. Davewild (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ballot boxes
According to the article: "...so that the instructions to the voter displayed in ballot boxes would be changed...". How can you display instructions in ballot boxes? Should this say "on ballot papers" or "in polling booths"? 86.163.210.187 (talk) 07:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

History
Perhaps in the "history pre-election" section, we can add something about how AV was first debated by Parliament more than 100 years ago and was almost introduced on a couple of occasions (notably 1929/1930). 86.163.210.187 (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. There's a 'see also' link to Electoral reform, which covers the history of AV and STV proposals in the first half of the twentieth century. I'm in favour of bringing some of that material in here, or some sort of clearer link to it. I'll see what I can do... Bondegezou (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! It's looking good. 195.72.173.52 (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Political parties
I've done some work on what the different political parties' positions to the referendum will be: this section now covers Conservative, Labour, LibDem, Green, UKIP, DUP, UUP, SDLP, Sinn Fein and Alliance. However, it does not yet have anything on the other parties represented in Parliament (SNP, Plaid Cymru), European Parliament (BNP) or national assemblies (Progressive Unionist Party or the other national Green parties, Green Party in Northern Ireland and Scottish Green Party). Can anyone help here? Bondegezou (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

NI Green Party has voted to vote No in the referendum http://brianwilsonmla.blogspot.com/2010/10/green-party-votes-to-oppose-alternative.html 87.112.86.110 (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Alternative Vote vs alternative vote
AFAICS, AV is currently considered a proper noun on Wikipedia, so this article should be uppercasing AV (in the title, too). If this is not the consensus, then we should be consistently lowercasing AV, not just on this page. — Nightstallion 20:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

AV2011.co.uk
I've been trying to list AV2011.co.uk within the References and Other Organizations sections. AV2011 is a group of principled electoral reformers who set up because all other electoral reform groups are endorsing AV. AV2011 believes this is a huge mistake - see the site for more info.

The edits keep on getting rejected because the site on grounds that AV2011.co.uk has no web or media presence. The site and group will be REGISTERED with the ELECTORAL COMMISSION and as for web presence - enter "AV referendum" in Yahoo search and this WIKI entry is #2 and AV2011.co.uk is #3.

It is crucial that WIKI is not seen as politically biased on an issue like this - we should reflect that not all electoral reformers will support AV. Apart from the Greens in NI (the leader of whom, BTW, has signed up to AV2011's "PLAN A") this is not adequately reflected in this article.

How do we resolve?

Thanks Wikiedit9876 (talk) 09:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:EL. Gabbe (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:EL is Wikipedia's policy on what external links to include. In terms of mentioning the group in the article text, there needs to be reliable source coverage of them in, for example, a newspaper report. Bondegezou (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

OK - but I would point out that AV2011.co.uk IS listed at the end of the Wiki article on Instant Run-Off Voting - surely, this counts as reliable coverage? And - no - I did NOT add the link at the end of that article - I was surprised to see someone referred to our site from WIKI and followed the referring link. So we meet criteria to get listed when analyzing AV for Parliamentary elections (under a theoretical article) but not about the referendum in the UK, for which we were set-up to oppose. Surely, this is inconsistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiedit9876 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right, that is an inconsistency, but the inclusion in another Wikipedia article does not count as a reliable source, no. In this case, unless you can present an argument to the contrary, it seems to me that the link on the Instant Run-Off Voting article is what should be removed. Bondegezou (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No to AV and Yes to AV cross-party campaigns - sections needed
We really ought to start sections on the No to AV and Yes to AV cross-party campaigns. Eg: --Mais oui! (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Ex-ministers John Prescott, David Blunkett, John Reid and Lord Falconer will lead a campaign for a "no" vote in next year's referendum on changing to an alternative vote system. Former foreign secretary Margaret Beckett will be president of the "NO to AV" campaign. Campaigning alongside them will be Foreign Secretary William Hague and Justice Secretary Ken Clarke."
 * Agreed. And also this with its references to Jonathan Bartley etc. Bondegezou (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And now a list of Labour supporters of AV including Alan Johnson: see here. Bondegezou (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

New poll
A new poll with a different method and very different results: see Political Betting article. We need to incorporate this. Bondegezou (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed AV System
There was an error in this section. With optional preference voting, a candidate may win WITHOUT polling 50% of total votes cast. There was an interesting article by Thresher on this in The Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiedit9876 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But that just means the second choice vote (in the example you give) is an abstention - ie it is not a valid vote and so doesn't contribute to the "total votes cast". The same applies to first choice votes if a voter doesn't turn up at all but you wouldn't claim that his vote should count to total votes cast then. Bagunceiro (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

NO, this is wrong. A VALID vote is one that is counted. If someone votes '1' the vote is counted and it is therefore part of the total votes cast. If the vote is for a candidate that is then eliminated the vote is not transferred but it has still played a part (for it could have been for a candidate that otherwise would have been eliminated EARLIER had it not been for this vote, which may have affected the whole outcome of the election because AV is sensitive to the order of elimination). And it is certainly different to someone who doesn't bother to vote at all.

Let's look at this another way. If EVERYONE "plumps" (i.e. just casts a '1' vote, which is logically possible with optional preference voting) then you are saying that there are NO valid votes. This is nonsense. Can someone edit this who knows what they are talking about please? Wikiedit9876 (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that at all. Of course the first choice vote is a valid first choice vote. However, someone not providing a second choice is abstaining from making a second choice, and to count that as a valid second choice vote is absurd. Bagunceiro (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No, Bagunceiro. We're talking about TOTAL votes cast. If it is a valid vote then it contributes to the total votes cast. Clearly this point is missed by you (and probably the other editors at Wiki) and therefore will you please stop putting out misinformation. OPV AV (the kind stipualted by the Voting Bill) cannot guarantee that every winning candidate gets more than 50% of votes cast. Why on earth do you think Australia uses compulsory preference voting? It is to ensure that every MP gets 50%+ of the vote. Please amend this section or I will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiedit9876 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It has NOT been cast, so it is not part of the total - that's the point. And that is the very reason that Australia has compulsory preference voting.

Anyway, what's this section that you want me to edit? I haven't made any changes to this article and do not intend to. Bagunceiro (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Geewhiz, if a vote has been counted in the first round this logically implies that it has been correctly cast! It's therefore part of the total votes cast. How can anyone misunderstand this? You seem to be conflating % of total votes cast with % of those who expressed a total set of preferences. Compulsory preference voting means that if you have not ranked N (or N-1) candidates your entire ballot including your first preference is NOT counted. With OPV your first vote COUNTS but will exhaust if no other preference is made. Do you see the difference? Wikiedit9876 (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you are confusing the total number of voters with total number of votes. Under AV this is not the same thing, indeed "total number of votes" is not a meaningful concept under AV since you can't add apples to pears. The passage as it stands is not correct; it is certainly not the case that the aim is to achieve 50% of the votes, the aim is to eliminate split voting. The mechanism to do this is that the winner is one who achieves 50% of the total votes of a particular round and that will always occur (well, except in the extraordinarily rare occurence of a dead heat). You cannot define that in terms of total number of votes cast. It would be possible (though not very fruitful) to define it in terms of voters, and after re-reading your contributions I suspect this is what you are saying. But this is neither the aim of AV nor does it have anything to do with total number of votes.

It is never possible to guarantee that more than 50% of an electorate will support a single individual. That is human nature and has nothing at all to do with the voting system. It applies just as much to compulsory alternative voting. Bagunceiro (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi bagunceiro. You agree that AV cannot guarantee that a candidate is elected with a majority of voters. However, AV is a system of a SINGLE transferrable vote. The TOTAL number of votes must equal the total number of voters, otherwise some people would have more/less than one vote and this would be illegal. Here's just one line from one well-respected electoral science book (Voting in Democracy by Lakeman) talking about AV (p56): "To ensure that each individual MP is elected with a clear majority of VOTES in his constituency..." Note the objective and also that it is defined in terms of 'votes'. Wikiedit9876 (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Take a step back and consider what AV actually is - a means of running a series of run-off polls without the expense and logistical difficulty of actually running each one individually. Now consider the typical case in those terms. During the primary round nobody actually wins a majority so there is a second round. The votes from the primary are not counted in this run-off, it is a new and separate poll with a reduced set of canidates. And anyone who does not wish to vote for any of those remaining candidates, ie is choosing not to express a second preference, is abstaining - not casting a vote. Total number of votes throughout all rounds is meaningless, it is only the votes during a particular round that are relevant. And with AV this will always produce a clear majority. That is not the same as greater than 50% support; that is not possible if, as is quite likely, there is not 50% support for any one candidate. In AV as in run-off systems everyone has one vote per round. With optional AV (and with run-off) they can choose to exercise that right or to abstain as they wish. The only difference is that those who voted for candidates in the one round will be automatically assumed to vote for them again in subsequent rounds. Bagunceiro (talk) 10:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bagunceiro. Here's a quote from an academic report into OPV in Queensland (Dr John Wanna, University of Brisbane): "Under compulsory preferential voting, elected representatives could genuinely claim to represent the electorate, as they knew they had won the support of the absolute majority of formal voters in their seats.... [It's different with OPV]... For example, owing to the high exhaustion rate, Labor claimed the seat with a final count of 41.68 per cent of the formal vote compared to the National’s 33.93 per cent, with almost 25 per cent of voters choosing to exhaust." So where has the 41.68% figure come from? It comes from INCLUDING the exhausted votes: 41.68 + 33.93 + 24.39 = 100% (i.e. using the total votes from the PRIMARY count). According to you this is meaningless? I'm saying that OPV AV cannot ensure the winning candidate gets 50% of the total vote or 50% of ballots cast or 50% support of all voters, and we should not imply otherwise. With compulsory preferences it is different: necessarily the winner will achieve 50%+ of votes cast in the final round AND of all voters, ballots etc. Wikiedit9876 (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Might I suggest that this lengthy discussion is over a somewhat minor part in this article? It's an interesting discussion for the Alternative Vote article, but these details of AV seem unnecessary here. Bondegezou (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you've put you finger on what the main problem is. Because it is in a small paragraph giving a brief overview of the system, the statement in here is given undue weight. Leaving aside its correctness or otherwise I want to suggest that it is removed from this article and, if necessary, placed into the main AV article where it can be discussed (in both senses) properly. The paragraph reads perfectly fine with the sentence removed altogether, it doesn't need to be replaced with anything else. Bagunceiro (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Party positions
I've updated various party positions based on this BBC News article. Some party positions remain somewhat unclear, however. That article has the SNP as not having yet made up their mind, but this article has the SNP as backing a yes result, albeit while focusing their efforts on the Scottish Parliamentary result. The DUP position is also unclear. The Wikipedia article currently says the DUP are opposed, but the BBC News article does not support that. It doesn't have the DUP either for or against, while noting the DUP's opposition to reducing the number of MPs and other aspects of the bill. Bondegezou (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

New section: The campaign
I've made some major additions to the article today, mainly in a new section entitled "The campaign" that seeks to describe the campaign and the arguments being made. This kind of thing is difficult to do in a WP:NPOV manner: I've done my best, but second, third and fourth opinions very much welcomed. Bondegezou (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Bondegezou, I think the campaign section overall is good and clearly aims to be objective.

Several points:

(A) "The Yes campaign have said AV ensures that every MP is supported by at least 50% of the voters. This has been described as "maybe [...] a defensible simplification": while often true...." NO - the claim that EVERY MP is supported by at least 50% of the voters is totally unwarranted and almost certainly false because of optional preferences. However, I am delighted to see that you have drawn attention to this claim; although I note when I raised the objection it was rejected. Compare with the situation when I also raised the same issue with the BBC; they changed the wording on its AV webpages so not to imply that (optional) AV will always produce a voter majority.

(B) I also have an issue with the last line of this: 'Two further points of contention have been around further electoral reform and tactical voting. Some opponents of AV see it as a stepping stone towards, for them unwanted, proportional representation, while some supporters of proportional representation contradictorily see the referendum as a lost opportunity that will delay a move to proportional representation. Both positions have been described as "entirely speculative". '

I've read the IPSOS report and itself is ENTIRELY SPECULATIVE on this point. It fails to consider any evidence or rational argument on this point whatsoever. And there is evidence. There is evidence from other countries (and all have a cultural tradition of FPTP) to suggest that if AV is unpopular the next step is likely to back to FPTP; while no country has gone from AV to PR, although FIJI might. I suggest you take out the last sentence as it is unargued and unnecessary to your point. Further, you have singularly failed to point out in this section that few supporters of AV actually want it as the final destination in itself; that the NO campaign argument that "AV is the system that few want" is, in one sense, entirely true. AV in itself is not popular; most AV supporters just dislike FPTP more.

(C) "Supporters of a No vote claimed that AV will lead to more coalition governments, but models of recent UK elections suggest that this is not the case". You cite the IPSOS report as a reference but this clearly states "Using AV will probably increase the likelihood of hung Parliaments" (p7). You also fail to mention that the models of recent elections actually show increased majorities for Labour (1997-2005) and greater disproportionality. In fact, the greater disproportionality of 1997 under AV was a key reason the Jenkins Commission rejected AV. We at AV2011.co.uk have repeatedly pointed this out.

(D) "The Yes campaign argued that AV would be fairer, and that it would reduce the number of 'safe seats', making MPs work harder." Well, we've consistently argued this is not the case. Again, you could add "Even these points are contested by some NO supporters."

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY

(E) We've had an independent commission on electoral reform lead by Lord Jenkins that rejected the use of AV on its own - yet I cannot see anywhere where you refer to this two volume report but are quite happy to mention the views of Mebyon Kernow or if a celebrity has tweeted support (or not). Don't you think Lord Jenkins and the commission deserves at least one line, perhaps in the historical context? I would write it but then we just get into an edit war as my input on this article has been repeatedly erased or ignored.

Of course, you are free to ignore our comments, but *IF* AV2011.co.uk officially hooks-up with the NO campaign in some shape or form, you will be longer able to deny that our position is irrelevant in the media or to the debate.

Despite our criticisms and misgivings about some bias towards Yes, overall this WIKI article is good and a worthy document.

AV2011.co.uk Wikiedit9876 (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments, Wikiedit9876. Might I suggest that they slightly misunderstand how Wikipedia works. To quote WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." I suggest you take a look at WP:V further.


 * Your comments above, particularly (A) and (B), may or may not be correct, but you have not demonstrated that they are verifiable. I draw on the Ipsos MORI report as it constitutes what is considered a reliable source to use in a Wikipedia article. You need to demonstrate reliable sources pertinent to this section, not just your personal opinions, or indeed the opinions of the AV2011.co.uk organisation.


 * You do point out the Jenkins report, which indeed had many things to say about AV and is a reliable source. I haven't cited the Jenkins report in this section as I feel this section should describe how the campaign now has unfolded, and the Jenkins report clearly pre-dates the campaign around this referendum by many years. Also, the referendum offers a choice between FPTP and AV, whereas the Jenkins report compares multiple different systems. As such, it is difficult to interpret how the Jenkins report applies here. As far as I know, of the Commission authors, Jenkins himself and Baroness Gould support AV in this referendum, and Lord Alexander has passed away. I'm unaware of what position John Chilcot or David Lipsey take now.


 * I thank you for your praise! I'll have a look through the specific sentences you've pointed out above and see if they can be improved. I personally favour AV over FPTP and it is a challenge to contribute an article like this while retaining a neutral position. Bondegezou (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Bondegezou - clearly if the editors think a position is true they just find a report that supports their view and ignore counter evidence. With (A), it appears that the "while often true" phrase is your own wording and whether it is a summary of the report or not, it is obviously wrong. Logically, for the proposition "Every MP to be elected with 50%+ of the vote" to be false requires only one - just one - counter-example. The proposition is either true or false - so what does "WHILE OFTEN true" mean? One does not need verifiability as a criterion just basic logic and the evidence given by two electoral reform experts: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2010/10/25/suppose-uk-voters-accept-the-alternative-vote-in-the-may-referendum%E2%80%A6-but-then-don%E2%80%99t-use-av-to-signal-multiple-party-preferences/ The YES campaign message is terribly misleading: so, please update.

As for Jenkins, I think you slight bias for YES is showing (I do appreciate your honesty, by the way). Had Jenkins recommended AV 13 years I think we both know you WOULD mention it. Although you find it difficult to interpret (so verifiability isn't the only criterion) and suggest this factual line in the historical section: "The Labour government promised a referendum on electoral reform in its 1997 election manifesto. The Jenkins Commission (1998) was set up to look into the issue. One of its criteria was to recommend a more proportional voting system. It was critical of first-past-the-post and advocated a top-up system based on AV. However, AV on its own was rejected because under some circumstances it could substantially add to the disproportionality of first-past-the-post. The referendum never occurred."

Despite your interesting claim, Lord Jenkins doesn't have a preference. He died 8 years ago.

AV2011.co.uk Wikiedit9876 (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

One further point, you add: "Technically, AV meets the independence of clones criterion while FPTP does not". Technically, only compulsory preference AV meets this criterion; optional AV does not. AV (optional preferences) reduces to FPTP when everyone plumps and is similar to FPTP when plumping levels are high; AV (compulsory preferences) never reduces to FPTP. To meet a criterion a system must adhere to it in every possible case. Articles on AV, Bondegezou, almost always assume compulsory preferences, which as you know we are NOT introducing. Therefore, you ought to re-word this, remove the technical point, or need to cite external evidence - verifiability, being your great love at Wiki - that this criterion applies to optional preference AV.

AV2011.co.uk Wikiedit9876 (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for additional comments. Foolish of me to forget Jenkins' passing. I've been largely away from Wikipedia for a few days, but I'll work through your suggestions next week, or anyone else can before then, of course. Bondegezou (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I was confusing Lord Plant with Lord Jenkins! Anyway, as suggested, I've expanded the history section to cover the Plant and Jenkins Commissions. Bondegezou (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Jenkins was tasked to find a more proportional system (AV+ is best described as a semi-proportional system); hence I added "more proportional" instead of "proportional" in this line.

With the addition of Plant and Jenkins this document has far greater gravitas and perspective, in my view. Wikiedit9876 (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad you like the additions. I was surprised that the Plant Commission doesn't have an article of its own already. I think you're right that that line needed changing, but I've gone back to the original source and have now quoted the Commission's terms of reference directly. Bondegezou (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is this such a big deal?
it's a small change that is really needed if the parliament will represent anyone properly. In a place with three major parties, you need it (as in Australia). If your electorate voted 44% libdem, 36% conservative, 20% labour, in fptp lib-dem wins, while in av if three quaters of the labour voters give their second preference to conservative, giving them 51% and libdem 49%, so conservative wins. now substitute any party name to each ones part and same applies. It is just plain more representative of the voters' choice of candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ian Manning (talk • contribs) 07:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This talk page is for discussing sourced improvements to the article. It is not a debate forum on the general topic of voting systems, see WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TALK. Do you have any suggestions to improve the article that you would like to discuss? Gabbe (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

More graphics
Thanks to everyone for their input above on the results format. The current article is rather text heavy, so I'm wondering what people think about some tables summarising who's in support and who's against. For example, a table, with a colour-coded header, of political parties supporting a Yes vote in the first column, those neutral on the vote in the middle, and those supporting a No vote in the final column. A good idea? Anyone like to have a go at making one as I'm bad at tables! Bondegezou (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Newspaper endorsements
Have any other mainstream newspapers come out with an endorsement yet? Surely the Times and Daily Mail will back a NO vote. Pexise (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure The Times are officially NO. David (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Userbox
Template:User UK-AV ― J u P it E er (talk) 09:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry to spoil the fun but I don't think we are allowed to use non-free logos in things like that. The logos are copyright and we can only claim fair use on the articles they refer to. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Change before Vote color from pink (similar to Red, one of the vote colors) for File:UK Regions.PNG
Change before Vote color from pink (similar to Red, one of the vote colors) for File:UK Regions.PNG  Suggestion: white. 99.112.214.0 (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really see why any colour is necessary, indeed. Happy‑melon 21:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest File:United Kingdom NUTS location map.svg (A map of the UK not showing Ireland looks "wrong" too).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Past non-use
Although the multi-member university seats (Combined English, Combined Scottish, Cambridge & Oxford) used STV, it's my recollection that the single member seats (London, Wales, Queen's) and by-elections in the others used FPTP and so there's never actually been an AV election for the parliament - which is not currently clear from the context section. Unfortunately I haven't got the reference books to hand to source this to amend it. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought they used AV for by-elections. Unfortunately, I don't have a cite to hand either! Let's find one! Bondegezou (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I take that back. Combined English Universities by-election, 1946 and Combined Scottish Universities by-election, 1938 suggest Tim is right, although it's not entirely clear still. Bondegezou (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

More complex table on parties' views on best electoral system
Cloudo did a much more complicated table summarising the different party's views on the referendum and their ideal electoral system (see ). I've reverted this for three reasons: (1) in a referendum campaign, there are two choices and I feel the article needs the parties' views on that choice to be made clear, with the text then going into details; (2) there were errors in the new table (e.g. Green Party of Northern Ireland); (3) cites were lacking for many of the parties (we know their position on the referendum, but their views on their ideal electoral system are not sufficiently supported in existing citations). However, I don't wish to take away from the good work Cloudo did. If Cloudo's table can be corrected and cited, it would be valuable to include it somewhere. Bondegezou (talk) 09:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Row over possible costs
Sam Blacketer reverted my recent edit on the grounds that "it's an argument" and that it breaks WP:NPOV and constitutes WP:OR by synthesis. Given the question of further spending cuts was raised, it seemed entirely appropriate to put it in context of the national budget as revised by the June 2010 review. My experience of providing comparisons of very large numbers such as those used by the Treasury suggests these are best understood as a ratio -either a pie chart or time period. No argument or opinion of any sort was offered and the arithmetic is simple.

Given Sam's objection, I intend to simply insert 3 or 4 words referencing the review size. Has anyone any comments? JRPG (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see Sam's point. It would be better if this were an argument made by a reliable source, who could duly be cited. Bondegezou (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether the cost figures being thrown around are really accurate or not, but it occurs to me that they would be more meaningful if they could be put into context against the general costs of an election. The No2AV campaign say that the referendum alone costs £91m. I don't know how they get that figure, given it's combined with local/regional elections, but if a general election (under FPTP) costs that much, it would show how much *more* AV costs than FPTP. That strikes me as the more relevant data, if anyone has a cite-able source. (AT-Ben (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC))

Campaign positions, other organisations, media, The Economist's position
The Economist has finally decided that it would vote No. http://www.economist.com/node/18621028?story_id=18621028 See the last sentence of the final paragraph "The Economist would therefore vote No." I can't add this to the article as it's protected but it deserves inclusion alongside the other newspapers who have a stance on AV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.133.118.50 (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Already done. Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

There seems to me to be too much in this article about what the No campaign says and not enough about what the Yes campaign says. I restict myself to factual corrections on the main page, but allow myself to state here the opinion that someone from the Yes campaign should add more to the page. (Though to be frank, I have some slight doubts about whether people in the Yes campaign really want to win!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan88888 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To some degree that perhaps reflects the nature of the campaign where an aggressive No campaign has often driven the narrative. But, please, by all means, do add more on the Yes campaign's message. Bondegezou (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Religious figures
Is the fact that many religious figures support the referendum make its inclusion notable? I think either a statement that includes the reasoning of their support should be included or the section should just be removed for the sake that it takes up unnecessary space. Dustman15 (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this is notable whether those individuals or groups of individuals warrant their own section or not, they are public figures. MikeBeckett (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Figures so far
Orkney Islands: #yes2av 39.76%, #no2av 60.24% (via @michaelsavage); Isles of Scilly: 65.3% No, 34,7% Yes (via @ChrisMasonBBC

doktorb wordsdeeds 16:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Results format


Hey everyone - Know it's a bit far in advance but wanted to get some form of discussion going about how we are going to present the results.

I propose a mix of the 1975 UK EC referendum for the county results & the colouring from 2011 Welsh Devolution referendum.

Any takers? Madscotinengland (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi (talk), I like your idea about how we are going to present the result of this referendum and it is the best way to present it however we need a couple of things. Unlike 1975 the results on May 6th are going to be announced in regional counting areas which are the same areas as the European Parliament Constituencies apart from Gibraltar. What we need to create is a special UK Referendum Counting Regions Map to go onto the page and also for future UK wide referendums that will be held. Is it possible for someone to create this map?

(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC).


 * I'm pretty certain that I'd be able to make a map of the results based on this picture using the same colours as seen in the 2011 Welsh referendum article mentioned above. Delusion23 (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Could the Map be coloured that that all the regions in the counting areas ie Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are coloured pink so everyone knows the counting regions for the Referendum? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.31.121 (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Is this map better? ->>>> Delusion23 (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Added it to the article anywho. Delusion23 (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Its just about there although is it possible for Shetland and Orkney Islands to be into into the map with the rest of Scotland has it looks like they are a separate region from Scotland. Otherwise its perfect, could the image be put into the main referendum article and also the image made a separate article has it may be needed for possible future UK wide referendums.

(talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.31.121 (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The image is on wikimedia commons so it can be put in any future article if need be. It'll be easier for me simply to add a note to the picture explaining that Shetlands and Orkney are part of Scotland. Thanks for the feedback! Delusion23 (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)



BIG UPDATE

From the Electoral Commission I can fully reveal the full layout of how the votes are going to be counted. It will be done on three level set up local, regional and national setup, two of twich we already aware of.

LOCAL COUNTS

Votes will be taken from the polling stations within 440 local count areas arcoss the United Kingdom and counted locally. The local Counting Officers will declare the results of the local counts when all the votes have been counted.

REGIONAL COUNTS

Results from the local counts will be relaid to the regional counting areas and once all the results are in from the local counts the results for the regional counts will be declared.

NATIONAL RESULT

The national result for the whole United Kingdom will be announced at the Platinum Suite at the Exhibition Centre London (ExCel) by the The Chief Counting Officer (CCO), Jenny Watson.

I hope this helps you all, it will mean not only will we have a chance to look at the regional results but also look at the results of 440 local areas too so we should have detailed maps of the results within the regional areas as well as the regional results map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.31.121 (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Any news on what the 440 local count areas are? We'd have to have collapsable tables, sorted alphabetically and by region. That kind of map would be much more difficult to produce. Delusion23 (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the 440 local count areas are local authority areas at district council, City Brough and Unitary Authority level in England. In Scotland the local count areas will be the 32 councils. In Northern Ireland the 26 local government districts and in Wales the 22 unitary authority areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MOTORAL1987 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

We need a combination of these 4 maps then? Can anyone find a map similar to this but for the whole of the UK or combine them somehow? Or should we display the results on a country basis using these maps as a blank canvas? We could place 2 maps in the results section showing results on a local authority level and regional level using both blank maps. Or 5 maps, each country and authorities + regional votes. Delusion23 (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've placed a request for a map here: Graphic_Lab/Map_workshop. Hopefully it can be sorted out. Delusion23 (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Just be warned this is only a guess as I dont know if that setup makes up 440 local counting areas but the local counting areas will be very close to that level, My local counting area is for South Holland in Lincolnshire! MOTORAL1987 (talk


 * Okay, I've removed the request pending further details. Delusion23 (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

After looking up the electrol commission website which I trolled though reems of PDF files the words they use for the local counts is "local authority area", I hope that is of some help to you but sounds that my oringal thought was within reason correct but thats all I can find!

On subject of maps - I'm currently producing a full set of maps at much higher quality than the existing ones, and this ought to be complete in time for the May 5 votes. With 440 local authority counts, it is being done at the district-level in England (so South Holland not Lincolnshire). The only UK-wide map that is currently available on Commons and shows all these areas, is File:Map of the administrative geography of the United Kingdom.png, which is not suitable for this purpose.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * True, if there were a blank version it could be used to show the results. Would it be possible to ask someone who worked on this kind of map (UK election 2011) whether they'd be able to contribute? This map is of high quality though the one we'd be looking for would be a much easier colour scheme, i.e. dark green/red = >65% yes/no, light green/red >50% yes/no. Delusion23 (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've done some counting and it looks like there are 406 "districts" in the UK, as shown on the map, not 440. Can anyone explain where the extra 34 come from?  Jolly  Ω   Janner  02:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

440 voting areas
As per the Act:

"Each of the following, as it exists on the day of the referendum, is a “voting area” for the purposes of this Part—

(a)a district in England for which there is a district council;

(b)a county in England in which there are no districts with councils;

(c)a London borough;

(d)the City of London (including the Inner and Middle Temples);

(e)the Isles of Scilly;

(f)a constituency for the National Assembly for Wales;

(g)a constituency for the Scottish Parliament;

(h)Northern Ireland."

The numbers are as follows: a+b+c+d+e (the districts of England): 326; f: 40; g: 73; h:1... total (UK): 440. A-thank-you! David (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Therefore the 3 non-English maps in this section need changing... Northern Ireland is being counted as one unit, the Scottish Parliament constituencies are being used, and the Welsh Assembly constituencies are being used. David (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, all 4 need changing (England shows the unitary authorities and shire counties, not the districts). As I now know exactly what is needed, I can combine into one national map.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes... trouble is the English districts (and indeed the English unitaries/shires) are quite small — the UK map is going to have to be big enough to fit on the detail! Will the map be coloured in a shaded fashion, for instance will there be a darker red for a stronger "no" vote? David (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also on the subject of results-by-voting-area... will there be a table with all the individual voting areas' results on? Perhaps one table of results per region/nation... Northern Ireland being the exception as that will just have the one single result. David (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Below is a gallery with maps which could be used to make our desired map.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  23:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There's also another English districts map, just showing England:




 * Perhaps some inset maps will be needed for those parts of England with geographically very small districts? For example one for Greater London, north Surrey & east Berkshire. Another reason I feel there should be a table showing the individual voting areas' results. David (talk) 10:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There should be a table as well, of course. See File:2010UKElectionMap.svg as an example of how inserts are used for concentrated areas.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  13:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In terms of maps: I'm thinking the ideal list is a national map with all 440 counting areas, a national map with the regional results and a map for each of the English regions, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These could then supplement the relevant tables.
 * I won't be able to produce these for a few days. One complication is the new Scottish parliament boundaries are in effect, but haven't been propagated into OS datasets yet. This can be resolved via the ward data, but is time consuming and I don't have the capacity to do this at the moment (due to computer issues).--Nilfanion (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I've uploaded the map to the right that shows the 440 areas. There's plenty of space to add inserts, easiest way to suggest specific areas to "zoom in" on would be to use image annotation on the page. I'm not sure if the national results map would be better if it shows the voting areas or the regions - that will depend on how its used (and the results). I will shortly be uploading the relevant blank maps for each of the English regions, Scotland and Wales if maps showing the results in each would be useful.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the best thing that can be done is to use the regional map to show the national UK result with a separate page to show the breakdown of separate results from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Great work by the way to create a map of all the local counting areas. My suggestion to make the map even better is to add national and regional borders so that they can clearly be seen as really in the age of devolution this is a referendum in four countries within the United Kingdom! (MOTOAL1987) 10:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Great map - thanks for making it! The England-Wales and England-Scotland borders should definitely be thicker lines, and the English regional borders could also be slightly thicker lines (but perhaps not as thick as the national borders). As for insets - I'd go for central Scotland, NE England (Tyneside and Cleveland), NW England (S Lancashire, Merseyside & Manchester), S Wales (Cardiff & the Valleys), and London. David (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * For the sake of immediate clarity (ie when the map is thumbnailed) I don't suppose the Shetland Islands could be, well, "moved" south (like an insert) so that the map can be scaled up very slightly? Similar to the UK admin areas map, above. David (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Is it possible that as well as the UK-Wide Map of the 440 voting areas that separate maps are made of the local voting areas in England (regional borders could also be shown), Scotland and Wales. No point of doing a separate map for Northern Ireland as they are just one unit. (MOTOAL1987) 21:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles&user=Nilfanion .  Jolly  Ω   Janner  22:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * One major problem is that the file size is too big for editing! Bo98 (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we have a scheme of colour shading for the % of yes/no vote? (ie a stronger green for a stronger yes vote) Perhaps for the detailed map only - the UK-wide one with the regions/nations can be a simple red/green... but it would be nice to have the detailed local results map(s) in full shaded glory! David (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * See my proposed key to the right as a colour scheme. I forgot to include this, but any results outside of those boundaries (22.5 - 77.5) will be shaded the top or bottom colour. This is just an estimate so far. As the results come in, we need to shorten or lengthen the boundaries. Either way, I still think green should be 50% and over and red for under 50%.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  14:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The way the polls are looking we'll only need a key with varying shades of red... Still be interesting to see the results in map format though! Delusion23 (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah that scheme looks good. I agree that 50%+ should be (the very slightest) green and the tier below 50% red. David (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I still hold out hope that some parts of Wales and Scotland might validate the user of a green scale.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  20:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Northern Ireland could well be green too. David (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Results page(s)
If we're to list the results in evey district, we need to make a seperate page to list them, as there are 440 of them! I feel there are two ways of doing this. We could have one page per region (see my sandbox as example) with a table of results for every distrct or one large page which is divided into headings for each region and a table for each region (essentialy an amalgamation of regional pages into one larger page). Thoughts?  Jolly  Ω   Janner  18:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is one page, a separate article linked to the main AV referendum article, with headings for NI, Scotland, Wales and each English region. Each heading would then contain a table showing that nation's/region's constituencies/districts and the Yes/No/turnout data for each constituency/district (as well as the result for that region/nation - the only duplication between the main AV referendum article and the detailed results article). Further, the uber map showing the 440 voting areas could be broken up, with a smaller/clearer map for each region/nation, as well as a combined map for use on the main AV referendum article. David (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This sounds like the best way forward to me. I would also suggest having the uber map in the top right of the results article. We have maps for each region/nation, which can be put in the top right of each section too. The tables are fairly narrow, so there is room for it. Proposed title: Results of the United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011?  Jolly  Ω   Janner  19:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Result or results? There's one UK result but many local results... I'm not sure.
 * On the matter of when/how the results are to be given, the section further down this talk page is useful ("Results - extra info"). David (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would definitely go for "results" if we're listing 440 results.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  09:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have created the results page at Results of the United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011. It requires a lot of work before being ready on Friday.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  16:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I've added quite a few lists of districts and I've done Wales and Northern Ireland. Only the South East and Scotland need doing now and a section for the national results and regional results whoever wants to do them. Delusion23 (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, done and pretty much ready for Friday! :) Delusion23 (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I really hate to criticise when it is clear how much work has gone in, but I think the top map looks quite silly with every area of the country coloured the same due to the huge margin of victory of the "no" vote (which, in fairness, is a problem the editors couldn't have foreseen). Maybe it would be better to have a shading-type map, where different shades refer to different perecntages won by the "yes" and "no" votes (although that might just be a "miserable little compromise"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.96.22 (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Fully agree. The map adds nothing as it stands. In fact it' s slightly misleading as the key suggests that if you look hard enough you'll find some green. I'm still looking! Martinevans123 (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There are a few green areas - the regional maps at Results of the United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011 show that detail (and some strength of support), if we swap the regional map to the counting areas there will be a few green spots. The problem is the caption of Template:Infobox Referendum only includes "yes" or "no", it doesn't allow for a more detailed scheme.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I had a look over there and the green spots certainly stand out, although I'm confused about what the pink areas are. This map could be replaced with the statement "all regions voted no". I guess many people, myself included, were expecting more of a "General Election"-type of result, where such a regional map might have been useful? But am not convinced as to the relevance of these regions, whatever the result might had been. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The key is noted on the file pages - pink is where No won, but not by much, probably should be on the article captions too (but may be revised if the more detailed version suggested by Jolly Janner is adopted).--Nilfanion (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Nilfanion, I have added a detailed key under the image. The new template is Template:Infobox Referendum with detailed key. --Bo98 (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Results - extra info
I saw this post ((http://www.vote-2007.co.uk/index.php?topic=5968.msg242212#msg242212 ))  and thought of this article and discussions about the results

doktorb wordsdeeds 15:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And some from the electoral Commission itself - http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/referendum_results.aspx?lang=en-gb

doktorb wordsdeeds 18:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Cheers for the links. David (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Great article! Congratulations to all contributors. I do have one concern with the use of Primaries in the USA as an example of alternate voting systems. The reason I support an alternative system (single-transferable vote), is largely because of the primaries and the dominance of the two-party system in the USA. You must be a member of the party to vote for that party's representative. It is not an "election" open to all. It was too major of an edit to just start cutting, so I thought I'd elicit some responses here. Envoypv (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * open primary elections are a separate issue, and within the control of each party. And I believe there are some examples of this in the US. Rd232 talk 08:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Turnout
I'm wondering if a map / table showing the turnout would be helpful? Might actually show something unlike the result itself...--Nilfanion (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * File:UK AV referendum turnout key.svg - proposed key. I would normally use green or red for chloropleth maps, but they're already used in the other map and might be confused. Thoughts?  Jolly  Ω   Janner  00:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Analysis
we need an analysis section to deal with parties like MK supporting it. and you can see where it was strongest (England) and weakest (Scotland), the latter being the Gaelic nation with the least number of anglo migrants vis-a-vis Cornwall and Wales. not sure about the latter 2 as to which is a bigger indigenous population.Lihaas (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support for AV was higher in London (39%) than Scotland (36%), Wales (35%) or Cornwall (30%) - Cornwall looks pretty comparable to the Devon districts to me. MK's support (with a cite) probably should be mentioned along with the other minor paties, but saying its a Celtic yes and a English no is dubious.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

After Thursday...
Been thinking about this page and related ones. On the one hand, the YES! To Fairer Votes and NOtoAV articles seem to me unhelpful forks. They say next to nothing that isn't in this page, so I was wondering about suggesting a merger.

However, on the other hand, this article is getting rather long. After Thursday, it will be longer still with all the results and some sort of 'Aftermath' section would also seem appropriate. So would it be sensible to divide it up somehow. Maybe a timeline article, or one specifically on the campaign...? What do people think? Bondegezou (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It needs a massive clear-out that's for sure. David (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A "clear-out" implies you think material needs to be removed...? I think the article has turned out well and the material is all worth keeping. I just think it might need re-organising/tidying up. I also feel the campaign section is patchy: it covers some bits well, and not others. Bondegezou (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There's two (main) points I see: as for the length, it will get even longer with the aftermath, so I suggest splitting off the campaign into a separate article. (And do some clean-up at that, it seems to mix scholar debate on the subject and "actual" campaign right now). The other is creating a "uberarticle" covering the referendum as well as the regional and local elections, as they don't stand separated but influence one another (I'm sure I can find at least 10 sources for that even now), and also there will be analysis that won't fit to a particular election or the referendum, but will look at the "election day" in general. Completefailure (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest the election and referendum campaign (combined) article and then the results article split would be a logical one, as those wanting context and details can look at the campaign and those just wanting the stats and aftermath have what they might want to access. MikeBeckett (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Previous days with multiple elections have been left as separate articles (e.g. Scottish Parliament and locals last time on the same day). So I don't see why we should change that pattern now. However, there should be clear links to the relevant articles for the local and regional elections and discussion of how they influenced each other. Bondegezou (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Lower House?
Is it right to describe the Commons as the lower house? After the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, the Commons is in absolutely no way subordinate to the Lords, as the title "lower house" applies. — Fly by Night  (  talk  )  23:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are obviously not from the UK. While it's not the official name, the term is widely used for historic reasons, the House of the Lords being the Upper House. That is also not a strictly British thing; upper house is also the name of many second and often less powerful chambers in other countries. And by the way the official name of the Lower House in the UK is House of COMMONS, like the "common" people! If that doesn't sound subordinate... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.35.40.136 (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In Australia and most countries with a Westminster system the house which determines the government is the lower house.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ian Manning (talk • contribs) 04:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See also our article, Lower house.  Rami  R  06:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Australia is able to control immigration because of its alternative vote system
...I think this does need to be mentioned in the article, because much of the debate in Britain is dominated by the completely fabricated and mythical idea that Australians are unhappy with their system and wish to change it. Most Australians recognise that their tough border controls (i.e. tough when compared to the European Union or U.S.) are only possible because their A.V. system forces politicians to enact the majority desire for such controls. They would also credit A.V. to some extent for their much cleaner streets, beaches etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silent Key (talk • contribs) 07:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weed need a reliable source for what you're saying.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  09:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No one here wishes to abolish it, but our immigration controls are nothing to do with it, we keep it because we have 4 parties in Parliament and most green voters prefer labor over liberal and national voters prefer liberal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ian Manning (talk • contribs) 04:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

There's since been an opinion poll in Australia which had the results FPTP 44%, optional preference AV (i.e. the version the UK had on offer) 26%, compulsory preference AV (the system Australia uses federally) 22%, Don't Know 7%. However there's no significant party supporting FPTP and even limited political support for switching to optional. I think all talk of whether Australians want FPTP or not is messy because it seems to be a subject that just isn't discussed much at all and so few people have probably thought about it that much. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Date controversy
Amazed that there is no mention of the fact that there was controversy over the date from Scotland and Wales, as people there thought it would overshadow their elections. (They were at least partly right).--MacRusgail (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is already mentioned in the article, although perhaps could be expanded upon. Bondegezou (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Turnout
The figures for turnout in the results section and in the box at the top of the page are different. Could the correct one be clarified, and the other one changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.231.64 (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Far-right/far-left
I note the recent dispute as to whether the BNP and NF should be described as far-right or far-left. I've reinstated the far-right description for the reason I've explained in the edit summary; it maintains consistency with how we describe the parties in their articles. I would suggest that if anyone thinks both should be described as far-left, then priority should be to update those about the two parties. However, considering the FAQ note at Talk:British National Party, it seems this has been debated previously. In that case, it would probably be unwise to change either article without discussing this on respective the talk pages but it doesn't seem appropriate to adopt "far-left" here unless we decided to do the same in the BNP and NF articles. It would seem pretty odd for us to say either is "far-left" whilst linking to their articles which say "far-right". Adambro (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Far right
We've had a series of edits in the past, mostly by single-issue editors using misleading edit summaries, who have tried to remove the description of the BNP as "far right" from the sub-section on AV and the BNP. Given what it says in the British National Party article, I take it as the settled consensus of Wikipedia that the BNP is far-right. I feel that the description is important here as it provides context for the reader -- who may not be familiar with British politics or the BNP -- and helps connect the opening sentence with the following Baroness Warsi quote. Bondegezou (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

One person, one vote
This is the first time I have ever made a post on a Wikipedia talk page. I find this article to be biased. In the section entitled "one person, one vote," the author cites the positions of the Yes campaign as fact and seems to imply the No campaign's arguments were merely slander. While it is true that votes under AV only count once per round, votes for unpopular candidates are continuously reallocated. Many in the No campaign voiced concern that this practise was unfair to those who voted for more popular candidates because their votes would not be reallocated. Ultimately, I can see why the Yes campaign and the No campaign felt the way they did about the slogan "one person, one vote." Nevertheless, I believe objectivity has been lost in this section of the article. PGH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.10.107 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the sentiment above. The No campaign's views are reported as slander and the Yes campaign's rebuttals are reported as fact.  I'll shorten it to make it more neutral. JASpencer (talk) 10:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've shortened this to address the problems. If lengthening these could people please make sure that there is proper weight given to both sides. JASpencer (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Prediction about No win
Liberal Democrat, Mark Littlewood, wrote a 10 point article in August 2010 as to why he felt the YES campaign would lose the vote. Why YES would lose(Coachtripfan (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC))