AV By Leandro Eusebio, San Shalli, Cameron Partridge

Why? The Liberal Democrats argued for proportional representation, preferably single transferable vote, and the Conservatives argued for the retention of FPTP. Both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats proposed reducing the number of MPs, while the Conservative Party argued for more equal sized constituencies. The Lib-dems agreed to the Conservative coalition if they were allowed to call a referendum on AV voting because they preferred a proportional voting system They also had a desire to restore trust in Parliament in the wake of the 2009 expenses scandal.

Campaigns, who vs who?

media The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Mirror, and The Financial Times supported the change to AV. The Sun, the Daily Mail, The Times, the Daily Express and the Daily Telegraph opposed AV. The Economist supported a No vote, but does want to see reform of the current electoral system. The socialist daily The Morning Star urged a No vote on the basis that AV would be no more fair than FPTP; the paper argued for the Single Transferable Vote instead.

2011

Review by us The results clearly show that the majority of people who turned out to vote, voted no, with 67.9% voting no. However, that being said, the turnout was only 42.2%, which is just under 43%. Further more, 113,292 of votes were in valid. Due to this low turnout, the results are slightly undemocratic as not everyone’s views were viewed. A lot of apathy.

Thank YOU for watching