Grab and change it, it's yours

[venta]

Does anyone know what the actual text which is actually going to appear on the actual ballot papers on May 5th is? A bit of googling hasn't turned up any results for me, but the pages I was finding suggest to me that I may have been going about my searching in the wrong way.

I'm kind of assuming that the ballot paper will look broadly like this:

[Poll #1729575]

Now, lots of campaigners would have you believe that this is analogous to:

[Poll #1729576]

And lots of other campaigners would have you believe it's analogous to:

[Poll #1729577]

You'll notice that the second two polls allow the results to be interpreted as pol(l)ar opposites.

So, does anyone know exactly what the question is? More to the point, has the government made any commitment at all about what they're going to do with the results, how they'll be interpreted, or whether Cameron will (in fact) go "oh, that's nice" and carry on regardless with the existing system?

Comments

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

The question is do we want AV or FPTP.

For that question the answer is a clear 'AV', but it's the wrong question and only being asked because there was no way that Clegg could get a genuinely good system past the Tories.

[venta.livejournal.com]

Yes; the problem is what's going to happen with the results? If AV wins, do we necessarily get it? (I've not seen any commitment on that).

If AV loses, are we never allowed to consider electoral reform ever again because "the country is clearly against it"?

[secondhand-rick.livejournal.com]

No, and Yes.

[vicarage.livejournal.com]

If Cameron chooses to ignore an AV yes vote, the coalition dissolves (well actually, Clegg remains to witter, but the rest of the LD MPs bugger off), and a Vote of No Confidence causes an election. Then Labour get the most seats, but not an overall majority, and go into coalition with the LDs. Many argue that a narrow AV yes with a low turnout is not a mandate for reform, but the LDs say 'tough' and make the new system their key condition.

(Of course this assumes the LDs have any MPs after the election, they may implode)

[strange-complex.livejournal.com]

The bill clearly states that the outcome of the referendum is binding, although it wouldn't apply to any election held before 2015. But politics is politics, and of course a Yes vote could be ignored if the coalition breaks up before that.

However, I think that if the referendum really does deliver a Yes, no political party would then want to be seen to be so flagrantly disregarding the will of the people as to do anything that would block its implementation. It would make the anger over tuition fees look like chicken feed.

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

no political party would then want to be seen to be so flagrantly disregarding the will of the people

That may depend on what the turnout is. A very low turnout may make it easier for a Government to disregard it for political expedience, as they could argue that it doesn't represent a mandate.

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

The law passed mandates the passing of AV; and I can't imagine any government would dare back out on the will of a referendum but I suppose it might just happen - if, say, we had an election before 2015 and the winning party ran on a platform of a different system.

If AV loses there is little hope of us seeing another electoral reform opportunity within the next twenty years or so because FPTP favours those parties likely to be in power and they will be able to point to the failure of AV as a lack of appetite for change. I'm not sure AV winning would make it much different from that (we can't tamper too often with the system) but at least we get AV in the meantime.