This really was very disappointing. A great chance has been lost for another generation. We now sit at the start of what is most likely to be another century of two party politics, in which choice is largely illusionary and progression from the mistakes of old is highly unlikely. The opportunity to empower ourselves as citizens has passed us by, and that is truly lamentable.
For those who were dismissive, reluctant to bother considering the options, apathetic to the outcome, I am frustrated. But I understand. There are many topics and causes in which to immerse ourselves, we choose those that resonate strongest and leave others to fall by the wayside for other folk to fight for. Neither time nor our efforts are boundless; we can not know and care about everything. I only wish that for those who decided not to engage with this, not to look into the options and implications, not to turn out and vote, that you had realised just what was at stake. The voting system is our interface with those who rule over and decide for us. This vote was arguably more important than any other single issue we currently face because it fundamentally affects the ability we have to be heard in debates over those very issues. Please tell your children that they should care more than you did.
Now for those who voted against change. It would be dishonest and dismissive to use too broader brush. Everyone had their reasons, some rather better informed and thought through than others. That said, during canvassing in my city, intelligent reasoning and informed opinion were hard to find. I compiled a list of reasons given by those who had voted, or intended to vote "No". Running through them were the unmistakable traits of tribalism, unquestioning acceptance of dogma and complete ignorance as to the question at hand and its implications. Here are a few:
"I wanted to get rid of the LibDems", "I don't like Nick Clegg", "David Cameron is a great Prime Minister", "This is what they get for tuition fees", "I'm against the cuts". Well, where to begin? This wasn't a vote on which party you like. The universality of this rational was disturbing. If you wish to get rid of the LibDems, vote for other candidates in the relevant elections. If you really like David Cameron, send him a nice card, vote for his party in the council elections, sign up to be a member of the Conservative party. These would all be reasonable ways of expressing your views. Voting "Yes" or "No" in a referendum on electoral reform is not. I can only presume that many simply found this a much easier way to decide how to vote than critically assessing the two voting systems. If you really can't by bothered, or don't have the time, to make an informed decision, you may be doing more harm than good and it might be best to join the non-voter camp.
There was one line of argument, however, that surpassed those above. "I want to get rid of the Tories." Wow. Even if you do want to squander the chance to change how powerful your vote is, how can you think that this will "get rid of the Tories"? A member of this very site justified her "no" vote by saying "I just want Labour back". Can you be serious? Why do you think the Conservative party campaigned so hard for a "No" vote? Why do you think that the vast majority of funding for the No Campaign came from Tory sources? How do you interpret that the No Campaign's literature was printed by the Conservative Party? This is so far beyond the debate between electoral systems, beyond even the inability to understand what the referendum question was. This is just plain ignorance and fuckwitery, a complete inability to put 2 + 2 together.
I don't mean to belittle all "No" voters by attributing their actions to the above reasoning. There are those who prefer FPTP for other reasons, who are enlightened to the facts, I am sure. I just didn't encounter them. For most people, the certainty they held, the mindless defence of their decision reminded me of something everyone here is experienced with and loathsome of: dogmatic religiosity. The incoherent certainty was there; "I know I'm right, I just can't quite tell you why...but here are a load of justifications I've memorised from other people". Queue figures of "£250 million" (completely made up -
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/05/campaign-figure-blunkett), claims that winners would not be winners (utterly non-nonsensical argument; all this says is that FPTP and AV can give different results), that the Australians hate it (not true, they've never been asked to vote on non-mandatory preferential voting), that we will forever have hung parliaments (not true, not necessarily even more likely:
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/get-used-to-more-coalitions-just-dont-blame-it-on-av/6336), and the BNP will get in (if that is what people want, then good, but it's not even true:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielknowles/100081547/notoav-says-bnp-voters-would-get-multiple-votes-the-bnp-says-it-doesnt-want-them/). The willingness of the more articulate "No" voters I encountered to swallow these misconceptions, exaggerations and lies indicates that rationalisation, rather than reasoning, was at play. In had come confirmation and dis-confirmation bias and, well, everyone on this forum has born witness to the consequences of these two mind tricks.
To summarise: for those who didn't care, please do so in future; it really does matter, and for those who voted along party political or personality lines, grow up; there was too much at stake for your mindless tribalism and celebrity obsessed X-Factor style worship or disdain of individual politicians. Alas, what is done is done...back to the lab for me :(.
Poll
Topic: The AV referendum