The debate should focus on the two voting system's merits - not apparant lies about the cost of AV and shameful baby photos.
How on earth can getting rid of the need to vote tactically by allowing people to list candidates in order can be anything other than a good thing? That way every vote counts at the final reckoning.
The No campaign seems only interested in defending vested interests not in voting fairness.

Of course I believe the publication of outright lies in election material should be against the law of the land. It is in any other form of advertising. Why should this, most important of case, be exempt?

Phil Woolas was penalised for attempting to mislead the electorate, and so should you be.

I do NOT like the photo...

I can't believe that people get paid for writing articles as poor as this. It lacks any substance and insults the people of this country. Mr Hodges should be ashamed; does he know why he is asked to put a cross in the box? On a basic level people have suffered and people have died for that opportunity and it is the duty of all commentators to ensure that the citizens of the UK are honestly informed and certainly not subjected to bullying playground drivel. If you want to be involved in commentating on public issues then for God's sake grow up.

All sounds good to me, Dan. The yes campaign don't like the £250m figure but if it's false perhaps they can explain why one of their biggest backers is a company which produces vote counting machines? As to their pious claim of "fairness," AV is not fair at all - it can lead to more disproportionate results than FPTP and, frankly, it's absurd that a BNP or Natural Law Party supporter's second third and fourth choices can be worth as much as someone else's first choice. AV is a terrible system. Keep FPTP!

Gosh, I'm one of these Aussies who have experience of the AV system, I must thank the no campaign for alerting me to the oppression I am currently living under. I'm still trying to find these 'machines' that do all the counting. The no campaign is so laughable if it weren't so tragic...

I sense backtracking ahead, Dan. Go easy.

We all know there is no coherent reason for voting no to to A.V. None at all. Anyone inclined to campaign thus has either a vested interest or no understanding whatsoever of either system.

Which are you?

Ian Kane,

People have died and suffered for the Alternative Vote?

Dan

You should DEFINITELY read this on Yes:
http://www.ohdearism.com/2011/05/03/society-yestoav/

Rosie, co-editor of OhDearism

"We have just seen the Irish General Election under the STV system. Do we really want voting system that will take most of the week, or like our friend the Irish, counted over a whole weekend!" (Reginald Fah-fah)

Yes, we do. I watched the RTE results show on the internet and was very impressed by the way STV enabled the voters (a) to send the ruling party packing, in a spectacular fashion, and (b) to decide which of each party's candidates come through to win, instead of party apparatchiks making that decision.

Do you really think taking an extra 24 hours before the full final results are known is too high a price to pay for such an inestimable improvement in the level of democracy?

Anyway your point is irrelevant because sadly STV is not what we are being offered. AV would not take much longer to count than FPTP.

Th article made me chuckle and I thought the line "All they[the electorate] see is a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom they know nothing". Was very witty.
Keep up the good No to AV work.

Of course voters don't give a monkeys. They don't give a monkeys about First Past the Post either. This is the "Tom Watson" fallacy.

It still doesn't mean the electoral system isn't vitally important.

Personally, I'm doing a US-style "write-in" for STV on my AV referendum ballot. [Facebook http://is.gd/xbUH9R ]

I see a big difference between the official NO campaign's horrible baby adverts and individual YES supporters insulting NO figures.

I was pretty disgusted by the "£250m" campaign using Soldiers and babies- to the point that I have gone from agnostic on the issue to a yes voter. If the people who want to keep the current system are willing to stoop so low, I know what side of the fence I'd rather be on.

Russ, too right. The NO campaign is just there to stop the safe seats of Tory and some Labour MPs being threatened. They have no good arguments and their claims about the costs are transparently fraudulent.

You can't include the costs of the referendum because that money is being spent regardless of the outcome. And no-one is planning to introduce vote-counting machines. It is complete rubbish, and I can't believe people like Margaret Beckett have allowed themselves to be associated with it.

Russ and Hal,

So agree with everything you both say! Under the current system you only see your MP at election time and when they are baying for more expenses in the Commons!

Dan Hodges looks like everybody else has cottoned on to the fact you should be writing for comics.

The only thing this article betrays is that the No team seem to be a bit freaked out that there are groups all round the country putting the Yes message out every day, running street stalls at the weekend etc etc. Look on Twitter. There are are hundreds of different people saying #yes2av. There are about 5 regulars saying No.

To go back to Dan's Vietnam analogy, the Yes team are on the ground and they're everywhere, the No team's top-down strategy represents the Yanks. And we know how well that worked out for them.

Luddite -

"AV would be manor from heaven for the political-extremes. The opinion poll last week shows strong and growing support for a nationalist anti-islamist, anti-immigrant right-wing party. Many Labour and Tory core supporters would give that party their second choice vote. Possibly giving that party the balance of power."

I don't think you understand how AV works. Even if you were right that many Labour and Tory core supporters would give the likes of the BNP their second preference vote, that would only help the extremists were they to achieve a greater number of first preference votes than either Labour or the Tories. It would only be in that case, when one of those parties was eliminated, that their supporters second preferences would come into play.

In fact, contrary to your belief that AV would be good for extremists, the BNP are firmly against AV. Furthermore, in Australia where AV is used all evidence suggests that it has pushed political parties toward centre and reduced the influence of extremist groups.

The only strong argument against AV is that it is too complex. While it is true it is more complicated than FPTP I think it's rather insulting to assume that the average voter couldn't understand it. If that were the case we may as well scrap elections entirely since anyone who can't get to grips with AV surely won't be able to understand the health and education policy, fiscal deficits and issues of international tax law which are all hot topics at present.

Further to this, all the claims currently going around about how the Electoral Commission took 349 words to explain AV and thus proved how horrifyingly complicated it is are rather meaningless. In actual fact this entire post is exactly the same length. Has anyone here struggled to read it? Has it left you scratching your head and dribbling? If I were to ask you what the general thrust of my post has been would you stare blankly at me before curling into a ball and rocking slowly back and forth, moaning softly? Thought not.

Daniel

I'm pleased to see that I'm not the only person to think he writes a load of rubbish.

Stuart: Don't worry, you're in good company.

Andy: We're just working that one up. We're well aware your spectacularly effective grass roots campaign has reached Tora Bora.

Dan

...should obviously be "more Howard Dean" rather than "me Howard Dead"...

Dan,

The problem with the £250 million campaign is twofold - 1) people don't trust politicians who campaign on figures, and 2) it's fundamentally bollocks.

From what I can see, it divides into a number of chunks. Firstly the cost of the referendum - which is itself a pointless claim, as the referendum would have happened anyway and even if there's a "no" vote will still cost exactly the same. In fact, "no" campaigners tried to push UP the cost of the campaign by delaying the bill's passage through the Lords, which would have meant a referendum in the autumn.

Secondly, the counting machines. As I understand it, that's actually a decision for returning officers, so while they might be used in Fife they might not in Fareham. In addition, after the fiasco of the Scottish elections in 2007, any returning officer or Government official who thinks they're a good idea needs their head seeing to.

Thirdly, the size of the constituencies and the time for the count. Let's look at Australia. There's one constituency there which - in land size - is greater than the whole of the UK. And they still manage a manual count.

Then you talk about how voters of minor parties like the BNP or UKIP will effectively get two votes - one their first choice, and one their alternative. Again, bollocks. Everybody gets a second (and third, or fourth) choice. This would apply to a Lib Dem voter living in Kirkcaldy, or a Labour voter up the road in Cupar, or a Tory in the Western Isles, to give but three examples.

I don't think AV is the best system - I prefer STV - but it's the best on offer in this referendum. The "no" campaign could, I'm sure, find much better and sound reasons for getting people to vote no - at the moment you're relying on scare tactics and misinformation which simply don't work.

No need to destroy or ignore. Most politically aware people know that the voting machines aren't on the table and that the referendum costs are sunk whatever the result. You might as well have said it will cost £5 quintillion because these theoretical machines will be made of unobtanium.....by supermodels.....on the moon.

That is the real problem for the vested interests. You can only deploy otherwise effective deceits like this against the idiots. If you are politically aware you may not love AV, but you will probably prefer it to FPTP. Those who simply dont care or those that are so stupid they believe madly costed drivel like the £250m, probably won't vote.

Kiss those safe seats goodbye, lazy elected dictators. You'll be working for us from now on.

It seems to me that #No2AV are obsessed with the campaign because they have nothing to say in favour of FPTP over AV!!

Isn't the quality of our representation rather more important than hissy fits? It would seem that for #No2AV think otherwise!

Nice to see you use the words 'up to', when stating the £250 million figure now. Negative campaigning undermines democracy. How can anybody make an informed decision when they have to sift through the endless streams of that people like you put out there. You genuinely ought to be ashamed of yourself.