Well the AV system is not the best system in the world, and I'd vote no. For me if one cannot have full PR then its not worth bothering with. All political parties would be included and have a voice and rightly so. Some we may not like, but they have rights as well as others so why not. The AV system favours the Labour and Conservative parties better, but excludes the smaller parties and that's not fair or democratic. They cannot have it all their way, and the most important thing is that WE should choose what system we want not politicians. All systems should be on the table and voted upon and the one with the most votes wins. I've never trusted politicians and this proves beyond doubt I was right.

For a start, it's worth noting the use of the highly pejorative term "horsetrading". Had an alternative term such as negotiations been used, I'd wager that far fewer voters would have been opposed to hung parliaments.

I cannot agree with the above statement. It's not anything to do with the difference twixt words like horsetrading or negotiations. I think the simple summisation is that people want a different voting system that has a clear winner and they don't want coalition governments. More people didn't vote for either one of the parties in Government and yet find themselves 'saddled' with them.
On the strength of the outcome we got, I would wager with you that far more, not fewer, voters are now opposed to hung parliaments than before.
Us voters are more savvy than you give us credit for, the use of pejorative language matters not.

I think there is a contradiction/"cognitive dissonance in public attitudes, which is not primarily dependent on question wording.

Broadly speaking, there is a strong majority for PR as the fairest way to elect a Parliament, but considerably more sympathy for majoritarian systems when asked about choosing a government. It is difficult to explain the conclusion that reformers can not be too sanguine about public opinion: they have broad support but it is fairly shallow because the debate has consistently had low salience for a large swathe of the electorate.

Take this example from the State of the Nation poll by the pro-refom JRRT in summer 2009:

"This country should adopt a new voting system that would give parties seats in Parliament in proportion to their share of the votes. 63% agree with that, and only 22% disagree.

The next question found that 56% agree that the electoral system produces governments which don't represent most ordinary people (25% disagree).

And the very next question, to the same 1000 people in the same poll.

"The present system of voting is the only way that the country can get strong one-party governments which can get things done.

53% agree with that and only 29% disagree".

It seems a pretty established feature that about 30% give consistently pro-PR answers, and about 20% give consistently anti-PR answers, with about a third of the electorate being sympathetic to arguments both for and against.

And whule you could again argue about the framing which leads respondents one way or the other, though of course this is also what would happen in a public debate, for example in a referendum.

An electoral system needs to elect a government, a Parliament and local representatives, and relatively few people have thought about how they wish to make trade-offs between choices in those different spheres.

Just shows how little the voters know. And we entrust them with the Govt of the country? That is the conundrum. The voters wanted a hung Parliament, they voted against all Parties; they didn't vote positively for anyone Party. The voters are going to have to get used to deals being made after the Election. The voters should actually be quite pleased with themselves, because they'll get a Govt without all the extreme policies from coalition partners, excised out. THe voters are going to get the best of both worlds. Consensus Govt has arrived.