Lots of people want proportional representation, but the campaign has been running since 1884 with no sign of success. The chances of a government elected by FPTP introducing PR for Westminster are about nil for the next 127 years. So we need to take a first step which makes it easier eventually.

I can accept that it is too complicated for Call me Dave.

@Lou: You say that you only want to vote on one candidate. The majority of people would have a second and possibly a third or more favoured candidates. By expressing preferences you can actually better block the BNP by casting your second preference vote for one of the other front-runner candidates. I suspect that under AV the number of first preference votes for smaller parties will go up, because supporting a weaker party isn't a wasted vote: your vote is transferred to your next least-worst candidate when your first choice is knocked out.
In my constituency at the last election, I voted for the LibDems having believed their leaflet that it was a two-horse race between them and the Tories (boundary changes meant no one could really say). Under AV I could have made my second preference vote for Labour and when the LibDem came third (as he did, surprise surprise), the Labour candidate may have picked up more second preference votes than the Tory.
Wouldn't the effect of AV on the BNP be similar to the French Presidential elections in 2002? Le Pen shocked everyone and went through to the second round of the election, only for Chirac to pick up a massive majority of (effectively second preference) votes in the second round from the vast majority of voters who would never vote for an extreme right-wing party. The main difference being that we don't get to find out the top two candidates in advance of placing our second and further preference votes.

I am still open-minded about AV but an argument I find appealing is the idea that it will reinvigorate British democracy. At a time when people are generally very cynical about politics, knowing our MPs have had to achieve over 50% of support in their constituencies and making them engage more to achieve that 50% may contribute to a renewed faith in politics as an agent of change. I am sceptical that it will dramatically reduce tactical voting. I can think of many situations where I would still feel under pressure to vote tactically. Also, I still have reservations about a more proportional system such as AMS, AV+, STV or even pure PR. Coalitions become more likely and, as we have seen in the UK, under coalitions the power of the electorate to choose a manifesto which is then enacted (we hope) is tranferred to the few individuals who draw up the coalition agreement. No one votes for a coalition agreement... Can anyone defend PR against this point?

"Unlike under first-past-the-post [FPTP], it is not possible for a government with minority support to win a large majority."

Presumably you disagree with the findings that Labour would have had an even larger majority in 2005 than they actually received? Or perhaps you don't think Blair's 35% share constituted "minority support"? Or that 70+ seats is a "large majority"? Otherwise, this statement makes no sense.

To the tune of "she'll be coming round the mountain" (sort of):

Macedonia, Albania and Ukraine
Heard the call of democracy so they came
They thought the oldest was the best,
But they found it failed the test
So they ditched First Past The Post and tried again

Australia, Papua New Guinea and Fiji
All seem to be quite happy with AV
It may not be the ultimate
But right now it's all you're gonna get
And if it's good enough for Fiji then it's good enough for me

So when the "no" campaigners fall back on those three again
Remember the others that they forgot to declaim
For if only three use AV
Then that's more than kept FPTP
Don't forget Macedonia, Albania and Ukraine.

Lou,

No, you are not obliged to rate every candidate. If you wish to treat it like FPTP and put 1 in 1 box only, you can.

"Australia uses AV and has returned one hung parliament in 38 elections"

You may have forgotten that there's a Liberal Coalition already in place, so Australia is a de facto two party state and has a coalition government every time the Liberals "win".

It would be the same here if either Labour or the Conservatives went into formal coalition with the LDs.

Brilliant post, you answered some points I haven't in my post. But anyone who stands against AV should be made to explain it and give real reasons, party politics and tactical voting is not a reason! This is about democracy as a principle, yes we wanted PR but we are getting AV - it is better and far more representative than FPTP which is just flawed with the rise of third parties, there is no way a 2 party electoral system can continue to work.

I've outlined more points in my post at http://andykinsey.me

Paradoxically Paul Guy has just made the case for AV. Given five puddings and cheese and biscuits people would choose one pudding and put cheese and biscuits second as a compromise. On first past the post one pudding (say lemon sponge) would win on very few votes and all those who hated lemon sponge would have to settle for it. Perhaps cheese and biscuits is fairer.
On another issue it seems that, under AV, if you are interested in a fringe party you will have to put it at 1 because if you make it your second choice that choice will be wasted since the party will have been ejected on an earlier round. Could this favour fringe parties ?

Under AV, the 'X in one box only' will still count as it will be a clear indication of preference.

In other words, if you only want to vote for 1 party anyway, you might as well vote yes to AV and carry on as normal while still enabling other people to have a vote that counts.

The no campaign appears to be entirely incompetent. It's adverts are silly (the equivalent of 'this baby needs a hospital, therefore lets not have any trains, schools or an army) and their spokesmen are dire.

It's also clear that Call me Dave isn't really interested, and I suspect he actually quite likes the idea of AV, especially after tactical voting destroyed the Tories in the Oldham by-election.

The real reason that hung parliaments are going to happen more often under any system is that we are no longer a 2 party state. We have 5 parties (Con,Lab,Lib,Grn,UKIP) with representation in the EU parliament and over 40% vote for a party that isn't one of the big 2.

Given I will never vote Lab or Con, I don't see why a hung parliament where greens or lib dems get to influence policy is a bad thing.

If 1997 had been a hung parliament with a few more libs and greens, we might've seen proper progress on an elected lords, gay marriage, maybe the Iraq war would've even been stopped.

I, like many, don't know what to do. I do know who and what I like voting for, and it's none of the main three. I shall have two parties I'll vote for, and take my chances. However, we have been, again, denied a democratic referendum on all systems available for voting. The one I favour PR is not on the list, why? Who are politicians to decide what system we can have? Where is our democracy, where is our freedom to choose? Why do we quietly accept what we're told we can have? There is no democracy here in England, and there's no mettle to fight for it either.

Re my last comment - slight amendment - the resulting government in 2010 may have been different under AV. It could have been a Lab-Lib coalition instead of a Con-Lib coalition.

I remind Labourites of the Labour manifesto betrayal of 1997 when it solemnly promised it was “committed to a referendum on [a proportional alternative to] the voting system for the House of Commons”.

Hmm, so Tories are against it, Ham-Face doesn't like it, and the (Non)Taxpayers Alliance are voting No?
Sounds like a good argument for voting yes, despite Little Nicky...
http://clemthegem.wordpress.com

Help - what is a progressive person like me meant to do?

To AV or not to AV? To back the hideous Cameron or the even more hideous Clegg?

I fear voting for AV will mean permanent shoddy Lib Dem presence in shoddy coalition government...and I fear voting against AV will mean permanent Tory/Lib Dem government.

Help!

This is what the Electoral Reform Society USED to say about AV until recently:
* It can be less proportional than First-Past-the-Post.
* It does very little to improve the voice of traditionally under-represented groups in parliament, strengthening the dominance of the 'central' viewpoint.
* There is no transfer of power from party authority to the voters.
* It is prone to a certain amount of 'Donkey voting', where voters rank candidates randomly, not knowing enough about all of them to make an informed decision.
* Under certain circumstances, a shrewd voter can get a better result by lying. If, for example, it is known that the contest will be fought between two strong candidates, supporters of one might rank third parties above the other, even if the other is technically their second choice. See Wikipedia's worked example.
* In a broadly three-way race, where there are two strong parties who actively dislike each other and a third 'compromise' candidate sitting in between, the compromise candidate is likely to be defeated in the first round, despite the fact that they could well be the most universally acceptable option.

@Dave C NOT TRUE. This was the exact text that was at the ERS then which I took May 14 2010. I have a few ideas why they might have withdrawn it since. I'm guessing your Tory source copied it at sometime similar to when I did.

It is completely accurate to attribute it to what the ERS was saying - which is what I did.

@Dave C
Try this archive AFAIK from December 31 2007: http://web.archive.org/web/20071231231932/http://www.electoral-reform.or...

A poll was taken using AV on the participants' favourite pudding. Of the six choices nobody placed Cheese and Biscuits first and yet after second preferences it emerged as the winner! How fair (or sensible) is that?

Good post. I don't think AV is necessarily the 'best' electoral system, but I can't see how a No vote is anything other than a vote for FPTP.

If we don't get a Yes in this referendum, electoral reform will be off the agenda for a generation.

OK, Simon, Your integrity is unimpeachable.