@? has impeccable logic.

Farage is wrong. AV has nothing to do with PR and the British people are simply not ready for PR, even though it is quite common across the world, even in most developing countries. Its too complicated for the British to take in.

@ swatantra nandanwar:

If PR is truly so complicated as you make it seem, why then is it used to elect the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Greater London Assembly and the UK delegation to the EU parliament. At it's simplest, PR is one cross in a box (Closed and Open list PR, AMS) and at it's most complex it merely consists of ranked preference voting (STV).

Now, where you are correct is where you say that AV is not PR. AV isn't a proportional system and cetainly wouldn't produce hung Parliaments at every election and nor would it produce a parliament that reflects the votes cast. That said, it does allow for the true feelings of the British Electorate to be aptly displayed. It lacks the distortion of First Past The Post insofar as it eliminates tactical voting. That is an advantage in itself.

On the wider point about PR, it could go either way and there are really two scenarios that could play out in the event of a No vote:

1. It's accepted as a rejection of AV as a system meaning that the next time the issue of Electoral Reform is raised the issue will revolve around FPTP versus PR, or;

2. It's argued by the Conservatives and Labour No supporters in particular as being a rejection of ALL electoral reform and the issue is buried for decades.

Of the two, I sincerely believe that the second is sadly the most likely, due to the attitudes that the politicians who have benefitted from the First Past The Post system will take.

Now, to be fair, a Yes vote doesn't guarantee PR either but it does make it more likely. There's very good reason for arguing in the event of a yes vote that the people have backed reform and they may do so again. The issue of reform may not arise for a while after any yes vote, granted, however it will be a long time until reform becomes an issue again either way. At least with AV we will have a better system in the interim that at least allows some level of wider choice and ensure that MPs have a proper democratic mandate.

Ideally I'd prefer to see full proportional representation, but I still think AV is fairer than the current system. Under the current FPTP system, if there are 5 candidates standing for one constituency, then one of those candidates could potentially win on less than a quarter of the vote. Therefore, 75% of voters could end up with a candidate that they don't like at all. With AV, a candidate has to get at least 50% support in order to win.

FPTP is fine for a country where there are only 2 popular parties (such as the USA where almost everyone votes for either Republican or Democrat), but in the UK we frequently get at least half a dozen candidates standing in each constituency. Therefore, FPTP gives highly anomalous results. With AV, the winner is the one who has the broadest support.

In the last few decades, governments have been elected on around just 35% of the popular vote, which is very unfair as it means most of the population are effectively disenfranchised. The number of seats for each party is highly disproportionate to the number of votes they received.

FPTP is ancient and hugely discredited, and has been abandoned in many mature democracies. It makes voting pointless for most people in the country as most constituencies are safe seats for either Conservative or Labour. It therefore discourages participation, which weakens our democracy.

I don't think it's true that AV will help extremists get elected, as it means they will have to get at least 50% support, which is very unlikely. In fact it's less likely that extremists will be elected under AV than under the current system.

Lots of parties elect their leaders via a form of AV. So if it's good enough for them, then why isn't it good enough for the general population?

Once we've switched to AV, it should be easier to switch to a fully proportional system such as AV+ or STV as people will be used to ranking the candidates in order of preference. If the No side wins, then the government might interpret that as meaning that people don't want PR at all. Then we could be stuck with FPTP for many more years to come. So even if you really want full PR, it is better to support AV rather than sticking with the current system.

@Herbert - I don't believe you.

I don't really care what the politicians thing, I don't really care to second guess their motives or honesty.

Instead I'm going to be looking at the system on it's merits. And on it's merits I will vote HELL YES, if only that was one of the options.

The real and simple crux of the debate on electoral form has been lost in the noise. Apart from invoking Winston Churchill and the Prime Minister's 'gut feeling', the 'No' campaign has been pityful in failing to advance any rational arguments. The definition of democracy is majority rule in the sense of majority of the population. The first past the post system is an undemocratic system. At no stage of the process is there majority rule. Under AV, there is majority at the level of each constitutency. it is a huge step forward.

It is outrageous that we are not being 'allowed' to vote on PR at this referendum. Initially I supported the 'No to AV, yes to PR' position. However, I am sceptical that a 'yes to PR' campaign following a NO to AV outcome will cut any ice at all - not least with Ed M against it...also, I would have felt a complete knob voting with the Toffs and BNP.

AV is crap, but my yes vote signals my desire for change.

I'm baffled why these 'voting machines' haven't been introduced already. They will be needed in the future, as politicians try and think up different gimmicks to draw people into voting, like texting, and online etc. So we might as well introduce them no, although in my opinion nothing beats a blunt pencil and paper ballot.
Heres one gimmick. Lets make voting compulsory and stick a hefty fine on those too lazy to stroll down and give up 15 mins of their precious time to be an active citizen.
I voted YES, and urge others to do the same.

Name says it all.... hope you all voted yes today! Big step forward towards a better democratic future for this country. Getting the MPs to earn 50% of the vote will really make a huge difference, no more "safe seats" with low turn outs. Vote yes for a better democracy :)