There is an Alternative ...

[Ghostmojo]

With the greatest respect that really is a heap of tosh. This has nothing to do with Clegg and everything to do with democratising an outdated system. Had the Liberals a totally mercenary approach to politics then they would have allowed the Tories to form a minority administration and then would have allowed it to collapse by voting against it at every possible opportunity.

It's also worth remembering that Labour use AV to vote for their own leader, and that the boy Milliband himself is in favour of it, whilst many dinosaurs in his own party are not. You may even get to see Clegg and Milliband on the same platform in this campaign. At least the majority of the Shadow Cabinet and the official Labour position seems to be positive:

http://labouryes.org.uk/

.. even if the old beasts of the establishment like Prescott, Blunkett, Reid and Beckett etc. are against it.

The single most disgusting aspect of this campaign so far is that the big unions (UNITE and GMB in particular) are throwing their weight behind the NO campaign and allying themselves with the Tories and the wealthy establishment to prevent change. That tells you everything you need to know about armchair socialists and the leaders of the common working man. It makes me sick.

Anyway, this needs to be depoliticised. We have to get away from any view that sees this merely as an opportunity to attack various parties or individual politicians. This is about systemic change:

http://www.yestofairervotes.org/

There are proponents for and against AV in all the main parties, and elsewhere. On the YES platform you will see Labour, Liberal, Green, Nationalist, UKIP and even the odd Conservative presenting a rainbow coalition for change. You will probably see much the same on the NO platform (but far more Tories). This is not about which party gets to benefit. It is about producing a clearer and fairer result.

http://www.yestofairervotes.org/pages/av-myths

People need to understand what AV offers in terms of improving the position over FPTP. It's not about bashing Clegg or Cameron. AV is not as good as STV or indeed other forms of PR - but they are sadly not up for consideration. So you have to work with what you get.

Under AV, MPs of all parties will no longer be guaranteed by default safe seats. They will have to woo as many constituents as possible. A popular and clear favourite will still win. He or she could win outright if they get 50% in the first count. If they get close to it, then they will still almost certainly win with the top-up of second choicers falling to them. And so on...

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55

The current system is ridiculous.

An average parliamentary seat is based upon about 100,000 people. Of that only about a half to two thirds would be able to vote (due to age). So you are looking at a electoral mass of about 65,000. Out of that - because turn outs are often so pitifully low over here - perhaps only 48,000 will bother. Let's say (as will be the case in many places) there are 6 main candidates (ignoring for arguments sake the minority and looney candidates): Labour, Lib Dem, Conservative, Green, UKIP, (and in Scotland and Wales) Nationalist. If they all got a similar poll of 8,000 there would be a real problem deciding what to do next. However, what usually happens is one of them gets slightly more than the next and the next and so on. Let's say the results are:

Conservatives - 12,000
Labour - 11,500
LibDem - 7,000
Green - 3,000
UKIP - 5,500
Nationalist - 9,000

In this instance the Conservatives win even though they only get 25% of the vote. This happens all too often. It disenfranchises all the other voters who voted for other parties. The centre-left vote (Labour, LibDem, Green) is nearly twice the Tory centre-right figure, but it matters not. The Conservative chap enters Parliament with only 500 more people voting for him than the Labour candidate had, and with 36,000 of his constituents not wanting him. In some cases the margin has been even narrower than that. We have had cabinet minsters in with only a whisker of a margin. It is unfair, disproportionate and deeply unrepresentative.

This has led to tactical voting in order to try and keep unpopular choices out. In that respect you get Labour voting Liberal, Liberal voting Green, Green voting Labour etc. in order to keep out a Tory. AV takes that into account because ultimately you are not only being asked who your primary preference is for - but also who you would be prepared to settle for if you couldn't have him or her. I see nothing wrong with that. We all know that people often vote negatively rather than positively. They vote to stop somebody rather than to support somebody else.

How many times have you heard people say, "I wouldn't have voted for Smith if I knew Jones was going to win. I would have given my vote to Williams instead. He had the better chance of stopping Jones..."?

Also, it is actually completely untrue to say AV (or indeed PR) will always produce coalitions. In the case of PR it is nearer the mark. In the case of AV there is every prospect of single-party majority government with people feeling that their vote actually counted.

If the YES lobby wins, then hopefully we will see a change in the culture of politics too. I see that as a good thing. We also need to change the seating plan in the House of Commons. The one side facng the other creates this sense of division rather than a spectrum of opinion which is actually more realistic. The only reason the seating is like that is because the former chamber (in the old Parliament buildings) was originally a chapel and the members were actually sitting where the choristers would have sat. This nonsensical situation was perpetuated when the new Palace of Westminster was built in the mid 19th Century - and sadly, much of our politics still belong in that period ...