I would say that the cost and disruption caused by such a change would outweigh the benefits. AV isn't truly any better than FPTP.
Whether PR would be the best system for us to be using is open to debate, but AV won't truly bring us any closer to the kind of voting reform that a lot of reformers want.
I also worry that AV will be, for some people, a bit of a black box which will mean they don't truly get to vote in the way they had desired/intended. At least FPTP is relatively clear-cut, even if that clarity comes at the cost of other aspects.
Also, I can't post in a thread with this title without using the smiley.
x Turn on thread page Beta
Right, chaps... watch
Last edited by Stegosaurus; 13-04-2011 at 21:02.
- 13-04-2011 20:59
(Original post by elandar)
- 14-04-2011 19:39
Perhaps it's testament to how useless FPTP is that the main arguments in favour of it are just a bunch of lies and half truths about AV.
If we change to AV, best case is that it will get rid of tactical voting, make MPs more legitimate and make them work harder for support.
Worst case scenario is that everything just stays the same as it is now. At that point you may as well vote yes, because theres no real risk of things actually getting any worse.
The only thing that will make MPs work harder (and funnily enough, quite a few are very hard-working and committed to public service) is a complete change in the political culture in this country - i.e. not considering it as a nice comfy career with lots of perks but actual public service. Perhaps removing the whip would be a good idea too, so's MPs can actually vote with their constituents best interests and not the party's.
AV is not the magic bullet that will solve all the problems with Parliament.