A recent conversation on Facebook;
[Person]"Obviously I was planning on either abstaining or voting no as I don't think either system on the table represents a particularly convincing democracy. I don't like the idea of voting for a least worst option!"
[Me]"I'm intrigued - you'd rather go for more of the same? Rather than a chance in a life time to change politics?"
[Person]"No, I'd rather have PR where my first choice would be genuinely represented in the constituency of parliament. Isn't this what lib dems were after too? AV looks like a pretty shabby compromise. I'd be more impressed to hear them arguing passionately for the best possible system; then they'd have my vote!"
I could lecture for some time on the benefits of AV over FPTP, but for digestable appetites, I will break this into a variety of discussions.
AV is an Opportunity of a Life Time
2. Rejecting More of the Same
The alternative a majority of Oxbridge educated, white middle class males who have eloquence, condescension for the public and a disdain for the real world. For reference, I will refer to this rather potent quote;
"Osborne thinks his fee-paying, selective boys' school, St Paul's, was "incredibly liberal. It didn't matter who your parents were. Your mother could be the head of a giant corporation - or a solicitor in Kew" as if this encompassed the full imaginable spectrum of socioeconomic status."
This is what we will continue to see as a result of first past the post. And surely, while AV is not PR or STV, it is better than this?
AV is hardly a "shabby comprimise", as Nick Clegg has been quoted as saying, when you consider the negative implications of FPTP.