I’m not a fan of politicians, less so when they’re arguing about things that are patently stupid. Like, for example, the Alternative Vote. Of that particular proposal, I am most decidedly not a fan.
If you want to go proportional, then do so. There’s a point to it. But a properly proportional system is going to break the one constituent / one representative link, and I think that’s a very stupid thing to do. I think each representative has to be in a position to have to represent all their constituents, and under a proportional one (say, like a party list one) then representatives can justifiably claim that they don’t need to support all their constituents, because they have their own representatives thankyouverymuch.
If you want to keep the above link, I honestly think that you have to stick with first past the post. Because under it each and every person gets the same vote that counts for the same thing in their constituency. I don’t hold with this “but the votes of so many don’t count” theory – they do count, but the count in the losing column. I say this as someone who hasn’t yet backed a winning candidate in a general election, but I still think it’s the way to go. Under AV, the votes for the most popular parties count once, but those for the cranks count until they back a winner, which can’t be fair.
So, we wait until later on today and see what way the country has jumped. In line with the past, which has worked fairly well over the years, or to the new, stupid alternative that is purely change for the sake of change…