Alternative Vote should be adopted in the UK (over First Past the Post).

Thanks to my opponent for presenting an issue that is highly controversial in the UK at this time; leaflets are delivered through my letterbox practically every day from campaigners of the No and Yes campaigns (I won't be voting). I will be arguing that the Alternative Vote has too many problems and does not represent any great advantage over First Pass the Post; at best, AV is not superior to FPTP (and correspondingly is not worth the money converting) and at worse, it suffers from enough flaws to make it a worse system. For the record, I am playing devil's advocate to a degree; I have no strong views either way. Problems with the Alternative Vote 1: AV is complicated. Some people have been claiming this argument is patronizing - that somehow it underestimates the British populace and that AV isn't that hard to understand. However, the fact remains that AV is much more complicated than FPTP and people are less likely to vote using a system they don't properly understand. In Australia where AV is used, the problem with low voter turn-outs is so bad that they have had to implement compulsory voting. [1] The only other countries to use it are Fiji and Papua New Guinea - and Fiji plans to discontinue it. [2] 2: AV is not as proportionate as you think. AV arguably produces a closer proportion of votes to seats; however, this does not translate into those seats having a proportionate amount of power in the House of Lords. Under AV coalition governments like the current one will be more likely and coalition governments are undemocratic. The Liberal democrats, who were voted for by only 1 in 5 voters, now shape UK politics as part of an alliance with the Conservatives. The ability to select a prime minister would change from the British people to the Liberal Democrats because of their power to choose whichever party they chose to form a coalition with. Finally, party accountability would be decreased because parties could go back on their campaign promises to broker an agreement for a coalition government. The Liberal Democrat's current predicament with student fees is a case in point. 3: Changing to AV would be costly. The UK is currently going through severe economic difficulties. The cost of AV could be up to £250 million [3] if implemented; £91 million on the referendum, £130 million on electronic voting machines and £26 million to explain the new system to voters. It is not sensible to spend so much on altering our voting system at a time when unemployment is high and the UK has a huge deficit to overcome. 4: AV is unfair. My opponent's analogy which just lays out AV but doesn't really argue for it can be used to show how AV is unfair. To make the point clearer, add Miss Yellow and Miss Orange (let's not be sexist). Everyone vote, the votes are counted and the candidates arranged according to the number of votes received; Mr Blue is first, Mr Red is second, Miss Yellow is third, Mr Green is fourth and Miss Orange is last. Under FPTP, the election stops there - Mr Blue wins because he came first. Under AV however, assuming no-one receives 50% of the votes, Miss Orange is eliminated and her voters secondary preferences counted - votes that people don't care as much about and may not have considered before casting. This time, Mr Red might win if he receives more, or even Miss Yellow. If no-one has still reached 50%, third preferences will be counted - at this point many of the votes that will count may not have been considered by the voters since they will care most about their first preference. The unfairness is clear - a candidate who has received the most votes when they are first counted can lose to the second or third most popular candidate - and this will be determined by the secondary prefernces of the least popular candidate! [1] http://www.dfat.gov.au... [2] http://www.radiofiji.com.fj... [3] http://votemay5th.notoav.org...