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

Thanks very much for your well thought round. Firstly I will deal with the questions you rasied: 1. Based on the drop in voter turnouts in Austrailia after AV was introduced (to the point where they had to introduce compulsory voting) isn't it reasonable to believe that voter turnouts would drop significantly in Britain also? To keep my answer simple, no it is not reasonable. You are assuming that the reason for low voter turnout in Australia is based on the complexity of the voting system (as you outlined above in your argument). On this point, you must concede that Single Tranferable Vote (STV) (which is exactly the same system but in multi-member consituencies) is just as 'complex'. This is used a large number of countries, some of which have some of the highest voter turn-outs in the world. One specific example I am aware of is Malta (as I am part Maltese). In Malta, all our elections are run under STV and we have one of the highest voter turn outs in Europe. Voter turn-out under First Past the Post is already incredibly low. The public disenchanted with politics. I put to you that AV would reinvigorate politics, and make thousands more people feel that their votes may make a difference. 2. Isn't it hypocritical to argue that FPTP results in minority rule when AV would lead to more coalition governments that give parties with even less support 'kingmaker' status as well as disproportionate political influence? No. I firmly believe it is no hypocritical. If you look at our system from a basic point of view there is a reason the Liberal Democrats would be the natural 'king makers'. They are the most centrist party and are the only party that lie somewhere between Labour and the Conservatives. First Past the Post actually leads to massive continuous swings from left to right and back again in the political spectrum. Now we are pursuing one economic policy, with a swing to the left in 4 years everything could be reversed. That causes instability. Coalition governments - and particularly a coalition with a centrist party - dampen down these effects of huge swings. Politicians have to learn to work together rather than merely take the opposing viewpoint for the sake of it. Indeed, it doesn't always work - and you could very easily argue that the current coalition is failing in some respects. However I would remind you that this was not a planned coalition. Under AV, all parties would have to learn to be more prepared. They would have to learn to accomodate and represent a broader range of peoples. Whether or not a 3rd party is 'kingmaker', the end result will be a government that has the support of over 50% of the population - something FPTP can hardly ever produce. This is more democratic. More people will be represented. 3. You argue that AV will lead to politicians being forced to appeal to a broader section of society. However, won't this lead to supporters of extremist parties like the BNP being given legitimacy because politicians will have to appeal to such people's second preferences? No. While you see the phenomena which you have described above in countries like France where the Front National (far-right party) garner over 10% of the vote in national elections, the BNP are a) very small in the UK and b) would actually lose out massively under AV. This is why the BNP are campaigning for a 'no' vote. While you make a semi-valid point that politicians will have to reach out to a broader range of people, you forget that for a politician to adopt some of the BNPs views in order to gain their second preferences would very often have a counter-effect. By taking on the BNPs views they could alienate either their own voters, or other more moderate voters from choosing them as a '2nd preference'. In addition to this, the BNP have far more chance of success in their own right under First Past the Post. Under FPTP they only need to aim at as low as 25% in some consituencies in order to get into parliament. Under AV they would be looking at the insurmountable target of 50%. While they have never had an elected MP so far, with increasing support in recent years, there is a real possibility under FPTP that in the not too distant future they might succeed. This of course is speculation, but speculation with a very valid basis. Is it complicated? Just to finish of my round here, you raised the point that the child with the chocolate bar is a highly simplified analogy. But its not really. With First Past the Post the public actually have to think more. They have to think about how they should tactically vote. If the person they really want to win has no chance of winning, then they have to vote for someone else to ensure the least favourite candidate doesn't get in. That is complicated. But AV makes it simple. You just list your preferences, and then the count votes tactically for you automatically. All you need to know is to list your preferences 1-however many. And its not forced either. If you want, you CAN just vote for 1 candidate, as you would under FPTP. Listing preferences is just a choice. Thats all there is to understand. I look forward to your closing statement.