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

You cite a drop in turn-out in Australia once AV was introduced after the last FPTP election in 1917. Well let me say this1) The 1917 election under FPTP was a war-time election. Issues such as conscription, an war related economic chaos were on the cards. 1917 was always going to see a huge turn-out. The following AV elections were not during a time of war. 2) You will actually find that the drop in turn-out was across the board. This included constituencies where there were only two candidates running and therefore despite it officially being AV, as they had only two candidates to choose between, was basically a FPTP election in some areas. But the reduction in turnout was same. . http://niaccurshi.blogspot.com...I therefore fully contest your claims that AV would induce reduced turn-out. In fact, I think it would make people who are currently apathetic more inclined to vote - many people do not see how their vote can make a difference and rightly so given that UK elections are decided in only a handful of constituencies. The Maltese system being uniqueYou highlight here something which is very true. The Maltese system is very different, but only as different as the 1917-1922 elections you have cited as prooving AV to reduce voter turn-out. We must therefore agree that both comparisons do nothing to proove effects on voter turn-out in the UK. Under coalition governments parties with even smaller voter support have a disproportionately large amount of political powerThe thing that undermines your argument here, is that you are attacking the AV system by labelling it as producing basically what you are describing as a minority government, or one that is formed from minority pressure. The truth of the matter is, that under First Past the Post the minority can not only be the 'kingmaker', but the winners of the election outright themselves! You can easily have a party in sole power with only 30% support. With 7/10 of ten people against them, how can this possibly be defended as being the democratic solution? You have a fear of coalitions, but you must realise that coalitions are the norm in so many countries - so many successful countries, and smaller parties always have bargaining power. That is the nature of a coalition. This bargaining power does not render coalitions undemocratic, but merely makes the main party take other considerations on board, so the resulting government represents a broader range of the public spectrum. Your fears of coalitions are simply unfounded, given that they have been proven to work in so many other countries. You also again refer to the 2nd preferences of people that voted for 'extremist parties'. Firstly for a candidate to win, just with added 2nd preferences from extremist voters, they would most likely have to be very very near the 50% mark already. Secondly, everyones vote is equal - people who vote for extremist parties should be counted just as much as the next person. If you think that somehow their vote counts more, then you have misunderstood the basis of AV. People might be more likely to vote for an extremist party since their vte will not be wasted under AVIf people want to vote for extremist parties, that is there democratic right and choice. Who are we to tell them who to vote for? This is much the same argument used against PR - that it would allow the BNP into parliament. Well so what? If thats what people have voted for, then they should be represented. We should provide political arguments against them this way rather than simply resorting to excluding them through making our whole system undemocratic. AV & ComplicationHere, my opponent spouts nonsense about 'tactical voting' under AV. There is no way you can ensure an opposing party comes last on the first count, so this argument is a complete untruth. If you've voted for a party that has a chance to go on and win, then your second preference will never be counted. So its near impossible to vote tactically. Just to re-iterate, if your first choice goes on to win - then your second choice will never be counted. And if your first choice is eliminated, then they've already lost out anyway! SUMMARYAlternative Vote produces candidates who receive over 50% preferential support from the population. Thats to say more people would like this candidate over any other candidate. That is democracy. Democracy is not minority rule, as under First Past the Post - where a candidate can be kept in power by a minority of the electorate (say 30% for example). While Alternative Vote is not a perfect voting system, and my opponent has raised some good arguments, it is fundamentally more fair than First Past the Post. It is not expensive, it is not complicated and there is little to no viable proof that it will reduce voter turn-out. If you have an irrational fear of coalition then you may have a valid personal problem with Alternative Vote. But given that in many (if not post) European countries (whose political systems are most similar to ours) coalitions are common if not the norm, this is simply unfounded. Politicians understandably do not like it, as it makes things harder for them. But this is a good thing and increased scrutiny and negotiatiation can only strengthen our democracy. Much of the anti-AV argument is based on these kind of irrational fears. I would like to concude that whatever your fears of coalition, and issues with AV complexity, the defense of First Past the Post as a democratic system is near impossible. Minority rule cannot be defended in 2011. FPTP is an archaic and old system that would best be left in the past. Many thanks for a great debate.