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

Well, I'm not entirely sure what the structure of this round will be, but I will respond to Pro's answers and the point about complexity as well as summarising my main argument so far. On a side note, the text formatting tool seems to have changed so I don't know how this round will turn out. :/ Responses to opponent's answers1: It seems reasonable to point out that voter turnout in Australia only dropped once (a form of) AV was introduced. In 1917, the last year FPTP was used, voter turnout was 77.7% after it was changed, it dropped to 77.3% then more significantly to 58% in 1922. We can then see a huge rise as people are forced to vote by law [1]. That Malta has an impressively high voter turnout rate is a fair point, but still could be in spite of STV - Malta has a very volatile political system dominated by only two parties where a small number of votes can swing to result. Whereas no link can be reliably established between STV and Maltese turnouts, it can in Australia because turnout only dropped after AV was introduced. 2: This is really the main argument against AV and I don't think Pro has properly addressed it. He has not addressed the point that under coalition governments parties with even smaller voter support have a disproportionately large amount of political power in government - as the Liberal Democrats do now, or that coalition governments reduce accountability. He argues that the Liberal Democrats are the natural 'kingmakers'. But surely, the British people are the natural kingmakers? Surely it should be up to the populace to decide which leader to elect as prime minister, not the Liberal Democrats? Besides, it's my understanding that on the political spectrum the Liberal Democrats are centre to centre-left so it's not entirely obvious that they lie directly between Labour and the Conservatives - and I'm not sure why that would mean they should have the power to be kingmakers instead of the British public in any case. Pro says changes in party causes economic instability under FPTP. Well, as far as I can tell this is speculation on his part - and in any case, there are downsides to preventing significant changes in economic policy with coalition governments. If one party continuously pursues an unwise economic policy (as I suspect Labour had been before their defeat) then it becomes difficult to reverse the mistakes of the previous government, for example a party that has unwisely increased debt to unsustainable levels or cut spending more than necessary. It becomes difficult to reverse such mistakes.He also says that the problems of a coalition government would be reduced under AV because governments could plan for them - however, this does not address the problems inherent under a coalition government that cannot be overcome by planning, that have already be pointed out. Again, I think it is somewhat misleading to say that a government in power will have over 50% support - support does not equate to 'votes' but instead partially to secondary preferences of people who voted for the least popular candidates - candidates that include extremist parties. The picture simply isn't as democratic or fair as it's made out to be. In addition, if a coalition government is formed, have people really voted for that? People might have expressed a preference for the individual parties making up a coalition, but not for the coalition itself. So in a sense, it is less democratic because no-one actually voted for a coalition government: yet that's what the country gets. 3: It's true that the BNP is small relative to the Front National - however, it is still significant (two of its candidates were elected to the European Parliament in 2009 with nearly a million votes). Pro brings up the valid point that over pandering to supporters of the BNP (for example, there are other extremist parties) could alienate moderate supporters. However, he still has to accept that such people, who are a very significant proportion of some constituencies, would represent a resource that some unscrupulous politicians might try to draw on. In addition, people might well be more likely to vote for an extremist party like the BNP since their vote will not be wasted under AV considering secondary preferences - which will count more for supporters of extremist parties because those candidates are the ones most likely to be eliminated. He argues that the BNP is much less likely to be elected under AV because they need to gain 50% - however, the two figures 25% and 50% are not comparable in this case because the 50% includes secondary preferences which are not included in the 25% figure - it is not unreasonable to suppose that people will choose the BNP as their secondary preference: either because they believe some of its propaganda or out of 'protest' votes against the current establishment. AV & complication: Pro brings up the point of 'tactical' voting to argue that FPTP can also be complicated. This rests on the assumption that AV will eliminate tactical voting - a notion that I think is false. As explained here [2] tactical voting is altered but not eliminated under AV; it actually just makes it more complicated (and thus totally defeats Pro's point). The goal of tactical voting under AV would be to ensure that the opposing party with the most secondary preferences for your party would come last so more of their votes would transfer to your party. Incidentally, Australian parties actually issue voting cards [3] telling their supporters how to list their preferences to maximise their chances in that particular constituency. I look forward to Pro's last round. :)[1] http://www.aec.gov.au... [2] http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...[3] http://www.australianpolitics.com...