Reference above is made to a "Bill which made the referendum possible".I don't know what else this "bill" provides, does it say that if the referendum votes are in favour of AV it will be brought into force? The referendum won't itself do this, it will require parliamentary time which may not be available. Am I wrong?

morddwyd I completely agree with you to me it sounds like some people just want to muddy the waters so the present system of voting is maintained

fourm member

In many elections in Australia, each candidate will issue his preferred sequence of votes as guidance to supporters. If you vote only for that candidate you are deemed to have selected candidates in accordance with that sequence.

The mechanics of AV is so simple that a three year old can understand it. The impact it will have is another matter. The comparison with FPTP boils down to deciding if one favours being represented by the one who is least opposed (AV) or one who may not be wanted by the majority (FPTP). In my view, AV would result in a moderation in policies on both extremes in order to gain more second choices and would make MPs more diligent in representing their constituents and local matters.

I am one of the few people who think that by and large MPs do a reasonable job which involves a workload beyond that of most people. I believe that they were entitled to the allowances (not expenses), allocated in lieu of a pay rise, which they were paid and that the scandal was the chaos of the fees office. Members of the other place only have to attend and sign a register to claim per diem allowances. AV would not neccessarily create an increased workload but would modify the focus of their attention.

You claim that the Yes campaign is using negative tactics is totally incredible, as are most of your assertions. The No campaign is claiming that AV will cost £200 million. The true figure is a few thousand. To call their material disingenuous is an understatement.