Yes or no

[altariel]

OK, f'listers, let rip. In 100 words or less, and without reference to the other case, tell me why I should vote either 'yes' or 'no' to the following question:

"Do you want the United Kingdom to adopt the 'alternative vote' system instead of the current 'first past the post' system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons?"

Non-UK perspectives welcome.

Comments

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Yes, because a) it means not so many people will be disenfranchised by living in a safe seat; b) it allows you to express your nuanced opinion in a nuanced way (I've never found myself in complete agreement with any candidate); c) coalition government as a system shouldn't be judged by the current shower - it can be effective, and is a fair(er) reflection of the people's will (which is what democracy is meant to achieve). Yes, there will be horsetrading, but tactical voting is horsetrading too.

The downside is that it will please Nick Clegg.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

Having poked around, I'm not convinced the data show that safe seats will be particularly affected, although some seats are likely to become more marginal. Which would make the new form of the ballot a way of regularising the increase in tactical voting, I suppose.

The downside is that it will please Nick Clegg.

All evidence does seem to suggest that the Lib Dems would be the beneficiaries here... although that's based on evidence from before they participated in government.