Two things and two things only.
Thing one: Why are we doing this anyway?
All this nonsense about electoral reform was supposed to be a reaction to the expenses scandal. Remember that? Our elected representatives were getting more and more remote from the daily lives of those they purported to represent and "something needed to be done" (tm).
In very much the same way as the
Thing two: Has anyone else noticed that the examples of how AV works don't exactly make the case for more democracy?
I've lost count of the number of illustrations of the AV method that run along the lines of
"what shall we have for pudding?"or
"what's your favourite biscuit?"or some other irritatingly patronising LCD rubbish.
The correct answer to these questions is "Everyone should be able to choose their own sodding favourite pudding or biscuit or greatest Prime Minister in peace without either imposing their views on others or having the views of others imposed on them". In short, the discussions of voting reform merely call into question the size of the state: we might very well be a lot happier if a great deal less was in the hands of our elected representatives and more in our own.
I remain astonished that no-one has mentioned this at all. Quite possibly because it would be rather embarrassing if anyone did.
There. Exactly two things as promised. Except of course, that they might just be the same thing under the bonnet.