The time is right for a public debate and we should be leading it. Certainly from knocking on doors during the last set of elections, people were responsive to the idea that their vote could be worth more under a different voting system.

1. We have always assumed that constituencies should be geographic. This presumes that people who live in a town have more interest in the town than anything else. Perhaps LGBT citizens would choose to be part of a multi-member LGBT constituency. Perhaps LD members would prefer to be part of an LD constituency. Then, the number of members in each constituency would determine how many candidates were elected from that constituency, and STV would determine which ones were elected.

2. We are assuming that persons would still be elected to a House of Commons and that the Executive would still be determined by a single Member of the Commons and drawn from such Members with the odd Lord thrown in. Why would we draw an Executive from a Legislature? Split the two! Have scrutiny of both!

3. Er, that’s it.

But at the moment, with Labour on the ropes, why do we need to talk about compromise? It makes no sense. They will either introduce it without our support now or need our support later – in which case the price will be higher.

The instinct of a lot of Lib Dems does seem to be to play possum at the slightest provocation…

(But not as good as AV+ or STV)

I feel that preferential voting is more important than proportional representation, and having single-member constituencies is important for our system of Government.

I’d probably rather have STV than FPTP, but theoretical musings about proportionality don’t sway me as much as knowing that I have one and only one representative in Parliament.

The PUBLIC must decide. Fortunately “Unlock Democracy” have realised that.

There are big technical flaws with AV+.

There are big technical flaws with STV.

There are massive democratic flaws with FPTP, and with AV.

At the moment, it is only the voting-system nerds (like me) who have really tried to get to grips with these issues. Most of us have plumped for a nerd-favourite system. Most of us are therefore wrong.

The world should NOT be ruled by nerds!

We should convene a citizens’ “grand jury”, and we should educate the (large) jury in much the same way as the criminal courts inform their juries. Then, when the jury has understood the merits and problems of all the systems, they should decide what it is that actually matters to them, and hence, what system they recommend that we should use.

(And if they pick FPTP, because it is decisive and gives the smack of firm government, then we should all roll over and accept that. But I bet they won’t!)

That’s not the case – open lists, such as in Finland or Sweden, allow the voter to order the party “list” in whatever order they choose (yes, the word ‘list’ looks evil, but when they’re open it just means ‘approved candidate’, such as we would have with STV)

I have to admit, I’m not particularly sold on the merits of STV (or, for that matter just about any TLA voting system – my eyes glaze when enthusiasts start) – but am vaguely sold on the simplicity of FPTP runoff elections, such as in France, where the people have a cooloff period between the two rounds, allowing them to decide, for example based on how many constituencies were won outright, what size majority/minority they want to give parties (which AV would deny, being instant runoff).

Not because it’s proportional (is is only approximately so), but because it’s the only system that has been used in real national elections that GIVES THE VOTER REAL CHOICE.

With all the talk about PR, people tend to forget that what REALLY matters is giving power to voters not to Party machines. As a counter-example look at last week’s Euro election: the first person on the list of the major parties is guaranteed a place, even if voters would prefer someone else. Unfortunately Britain chose to have closed lists, which are the worst form of a not very good voting method.

Also, given that STV is the system officially supported by our Party, how come we have a poll on LDV that doesn’t even mention it??

larger multi-member constituencies. Most people live sub-regional lives and would appreciate the chance to have an MP to of their own persuasion to contact.

and most importantly, power over the party machine without primaries.

ONLY STV gives proportionality and power to the people. AV is not acceptable, it will only end up corralling voters into two party politics.

Talk about turkeys voting for Christmas!

My choice:
STV 1
AV+ 2
D’Hondt 3
FPTP 4
AV 5

The more important question is this – if the Lib Dems were capable of joining a coalition to run Britain after the next election, would we accept AV as part of that deal?

First we have Danny Alexander refusing to mention the term “STV”.

Next have Andrew Marr saying that any discussions of different electoral systems will make the viewers switch off, and the Lib Dems refuse to even go on the programme.

Then the BBC confuses AV with the systen used to elect the London Mayor.

Then we have Ian Dale on the BBC implying that only FPTP retains the constituency link, and that “FPTP isn’t perfect, but nobody has come up with a better system”, without being challenged at all on that outrageous statement!

If the media are going to items on electoral reform, why don’t they at least bother to inform themselves of what the arguments are?

I’m so fed up with this backward country.