GAH!

[andrewducker]

The BBC now has a "Best arguments for voting Yes or No" on AV page up.

And while I'm annoyed that the No campaign are still arguing that AV means
that some votes are counted more than others (clearly untrue - every round
counts all votes for people whose preferences are still in the running), I
am _furious_ at the awful arguments put forward by the Yes campaign.

The bit which seems to actually grab people (an end to the split vote
problem, where you can have 70% of people voting for an X-wing party, and a
Y-wing party gets the seat) is relegated to an aside in point 4, which 90%
of people will never see.

I am incredibly frustrated by their continued incompetence at getting their
message across.

Am I wrong? Do people really think that AV will make MPs work harder? Does
anyone really care about that? Is there any reason whatsoever for that to
be the top point?

Comments

[jack]

I don't know. To me, the "make MPs work harder" is just made up, and the "don't need to avoid splitting the vote" is the killer feature. And I assumed other people would feel the same, even if they didn't previously know the issues. And a few anecdotal reportings of talking to someone previously unconcerned about the issue bear it up. But maybe I'm wrong, and the more blatant lie is more persuasive *shrug*

[andrewhickey.info]

"Make MPs work harder" is hardly a *lie* - it's reasonable to think that MPs will have to try harder to get votes if they can't rely on getting in on 30% of the vote in their area. Whether you *WANT* that or not is a different matter, of course.

[jack]

Hm, maybe that was over the top of me, sorry; I was trying not to give the "Yes" publicity more of a free ride than the "No" campaign. I agree that there will be some tendency that having a better way of expressing dissent to an MP may encourage them in some respects, but it still seems a stretch to state it as fact.