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

[andrewducker]

My problem with focus groups is that people lie.

If you say to them "Did you like X or Y?" then they'll tell you whichever answer they think you want to hear, or whichever answer makes them feel better about themselves.

Unless they gave 500 of leaflet A out, and 500 of leaflet B out, and then held mock referendums, I don't trust the results they got.

[andrewhickey.info]

Absolutely. I think my friend Dave Page is right - the fundamental problem is that the people running the campaign are lobbyists, not campaigners. They're used to putting pressure on MPs, not going out and talking to actual voters, and so they've badly miscalculated how you do that.