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

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

I don't think people really have much of an idea of how hard MPs work

I agree with this. I suspect that most people have no clue what MP's do most of the time and have no idea about what MP's do for individual constituents or have any idea what parliamentary committees etc. do. The most commonly seen part of parliamentary politics on TV is PMQ's, which is frankly nowadays nothing more than a pissing contest.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

Aye. And I think most people have no clue because they really don't care. Except for the expected grumblings when MPs go on their long holiday breaks and suchlike.