There's a reason only one other country in the world uses AV. It's a half way
house. It tries to be a PR equivalent of the First Past the Post system, but in
reality it is no more proportionate than straight out FPTP, and in some cases
can be less so.
They then picked on the fact that I had said only one other country uses AV. I meant, of course, Australia. Oh no, they cry, Fiji and Papua New Guinea use it too. Oh, well, that makes it better then. Apologies for missing out the word 'major' before country.
I raised STV was because we all know that's what the LibDems want. At the moment they're happy to replace one flawed electoral system with another one. An unproportionate system with an, er, a potentially even more unproportionate one.
If I had asked any LibDem a year ago whether they would campaign for AV, I doubt a single LibDem would have replied in the affirmative. Which is why I have no respect for their stance on AV. It's a system that they don't want, they don't like and think is wrong, and yet they're prepared to waste millions of pounds having a referendum on it. All because they regard it as a stepping stone to STV.
I am not ideologically opposed to electoral reform. Indeed, I favour PR for the House of Lords and local government elections. But I do not favour STV for Westminster elections for reasons I have already outlined below, and the arguments in favour of AV are just not conclusive enough to make a change.
AV may result in even less proportionate results than now. Landslide results would be even bigger for either of the two main parties, academics have suggested. But the one thing we do know from academics is that AV would invariably result in more seats for the LibDems.