There has been a lot of mud-slinging over the referendum on the Alternative Vote. The “No” campaign have been particularly bad at avoiding sensible debate and resorting to fear-mongering and smears.

The polling shows they will likely win by a significant margin. They shouldn’t. And with apparently 20%+ of people still undecided, I’d like to share some thoughts that might tip the balance in some people’s heads: please share this with anybody who is still undecided.

Here are 10 very good reasons you should vote “Yes” in the AV referendum tomorrow:

1. First Past The Post (FPTP) doesn’t work in a system with more than two parties

You might only like one of the two leading parties, but you can’t deny that we live in a society where more than two parties matter. If you live in Scotland or Wales, multi-party politics is a reality even more so.

FPTP was designed when there were only two political groups in Parliament: the Tories and the Whigs. Since the birth of Labour, the reformation of the Liberals and the rise of nationalist parties and groups like the Green Party, we live in a nation where there are multiple political voices.

You might not agree with them, but you agree under a democracy that they have a right to be heard, right? So why would you persist with a system that denies them that voice?

Right now, an MP can have support of less than 20% of the people in their constituency, and be sent to Parliament on behalf of all 100%. AV eliminates that from being possible, and forces more engaged politics.

2. AV actually weakens extremist parties

There are three parties wholly against the Alternative Vote: the Conservatives, the BNP and the Communist party.

The Tories don’t like it for a variety of reasons along with some Labour MPs (see below), but the BNP and the Communist parties don’t like it because it reduces their chances of getting a seat. How? It comes down to second preference votes.

People who are inclined to vote for extremist views typically will place them first. People who put other parties first are unlikely to offer a second preference to an extremist party. That means on the whole, parties like the BNP are likely to be eliminated quite early on.

To win, a candidate must convince at least 50% of the people who vote to give them at least a second or third preference vote. The BNP and the Communists are unlikely to achieve that whilst their views and the electorate’s are so out of kilter.

Under FPTP it’s possible to win a seat with just 20% of eligible voters agreeing with you, or around 30% of voters who actually vote - a much more achievable target for extremist parties to get.

3. AV forces consensus and a new mode of political debate

You might have noticed politicians from opposite sides don’t seem to like each other very much. Most people can’t stand watching Prime Minister’s Questions for all its Punch & Judy mechanics. FPTP requires confrontation and feeds off fear-mongering.

AV forces politicians into a very different mode. They have to talk about what they’re for, rather than what they’re against (as tactical voting disappears, see below), and they need to seek out ways to find compromise and agreement rather than just shout the other side down.

You might have strong feelings against the coalition government, but you can’t deny that the disagreements seem to have been dealt with more philosophical debate than previous disputes between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. It’s not that either side has sold out completely, but rather it’s because that’s what coalitions need to work. AV turns that progressive debate into the daily routine of politics.

4. AV doesn’t cost a penny more. The only penalty is a slightly longer election night special on the BBC

There have been some preposterous claims made about the cost of AV. One leaflet suggested it would cost us £250m, and another campaign suggested that maybe the money would be better spent on hospitals.

We could argue that democracy shouldn’t have a price put on it - particularly one so low given the size of our GDP - however that’s not the point.

AV won’t cost us anything more. The referendum will cost virtually nothing as it coincides with many local elections anyway. There are no “counting machines” that need to be bought, and the cost of explaining AV to the electorate has basically already been met by the (privately-funded) “Yes” campaign and various other groups. If you don’t currently understand how AV works, you can learn it yourself in under two minutes by reading the article on Wikipedia about it.

5. FPTP supports incompetent and lazy MPs - it provides a “job for life”, undeservedly

There are a lot of very bad MPs in Parliament. You’ve probably never heard their names, but they’ve been there for a long time, and know that they have a job for life. They are in “safe seats” where it would take a political Tsunami of epic proportions to remove them.

If you analyse which Labour members support the FPTP system over AV, you will realise they are generally unpopular figures who have held safe seats whilst resorting to “we hate the other side” politics, which would likely flounder under AV: John Prescott, Margaret Beckett, et al.

The Tory back-benches are filled with a similar breed of politician. They resent the voter, on the whole.

These MPs do not represent their constituency in Parliament. They represent their party in the constituency. With perhaps no more than 35% of the vote (and often with low turnouts, just a 10-15% approval from their constituency as a whole), they know they can do pretty much what they want. For example, on average MPs in safe seats claim more in expenses than MPs in marginals, and cost the taxpayer more.

One beauty of AV is that it pretty much eliminates the concept of a safe seat. There will be some left where there is overwhelming support for a candidate, but MPs will be more inclined to fight for the continued support of their entire constituency, and therefore act more in accordance with their wishes.

6. Under AV you can - if you wish - select just one candidate (and it’s actually easier)

At the moment under FPTP you type an X in a box. Under AV, if you only want to support one candidate and have no second preference, simply write ‘I’ instead. It’s one less line. It could be argued that under AV you’ll halve your time spent actually physically voting.

OK, I’m clearly making a small joke here, but there is nothing complicated about AV if you don’t want to think about multiple candidates, just vote for the one individual you want to see elected.

But don’t you want the option of being able to specify a second candidate if your first preference doesn’t win, just in case? Isn’t the elimination of tactical voting worth it? That brings us onto…

7. Tactical voting pretty much disappears under AV

This morning I got a “the Tories can’t win here” leaflet from the Lib Dems through my door. We’ve all seen them. Basically, if you don’t want Labour to win in this ward, there is no point in voting Conservative because of how the vote is counted.

Under AV at general elections, this would make no sense. Tory voters, instead of being told their votes are futile, would be reached out to by both parties seeking to build bridges with that community who live locally.

You would no longer need to go to the polls and vote for a party you disagree with, just to keep another party out. Campaigners would instead want to listen to views across the political spectrum in the hope of getting a second preference vote from people within those groups.

It completely changes the way we think about politics and political campaigning. For the better, and permanently.

There is a more complicated explanation of how tactical voting pretty much becomes impossible under AV in a section of the Wikipedia article.

8. We all start to count again

You might have heard the phrase “Mondeo Man”, “Windsor Woman” or the like at previous elections. These are demographic groups targeted by campaigners whose vote determines the election.

You see, at the last election, it’s thought that only 1.6% of votes actually changed the outcome. Because of the way FPTP favours jobs for life, safe seats and promotes tactical voting and negative politics, experts realised that the “swing” that would win the election would come from less than 1 voter in 50.

They identified who these people were based on where they lived. They analysed their lifestyles based on demographic information and labelled them. Experts then ran focus groups composed of this tiny demographic, and party policy and manifesto promises were crafted around what was responded to by that group.

All of those billboards, manifestos, news reports and editorials. They weren’t meant for 98.4% of the electorate - they were crafted to shape the opinion of just 1.6% of the electorate.

Does that seem a reasonable way to run a democracy to you? Under AV, we all start to count again.

9. It’s not a rubbish version of PR, and we don’t want PR anyway!

Some people have argued we should hold out for Proportional Representation because that means the number of MPs representing each party is in exact proportion to the number of votes cast for that party nationally.

We don’t want that.

Note, I said the MPs would be representing each party. They would no longer represent a constituency, and would be positioned on a list based on their loyalty to the party elders and the small Westminster clique that runs politics today.

We want and need a system that means an MP is tied to a constituency. We want and need a system that makes the MP want to represent the constituency within Parliament, rather than the other way around.

PR doesn’t do that. FPTP doesn’t do that. AV does.

10. If we vote “No”, we keep the status quo for at least a generation. 

The reality is, if we collectively vote “No” to the Alternative Vote, that’s it, we don’t get any more reform for a while - probably at least a generation. The concession prize might be a reform of the House of Lords, in order to try and keep the coalition together (it’s a very weak second prize for the Lib Dems), but I suspect if we voted “Yes”, then Lords reform would be here within no more than one more Parliament anyway - it’d be popular with voters.

We all agree that the current system is broken, but if we vote “no” we’re saying “that’s OK”. We are committing our children and possibly several generations more to the broken politics we’re so disenchanted with ourselves.

So, there we have it. 10 reasons. If you need any more, feel free to email me and I’ll try and answer your questions and answer any lingering doubts before polls open tomorrow.

In the time between me publishing my list of 10 reasons for supporting the Alternative Vote and polling closing the next evening, it was read over 1,000 times. I still stand by every word of it, even though - as you no doubt have heard - the “No” campaign won it.

Annoyingly, it seems the majority of people who voted “No”, did so because of one of the following reasons:

Their favourite media outlet told them to

We have a major problem with media influence and the popular vote in most democracies, but in the UK its reached new levels. If the media was unbiased, or people sought a balance of opinion in their media consumption, I’m not sure that the vote would have gone the way it did. People seem to be reluctant to think for themselves any more.

They held strong allegiance to the way things are right now

In gambling parlance there is a phrase to dismiss somebody who has a bet on and is trying to justify their logic: talking through their pocket.

There were very, very many people on the “No” campaign who would stand to lose a lot if the vote had gone to “Yes”, not least the Prime Minister himself. I think the “Yes” campaign didn’t do enough to highlight that this was about long-term change within how politics is done and is perceived. 

What amazed me is just how many people have a vested interest in politics as they are done today. With thousands of people hoping one day to have a chance running for MP in a safe seat, able to leverage hundreds of campaigners each… we just didn’t see it coming!

They were “holding out” for PR

Possibly the most stupid reason: we don’t want PR (which the electoral commission found out without the need for a referendum), which is why it wasn’t offered. But plenty of people do want it, and so voted “No” using the warped logic this would in the long run give them more progressive politics. What they hadn’t spotted was that voting “Yes” would have led to a more progressive politics with a possibility of PR being offered within 3-4 Parliaments, maximum. Now? Even the Lib Dems are talking about a “losing a generation” before it gets brought up again.

So there we are, the vote was lost, I’m talking through my own pocket it seems, and the result is thoroughly depressing for progressives. C’est la vie…

Marginal result with diaspora fake votes calls the legitimacy of the constitutional referendum in Moldova into question. The next two weeks before the second round of the presidential elections will be dangerous. Constitutional referendum in Moldova is illegitimate The EU spent huge amounts of money to promote the idea of European course in Moldova. In a nutshell, the essence of this idea is about the "Anti-Russia" project: Visits of European ambassadors, "Citizens for Europe" rallies, campaign trips in blue minibuses, all kinds of concerts demonstrations and other events with blue flags. The pro-Western media machine was trying to convince the Moldovans that the idea of the European integration would receive the support of 70 percent of voters.

TORONTO, ON – The University of Edinburgh is bringing a number of high profile academic experts to Toronto from 17–21 June, as part of its General Council Meeting this year. Two academics in particular will be available to speak to reporters about the September 18th Independence Referendum in Scotland and how this event compares to […]

On Saturday 2nd April some of the region’s top authorities on voting reform will gather in Kings Heath, Birmingham, to present their perspectives

Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan discusses the significance of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections and secular democracy in India.

As the dust settles, hindsight makes the chain of events that culminated in UK’s vote to leave easier to discern

It is two months since British voters surprised themselves by deciding to end the UK’s 43-year relationship with the European Union – “independence day” to some and “the worst political decision since 1945” to others.

As stunned political leaderships on both sides of the Channel continue dithering about what to do next, it is worth looking back at the origins of a crisis the EU elite had not expected.

THE warning is becoming louder. It was raised by the Leave team during Thursday's TV debate and, on the same day, by the Chancellor, George Osborne, and two former prime minsters, Sir John Major and Tony Blair. Brexit, they said, posed a serious threat to the Union.

On Saturday 2nd April some of the region’s top authorities on voting reform will gather in Kings Heath, Birmingham, to present their perspectives

The Seattle City Charter says legislation approved under a state of emergency can't be repealed by referendum. Council members can't name every business the new tax would cover, because the state discloses only aggregate payroll data.

IT’S strange the different things people took away from Theresa May’s teary goodbye in Downing Street yesterday.

I’m not sure it was wise for Nicola Sturgeon to invoke Nelson Mandela in her speech on the next steps (sic) to independence. He was a revolutionary who pursued a campaign of non-violent direct action, including strikes, boycotts and other acts of civil disobedience. That’s what many ardent Yessers were hoping against hope she might authorise.

Fake social media accounts also used to support Ron Paul’s presidential bid and the Occupy movement

Iran’s state broadcaster experimented with using fake social media accounts to influence the outcome of the 2014 Scottish independence referendum and other western elections, according to a report from Facebook released on Tuesday.

The Iranian network, one of eight to be suspended for so-called “coordinated inauthentic behaviour” by the social media giant in April, points to efforts by state-linked groups to try to use Facebook to influence foreign democratic contests years before Russia’s alleged campaign against the 2016 US presidential contest.

Prague Daily Monitor

According to data released by the Ministry of Interior, the number of British citizens living in the Czech Republic has increased about 35% since the Brexit referendum, and Brits with their permanent residence in the Czech Republic have risen almost 55% since 2016.

read more

Sudan’s north-south civil war was the longest conflict in African history and claimed more than two million lives, and on January 9, 2011, a referendum will take place, allowing the southern Sudanese to vote on whether to remain part of Sudan or to gain independence. On October 13, Foreign Policy at Brookings hosted a discussion of the prospects for the Sudan referendum featuring Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ).

Cedomir Nestorovic, professor of geopolitics at ESSEC Business School, predicts that U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May's second Brexit deal will likely be rejected Monday, creating further scope for a near-term general election.

The main UK opposition party Labour has set out its plans for tax reform, in a manifesto released on November 21.

Boris Johnson has reiterated his opposition to a second vote on Scottish independence during a call with Nicola Sturgeon, despite her saying it is now a 'democratic right'.

In a letter to the SNP leader, Boris Johnson insisted he will not authorise another vote north of the border. He later told the Cabinet that he had an 'optimistic vision' for Scotland.

John McDonnell has been accused of treating Jeremy Corbyn 'like a puppet' amid claims he failed to warn the Labour leader the party would not block a second Scottish independence referendum.

The first minister of Scotland said that her party's message would be 'clear, simple and unambiguous - vote SNP to demand independence and secure Scotland's right to choose'.

Jeremy Corbyn is ready to 'throw the UK under a bus' by forming a coalition with the SNP that would break up Britain, Michael Gove has warned. He said that Labour and the SNP were now 'in bed together'.

Boris Johnson said the 2014 ballot - when Scots voted to stay in the union - was a 'once in a generation' decision.

Jeremy Corbyn made yet another attempt to clarify his stance on a Scottish independence referendum today, saying: 'Certainly not in the first two years.'

The Liberal Democrats lost the East Dunbartonshire seat to the SNP's Amy Callaghan by just 149 votes. Nicola Sturgeon was filmed shaking her fists with joy at the news of her party's gain.

SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon said she had won overwhelming support north of the border in the election last week - and the PM had no right to block a new bid to break up the UK.

The vote was driven by the SNP First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who insisted a second vote on independence is necessary to protect the country from the consequences of Brexit.

In a letter to party members the opposition leader said that the party would demand a new public vote on a Tory Brexit plan or a No Deal departure.

The Labour leader said he was not in favour of such a vote 'anytime soon' but did not rule one out in the future. Scottish Secretary Alister Jack accused him of 'already flirting with the SNP'.

The left-winger, who is trailing sixth and last in the race to replace Jeremy Corbyn, made the suggestion in a campaign speech in London.

In a keynote speech to the Centre for European Reform, Mr Watson (pictured) will say Labour's members and its values have always been pro-European.

The former chancellor made an outspoken attack on the Prime Minister's chief adviser Dominic Cummings, accusing him of attempting to force through a no-deal Brexit.

In a bombshell intervention deepening Labour's civil war over Europe, the deputy leader will today claim the 2016 vote was too long ago to be valid. Tom Watson will call for a second EU referendum.

London's Met Police said they had passed a file of advice to the CPS following it's investigation. A spokesman said: 'There is insufficient evidence to justify any further criminal investigation.'

Labour will give 16 and 17 year-olds the right to vote at a second Brexit referendum, Sir Keir Starmer has suggested as he said eventually the party will campaign to keep the UK in the EU.

Doctors in Nottingham had to section the man and sedate him after he was taken to hospital confused and paranoid in an episode which he described as being like daydreams.

EXCLUSIVE Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell on Saturday night faced claims that they were behind an attempted Blairite 'coup' at the campaign for a second EU referendum.

Leading Remainers on Thursday watched hopes of a second referendum go up in smoke as the Prime Minister stormed to a decisive 80-seat majority with which he can ram through his Brexit deal.

Judges said Middle England by Jonathan Coe (pictured) - described as a story of nostalgia and delusion - was 'the perfect novel for now'.

Nigel Farage, writing on Tuesday, said: 'I have no great love for the Tories, but I can see that by giving Mr Johnson half a chance we will prevent a second referendum.'

The monarch made a surprise plea to Scots to 'think very carefully' about how they would vote, just a week before the 2014 vote. The No campaign went on to win the vote 55 per cent to 45 per cent.

The pro-European former Chancellor told the BBC that Mr Cameron (pictured in the Commons together in 2016) had spent his career 'feeding the idea' that 'Brussels was to blame'.

David Mellor (pictured), who was pro-Europe for much of his career but voted for Brexit in 2016, said he often woke thinking 'it would have been better if he [Mr Cameron] had never lived'.

DAILY MAIL COMMENT: As British MPs prepare to vote on Theresa May’s Brexit deal, their choice is simple: provide the certainty the nation yearns for – or lead us into a dark and hazardous unknown.