I think that the Electoral Commission's wording is a big improvement. It removes words such as ““adopt””, which had biased connotations in the original. I have studied the commission's research. According to one of its findings,"““Some people thought that the reason for changing the voting system was because the last election had resulted in a hung Parliament and that perhaps AV would avoid that.””"
There is clearly a great deal of confusion about AV, which will actually lead to more rather than fewer hung Parliaments.
There is a second problem. In fact, AV is simply a second-rate version of first past the post. Let me make another suggestion about the wording. Perhaps it should refer to a ““one person, one vote”” system, which is what we have now, versus a multiple voting system in which some people receive more votes than others—which is basically what AV is.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Proceeding contribution from
George Eustice
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 12 October 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
516 c286 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 13:15:44 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_668626
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_668626
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_668626