I still consider AV to be the best of the systems I have a decent knowledge of, so naturally this result upset me greatly. I do agree about Clegg sticking his nose in, simple maths dictates that if nearly all Tory voters said No and nearly all Lib Dems said Yes, there would have to be a resounding Yes vote from the Labour voters for it to scrape through.

 

You'd have thought the Lib Dems would have been more prepared for this outcome - this referendum was one of the key criteria for them entering the Coalition and Clegg et al knew exactly what the Tories were going to do when they got a sniff of power. So my only conclusion is that the top Lib Dems simply didn't see their massive drop in support coming.

Cameron and Clegg had agreed to a keep a low profile in the campaign. Once Cameron broke his commitment (no surprise there), Clegg had little option but to follow suit. I'm sure that's one reason why Cameron did it. So far, it doesn't seem to matter how may lies Cameron tells on various subjects, he's getting away with it.

Even one of the leaders of the "Yes" campaign has admitted that the result had nothing to do with the "No" campaign's tactics, and everything to do with the Lib Dems, particularly Clegg, themselves:

 

Last night a senior source in the campaign for the alternative vote admitted they knew "very early on" that there was no chance of winning the referendum and that Clegg had become part of the problem: "Every time Clegg spoke about AV our polling numbers went into free-fall. We knew from very early on, before the new year, that we couldn't win, our message wasn't getting through and the Liberal Democrats in the whole were worse than useless. Clegg was toxic and everything [Chris]Huhne did in criticising the Tories just put the attention on the political spat – made it a Clegg versus Cameron affair. Utterly unwinnable.

 

"We even brought in an advertising man to save us. He came up with the idea of constructing a giant pin-striped bottom to take around the country for people to throw things at as a way of illustrating that AV makes MPs work harder. It was desperate stuff.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/ma...k-clegg-cameron

That just sums up why governments are reluctant to hold referendums. What's the point if people vote according to what they think of a particular politician? It really makes me want to weep.

R.I.P Liberalism in the UK: 1859-2011.

I can't believe I've only just found this page, highlights why I like AV and think it's actually the best system of the lot in the UK (STV is better in theory, but wouldn't be as compatible with our constituency culture.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of..._voting_systems

 

Unproportionality: FPTP 29.4%, 22%, AV 27.3%, 16%

Chances of a hung parliament: FPTP 16.7%, AV 16.7%

Greater number of potential candidates: AV

Does tactical voting occur in practice: FPTP Yes, AV No

Does vote-splitting occur with two major parties: FPTP Yes, AV No

Does every person get one vote: FPTP Yes, AV Yes

Voter Power Percentage: FPTP 28.5%, AV 35.2%

Voter Equality Percentage: FPTP 4.8%, AV 5.6%

Number of Very Marginal Seats: FPTP 81, 82, AV 125, 126

Number of Ultra Safe Seats: FPTP 156, 160, AV 113, 117

Chances of kicking out a disliked MP: FPTP 17.3%, AV 19%

 

I'd prefer my Krypton Factor-esque method for how to elect people than AV, but I guess it's better than FPTP.

Still the most frustrating referendum ever.