A collection of distinguished history professors have
written to the Times attacking AV. Here are their arguments in full:
- One person's casting ballot might be worth 6 times that of another.
- Extremist and "non-serious" parties might get some votes.
- er... Churchill!
This is a pretty depressing commentary on British intellectual life. Where the Hell does the "6 times" figure from? Under AV, everyone gets one vote, just as now, and everyone's vote is treated equally. The difference is that people might actually be able to vote for the party they like best, instead of having to choose from the top two in their constituency.
I also find it hard to understand what "non-serious" means, unless it just means "anyone but the Big Three". Maybe the profs are worried about a massive swing for the Monster Raving Loony party.
Let's hope some serious political scientists are drafting a rebuttal.
