John Reid's AV errors

We really must have a critical look at John Reid’s recent assertions about the AV voting system, both verbally and in the Telegraph (fortunately he is probably preaching to the converted through that medium.). He says it is obscure. Well, it is rare, I grant you, but obscure suggests difficult to understand. Tosh. All a voter has to do is put a 1,2,3 etc. instead of a cross. The voter does not have to understand how to count it ! He says it is expensive. Rot. Where is the additional expense (after the one-off cost of the necessary information campaign to tell people how to vote) ? The ballot papers will be virtually identical to current ones, with only the instructions changed, and counting takes a little longer. Hardly a major expense, especially when one Tomahawk missile lobbed into Libya costs £100,000 apparently. He says that voters for small parties like the BNP are advantaged because their second preferences will be used before those of supporters of large parties. This is factually true, but their second preference only counts once. They do not have any great advantage and they only have one vote realistically because their first vote is a complete waste. Using the BNP example is also emotive. What about those nice Green people ? Surely we won’t begrudge them a proper say in the result ? No, the results in most constituencies where there is no outright winner will be determined by the second preferences of supporters of larger parties (i.e. the party likely to come third). He says it is not a fair system. Possibly. But it is a million times fairer than first past the post. Under FPTP about 70-80% of votes are, in practice, totally worthless. These are all the votes in safe seats where the result is a foregone conclusion, and votes for parties which have no chance of winning in a particular constituency. The votes of those who support the Lib Dems are hugely less valuable than those who vote for Labour or the Conservatives. Reid has also talked about sacrificing the principle of ‘one person one vote’. Nonsense. We would be exchanging one person, one vote for ‘one person several votes’. Which is preferable ? Churchill said that democracy was the least bad political system. AV could be said to be the least bad electoral system. They all have flaws. FPTP has probably the most. Of course there is a valid case to be made for avoiding the possible political outcomes of AV (more hung parliaments and coalitions), but the case for fairness is won by AV hands down. http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.