Clik here to view.
I view the strategy for UK becoming a democratic state with a proportional representation voting system as similar to the campaign for women's suffrage. The 1918 Representation of the People Act gave only women of property over the age of 30 the right to vote – not all women, but it was a major start. Ten years later the 1928 Representation of the People Act gave women the vote on equal terms to men (over the age of 21). I am voting Yes to AV because I view it as a step toward PR. I look forward to the next representation of the people act giving voters an authentic form of PR.
Lesley Abdela
Vice-president, Electoral Reform Society
• It is not clear to many people whether introduction of the alternative vote will help to stimulate or stand as an obstacle to further reform, and so the vote of those who desire exactly that will be split. While both are possibilities, the likelihood of each is not the same. If AV is introduced it will help to make people receptive to changes in the way they vote, encourage them to think about how different electoral systems impact upon results, and to consider the views of all of the parties, not just their preferred one. It is more likely that greater reform will arise from a Yes vote than a No. If AV is rejected, the politicians who wish to maintain the status quo will use the outcome to argue that we have had the debate on electoral reform and the people don't want change. People who wish to see greater reform should consider this when casting their vote tomorrow.
Sam Smith
Peterborough, Cambridgeshire
• Proportional representation would deliver a fairer and more representative House of Commons. I will be voting No to AV because it will not ensure a parliamentary voice for minority parties whose membership is spread throughout the country. Without a form of PR, how many Conservative or Green MSPs would there be in Holyrood? I urge those who believe in PR to continue to argue their case, but vote No to AV, which is a far from ideal compromise.
Ian Robertson
Gullane, East Lothian
• What neither side in the AV debate seems to realise or accept is that few electors in the country vote primarily for an individual MP – they vote for the party of their choice on the basis of the party's manifesto or national profile. The present first past the post system assumes that our vote is for the candidate alone, so on a national level our vote is wasted if our candidate is not elected. Proportional representation recognises that people vote primarily for parties and that is why their votes count at national as well as at local level for a specific candidate. AV would still not address this failing and that is why it is a poor, even if a slight, improvement on the present system.
Bruni de la Motte
London
• It is not only those wanting "to give Nick Clegg a bloody nose" who should put aside self-indulgence. The same applies to the purist supporters of the "No to AV, Yes to PR" campaign. Yes, we should have been allowed a referendum on PR. But all that matters now is which outcome on 5 May would more likely keep alive the hope of such a referendum within the next decade. A defeat for AV will be ruthlessly misrepresented as a rejection of reform of every kind.
Charles Scanlan
London