Tomorrow we get the chance to decide what system we should use to elect MPs - the current 'first past the post' system or the Alternative Vote (AV) system.
I think it's fair to say that the referendum hasn't exactly caught the public's imagination. Both the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns have been guilty of overstating their case and engaging in an increasingly vitriolic war of words.
But however much of a turn-off the campaign may have been, tomorrow's vote is important and whatever your view I would encourage you to use your vote.
Although our current system isn't perfect, I'll be voting 'no'. I take the view that we should only change to a new system if there is a compelling case for doing so and the 'yes' campaign have clearly failed to make such a case (to be fair to them, that's probably because hardly anyone currently urging you to vote 'yes' acutally supports AV - most of them want a proportional system and for reasons I don't understand see AV as a stepping stone towards that when in fact it can be less proportional than our current system).
Their main argument is that AV ensures that MPs have the support of at least half of the people who vote. But it only does that by treating the second, third, fourth etc preferences of people who vote for minor parties like the Greens or the BNP as equal to other people's first preferences. That's clearly not right and it can result in the farce of the person who comes second or third ending up as the winner.
What's indisputable is that it would cost more to run - either the counts would take much longer or we would have to buy electronic counting machines.
Finally there's the evidence from abroad. Lots of countries use our current system and lots of countries use proportional systems but only three countries - Australia, Fiji and Papua New Guinea - use AV.
It can be less proportional than our current system, it's clearly less fair, it would cost more and it's only used in a handful of countries around the world - four good reasons to vote no tomorrow.