Well, one was not inspired by the outright lies - Including mathematical lies - used by the NO campaign [I'll let them off if they just cant add up] such as producing animations where the upper threashold limit of 50% is lowered showing the person in 4th place pushing the person in 2nd place over the finishing line
[this is not just wrong it is mathematically impossible]
and trying to confuse people about votes being "counted many times" is very bad politics ... I refer the honourable gentleman to
Stephenson v Ann Arbor Board of Canvassers in 1975 at which Circuit Judge James G. Fleming decided that:
"Under the 'A.V. System', however, no one person or voter has more than one effective vote for one office. No voter's vote can be counted more than once for the same candidate. In the final analysis, no voter is given greater weight in his or her vote over the vote of another voter, although to understand this does require a conceptual understanding of how the effect of a 'A.V. System' is like that of a run-off election. The form of majority preferential voting employed in the City of Ann Arbor's election of its Mayor does not violate the one-man, one-vote mandate nor does it deprive anyone of equal protection rights under the Michigan or United States Constitutions."
Then again it's the job of the Yes campaign to make the runoff simulation clear and their attempts were on the whole a dismal failure.
One can just about get over David Bunkett gloatingly stating that the No campaign Costs were made up particularly since the Yes campaign assiduously avoided coming up with any costs at all.
However, telling people that 2 and 2 = 5 (as above) is very, very naughty. Still, it isn't a person being elected so you cant be done for lying about a candidate. And it's excempt from false advertising so you cant be done by the ASA. So lies galore. Even ones that insult the intelligence.
Although to be fair the Yes campaign also managed quite a few.
Runoff voting and Instant Runoff Voting are slightly different
and the time lag between each round in an old fashioned runoff does make differences to the outcome ... they are not actually identical. And I do think you can make a legitimate case for it being appropriate to use AV in one situtation and FPTP in another. After all candidates in internal elections are not standing on solid policy platforms. However, having insisted how important manifestos are
you may find you've now invented the problem that people might start actually reading them.
The YES campaign was not helped by not understanding its own statistical model. I'm afraid it isn't as simple as 1,2,3 - it's as simple as If the person in 1st place doesn't get 50% then the person in 2nd or 3rd place can win and if the person in 2nd place gets between 25 and 33% then the person in 3rd place can win if they're within a 14% statistical window and all the other voters combined 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th place candidates can just push the person in 1st place over the finishing line but they cannot push the party in 2nd place over the finishing line in any statistical permutation as the threshold prevents minor parties holding the ballance of power. No one in the Yes campaign seemed to have tested the model at all. Or have the answers to these questions to hand (it took me about a week to work these things out from first principles). You can't sell what you dont understand. I also think the yes campaign talked down to people.
I still dont understand how anyone can defend a situation where the 3rd party can pick up a million votes and lose 6 seats and I still think FPTP is bonkers. I dont think I'm alone either. I noticed an amusing video on youtube filmed at a Conservative event in Croydon where William Hague opines how the Conservative Party needed more votes than Labour at the last election to win seats. So to say that everyone's happy with FPTP is a joke. It's good for the winner, not bad for the 2nd place party and really bad for everyone else.
Which is exactly how the parties split on it. Funny that.
However, all systems have problems. Ultimately why open pandora's box unless there's a pressing need? And it is the case for the need that the Yes campaign failed to answer.
"Ed Miliband also took a risk. He campaigned for a 'yes' vote, despite the fact that most Labour MPs were voting 'no'. He got it wrong, reinforcing the questions about whether Labour chose the right Miliband."
Come off it - all 5 leadership candidates backed AV and you know it.
Besides which having spent £2 million pounds and 4 months electing him as far as I'm concerned he's got to stay there till at least 2015 now as the Labour party simply can't afford the time or money elect another one at the moment. Democracy isn't cheap.
It's true that Clegg had little option but to go into Coalition or pact but it's also true that he didn't have to vote Yes to the Tuition fees rise.
There was an opt out clause in the coalition agreement. And this was not just a manifest promise but a personally signed promise by
a very large number of Lib Dem MPs and candidates. And some Labour ones too...