[bananarama]

A few months ago I would have probaly said yes and voted fort it.

However after consideration I think it is a poor substitute for a PR sytem.

On a personal basis I could not vote for more than one party (It's difficult enough choosing any of the corrupt rat bags)

To vote for an alternative would mean contributing to the election of a party I detest........As a matter of principle I could not betray my own beliefs by choosing an alternative to the rubbish I would have voted for in the first option.....

Also I think a lot more needs to be known of how the alternative counting sytem works........If Cameron was telling the truth when he was talking it down a few days ago then the counting system sound very very dodgy indeed and may produce ridiculous results not based on fairness...

What happens if thousand or even millions like me cannot bring themselves to put their name to a second choice!!!!!! If millions only select one party which they still have a right to then having AV is somewhat pointless........

There are other matters I think voters should have had a say in.......One being the length of term in a fixed parliament. I think 5 years is far to long, should be four year fixed term. also no prime minister should be allowed more than two terms......Power corrupts and they hang on against the interests of the country.........Thatcher did it and Blair did it.

Although it may save money I don't agree with reducing the number of MP's. Less MP's means bigger constituencies and less effeciency when MP's have to meet the public in their surgeries.....

I do agree that the boundaries should be adjusted to make them similar in size......