However any change in the system which alters the value of our vote, claims to improve the representativeness and responsiveness of the system, or which could be perceived by others of undermining its value should be the subject of comment and debate. At the very least, SNUB would actively encourage local residents to get involved in the referendum debate, which until now has been woeful and would benefit from a serious injection of evidence.
But more than that, some organisations have information that is relevant to the debate e.g. Friends of the Earth claim that countries with more proportional systems have the environment higher on the agenda, organisations that work on participation claim that a more proportional voting system encourages more people to get involved than first past the post. These and others should not feel constrained from making this case in public, nor should those who have evidence that contradicts these views.
Democracy is about the competition of ideas, not constraining them. SNUB have a lot of experience to bring to the table in that debate and the rest of us can then judge the validity of the arguments. It does not sit well that a referendum about how best to reflect the views and choices of all our citizens, does not then encourage all the voices about that reform to be heard. You can see some unbiased and balanced arguments for both sides of the debate at:
We would urge you to consider how your vote in the AV referendum would change the politics of the Broadland constituency and the future of our invisible MP Keith Simpson who seems more interested in raising his profile to get a seat in the Lords then representing the local people who voted him in. AV will force him to concentrate on what he obviously sees as minor issues. Lets see what happens.