ON Thursday, voters are being given a say about the way MPs are elected to Westminster in future.

The choice is between the existing First-past-the-post system, under which the winner in each constituency is the person with the most votes, or a system called Alternative Vote.

Under AV, voters are asked to rank candidates in order of preference – though if they really dislike a particular candidate, they can simply ignore them.

If no candidate gets 50 per cent of first-choice votes, the last-placed candidate is eliminated, and their voters’ second choice votes go to the other candidates. This process continues until one candidate is the clear winner.

In the weeks leading up to Thursday’s referendum on voting reform, debate on the merits of the respective systems has hardly been front page news.

For one thing, the media has been more preoccupied with the Royal wedding than with the question of constitutional change.

More publicity has also been given to claims and fallings-out between personalities on either side of the debate and their claims than to the issue itself.

North Essex MPs Bob Russell and Bernard Jenkin are in opposite camps on the AV issue.

Here they explain why they think you should use your vote on Thursday to ensure their side prevails.

Colchester MP Bob Russell: Pro-AV
Why are you in favour of the Alternative Vote system?

Because it is a fairer system – fairer, that is, to the electorate. About two-thirds of our MPs are elected with fewer than half the votes cast in their constituencies.

In my case, I have been elected four times without ever securing more than 50 per cent of the votes, although my majority has increased each time.

When I was first elected in 1997, I received only 34 per cent of the votes. With AV, every MP would have to win more than half the votes in their constituency.

Is the Lib Dems’ support for AV simple self-interest, since they are likely to get more MPs in the House of Commons under the AV system?

British democracy and the interests of the British people will be the main “winners” under a fairer voting system. Yes, the Lib Dems would obtain more seats, because the present, first-past-the-post system discriminates against us.

However, it would also benefit Labour in Essex. Last year, Essex elected 18 MPs, 17 of them Tories. Under AV, Labour would have won at least three seats in Essex possibly more. Labour Leader Ed Miliband supports AV.

Has the campaign, and the tactics used on both sides, focused on the issues at hand and stuck to the facts, or has there been a too much emphasis on spurious claims and a focus on the personalities involved?

The behaviour of both the “yes” and “no” national campaigns has been a disgrace.

I long ago distanced myself from the national “yes” campaign – and the “no” campaign is even worse.

I make no criticism of local campaigns.

This should have been a serious debate, but at national level it has not been.

Do you agree with AV’s opponents’ claims the system would cost £250million, and help the BNP?

Both claims are false. The BNP supports first-past-the-post, because, with several candidates from different parties, there is always a chance a minority party might squeeze into first place if the rest of the votes were split among all the other candidates.

Do you believe AV supporters’ claims first-past-the-post means more MPs have safe seats and are, in turn, more likely to fiddle their expenses?

I disagree with this assumption. There are reasons why AV should be supported, but I do not see the connection with this particular observation.

First-past-the-post was OK when Britain had just two main parties, but it is out of date for the 21st century. AV is not perfect, but it is better than the system we currently have – which is why I am urging people to vote “yes” on Thursday.

North Essex MP Bernard Jenkin: Anti-AV
Why are you in favour of retaining the present, first-past-the-post system?

The present system is tried and tested. It has seen us though world wars and economic depressions.

It is simple, clear and fair: One person; one vote. The most popular candidate wins.

It is the most widely-used voting system in the world. AV is used only in Australia, Fiji and Papua New Guinea.

Is the support from Conservatives simple self-interest, as they are seen to be most likely to lose out in the House of Commons under AV?

No. The present system best serves the interests of voters. It means you can get rid of an unpopular government.

The Lib Dems want AV because it would give them more seats, so Nick Clegg could more easily stay in coalition, either with Labour or Conservative.

And the Yes campaign is funded by Electoral Reform Services Ltd, the company which runs the vote counting machines AV will make necessary.

Has the campaign, and the tactics used on both sides, focused on the issues at hand and stuck to the facts, or has there been too much emphasis on spurious claims and a focus on the personalities involved?

The No campaign has focused on the key problems with AV: That it is unfair, giving some people more votes than others; that it is a politicians’ fix which will lead to more hung parliaments and back-room coalition deals; and that it is an expensive waste of money.

The Yes campaign claims AV means “fairer votes”, but it would have given Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair even bigger majorities.

Do you agree with AV’s opponents’ claims the system would cost £250million, and help the BNP?

Yes. In London and Scotland, for example, introducing new voting systems required expensive counting machines.

The BNP would be likely to get more protest votes, because voters could give their second preference to one of the main parties. BNP second or third preference voters could decide the result in some seats.

Do you believe AV supporters’ claims first-past-the-post means more MPs have safe seats and are, in turn, more likely to fiddle their expenses?

No. There is no evidence of any link between electoral systems and corruption in politics. Look at Berlusconi in Italy!

It is not about how safe someone’s seat is and the abuse of expenses.

AV would not end safe seats. Australia has AV and most seats there are safe seats.