This morning on Radio 4's Today Program, Labour leader Ed Milliband spoke of his regrets that the previous Labour administration had failed to take the opportunity to introduce the Alternative Vote.

As a supporter of the �Yes� campaign, Ed admitted that there were divisions amongst all politicians, not just in his own party but within the Conservative party too. Many MP�s are currently opposed to the introduction of the alternative vote, as this will result in them having to work harder to appeal to more candidates in order to get 2nd preferences. The No campaign have told us how much more complex this new system is, how much more it will costs to run, and how it will allow extremists to get into parliament. In short it won�t. The government�s own department charged with running elections has said that it will cost no more money. From a voter�s point of view the only complexity is being able to mark a ballot paper with a number instead of a cross, and as far as extremism goes, the BNP are supporting the No campaign, so its perfectly clear that they would not oppose a system which would be of benefit to them. The fact that the majority of MP�s in the UK are elected with a minority, seems to be escaping the no campaign as a simple tenant of common sense democracy. This further enforces the old adage of �I didn�t vote for them�, which is in fact probably true. The vast majority of people did not vote for those who are currently running the country, fact. The last election was decided by approximately 600,000 voters in key marginals around the country. This is clearly not the majority. The introduction of the Alternative Vote will (in some cases) remove the luxury of safe seats for traditional parties, and will ensure that entrenched MP�s no longer rely on their �core vote�. It will force candidates to take a wider view of the whole community in terms of being peoples �second choice�. Surely the concept of a second choice is not that difficult to understand, and to argue that it is more complex is an insult to voter�s intelligence. Those arguing against A.V. on the grounds of complexity are doing voter�s a great disservice. In simple terms, voting Yes to AV will require our rulers to rule with a majority, as supported by the population as a whole, not a minority political clique. It may come as a surprise to learn that when political parties hold elections for their own leaders, in order to ensure that the majority of the politicians select the same leader, an A.V. style vote is used in many cases. Why then is this method good enough for the ruling political classes but not the population as a whole? One recent study has shown that if A.V. was used at the last election, then a Tory majority would have been likely. This is of course conjecture as at the time no exit polls were actually asking 2nd preference. However, it does contradict the �No� position that voting �Yes� to A.V. will result in more coalition governments in the future. Tomorrow is a once in a generation opportunity to reform the electoral system of this country. Many �No�ers are arguing that what they really want is Proportional Representation, but that�s not what�s on offer. What we have tomorrow is an opportunity to send a clear message to all political parties that the status quo needs changing, modernising and bringing up to date to better reflect the views of the people. A Yes vote will pave the way for change and will ensure that MP�s are elected with the mandate of the majority. If you think the current electoral system is fair, representative and should remain unchanged then vote No. If you think politicians should be more accountable, work harder and appeal across the community as a whole to achieve a majority, vote Yes.