AV debate sparks cheap jibes and ends in eloquent confusion

Are you still struggling to get interested in the AV referendum issue? I am, so took myself off last night to one of the debates now under way, this one in a packed lecture theatre at UCL where the protagonists clashed wonky swords at an event organised by the college's diligent constitution unit.

Most people I ask seem to think the quality of debate has been poor and many voters remain indifferent.

Who is winning? It depends how the pollster asks the question, YouGov's Peter Kellner suggested. The no camp seems to have been gaining ground, but differences in regional turnout – no local elections in some areas on 5 May – may be crucial.

Both sides have resorted to cheap finger-waving accusations and scaremongering tactics about each other's funding; the dangers of giving more power to parties rather than people; and the omission of the poet Benjamin Zephaniah's mug shot from the yes camp's fliers – the ones destined for all-white neighbourhoods.

There was evidence of such tactics at UCL last night, where the likes of Jane Kennedy (ex-MP and leading campaigner for the no camp) debated with Billy Bragg (musician and constitutional campaigner) while a panel of academic experts sat on the platform waiting for their chance to pick holes in both cases.

Plenty of scope there. When I arrived, Katie Ghose, the yes camp's chair, was explaining why politicians in previously safe seats would have to visit neglected voters, how AV would end the expenses scandal and force MPs to listen more – "It adds up to a different way of doing politics".

Then a fierce Tory called Charlotte Vere from the no camp (she'd won a nomination on an AV vote, the yes camp reminded us) chopped up Ghose's argument as yet another panacea similar to Sunday voting, open primaries and votes for 16-year-olds. She deployed a booklet called " 99 Reasons to Vote No by the Yes Campaign".

This, of course, was a series of quotes explaining why the alternative vote ( AV) option is not a proportional (PR) system, quite the reverse sometimes, and has been denounced as a "miserable little compromise" by Nick Clegg, and a "politician's fix" by plenty of others.

Against that wounding jibe, the yes camp kept pointing out that the no camp speakers no longer attempt to defend our traditional first past the post (FPTP) system, where the candidate with the most votes wins. That wasn't quite true – they just took it for granted that FPTP is simple and speedy and no more unfair than all other methods of voting.

Billy Bragg said that living in the West Dorset constituency forces him to vote tactically – Lib Dem – against local MP Oliver Letwin, when he'd rather vote Labour or Green. In his home town of Barking, Labour had been in power since 1935 – just as bad. Jane Kennedy countered that AV "doesn't do what it says on the tin".

It doesn't stop tactical voting (academic expert Alan Renwick says that Australian experience suggests AV reduces it), nor does it mean that all votes count equally, because some count equally several times. It doesn't even mean that a winner must command 50% of those voting, let alone of the electorate.

She and others insisted – or admitted – that AV itself is a classic political fix, a " shield against unpopularity" for the Lib Dems and the most they could extract from the Tories in the coalition deal, where wider options such as the single transferable vote (STV) or the Scottish and Welsh additional member system (AMS), would have been preferable. AV was there simply because a desperate Gordon Brown offered it in 2009 to tempt the Lib Dems.

I think there was genuine regret on both sides that wider options are not in contention, because the issue could have been resolved decisively whereas a yes or no vote on 5 May could leave the problem to fester – for months or decades, who can say?

Contrast that with progressive little New Zealand, where they had a two-stage referendum process: Do you want a change? If so, what system do you want?

When it was established that Kiwi voters liked the mixed-member "top up" system, which is much like AMS, they were offered a straight choice: AMS vs FPTP. AMS won, though with less support than it gained in the first referendum.

The debate isn't on the UCL constitution unit's website as far as I can see, but check it out again if you are seeking enlightenment. I didn't hear much I haven't heard before, but in the absence of much decent research – I'd have expected more from university specialists (have I missed something?) – last night's experts were useful in scoring the partisans.

Yes, both had exaggerated the negatives and positives, they confirmed. Most safe seats will probably remain safe, though they may be different ones. You can't predict how AV will work, because voters will learn to behave differently much as sportsmen and women adapt to a rule change.

Professor Justin Fisher from Brunel university protested that AV won't make MPs work harder – they work very hard already (true of most of them) – and won't cure rascals of excessive expenses claims. It's a voting system, for heaven's sake, that's all. No, it won't necessarily improve turnout at elections.

The core questions, for me at least, were posed by two of the experts: Tony Wright, who until 2010 was Labour MP for Cannock Chase, a political scientist by trade and now at the UCL unit; and Kellner, once a mere hack but now entrepreneurial president of YouGov as well – piquant detail – as being married to a once-obscure NHS manager who is now EU foreign minister. Yes, he's Mr Cathy Ashton.

I like and respect both of them. Though supposedly neutral, Wright is clearly a yes voter. No system is perfect, but FPTP no longer delivers its greatest strength, which is strong majority government in a system where most people back one of two major parties.

This is true and, in my view, the most powerful case for a yes vote. In the early 1950s, 90% voted Labour or Tory on 80% plus turnouts; now the figure is 65%. "You cannot pretend you can hang on (to FPTP) and all will be well," he argued. FPTP is hideously disproportionate and voters want more choice.

Kellner, I suspect, is a no man in private. Britain's constitutional history is one of incremental change leading gently to great change. AV is not – as Nick Clegg (who was barely mentioned) claims of his package – the Great Reform Act of 1832.

"AV will not bring sunshine every day or the end of democracy … whichever way you vote on 5 May it will not make much difference either way. Cast your vote confident that you are not standing between democracy and the abyss," he told 400 students and staff at the Bloomsbury lecture theatre.

That strikes me as the most powerful argument for a no vote. I find talk of a "wasted vote" distasteful, the political equivalent of saying "all must have prizes". But the more powerful case for a no is surely that the yes camp is peddling a panacea which (privately) few of its exponents really support.

Panaceas lead to disappointment and more disillusionment. We have quite enough already, much of it shallow and silly. This referendum is a "political fix" in itself – everyone agreed that.

I did not stay for the vote (AV fatigue sets in), but my stringer reports the outcome of a straw poll show of hands thus: "1st vote – 2:1 in favour of AV; 2nd vote: of those voters, overwhelmingly in favour of AV only as stepping stone to full PR; 3rd vote, those voting in favour of FPTP only did so because AV is an inadequate alternative(few voted for FPTP as the ideal).

Conclusion: A big majority of 400 wonks voted for and against AV at the same time, decisively. They're smart kids at UCL. Their eloquent confusion probably speaks for Britain.