As we gallop towards voting on May 5th the thing that most strikes me about the AV campaigns is not just the feebleness of both campaigns but that if these were ads for anything except how to run the country they would be illegal.
The "No" campaign is feeble in crass and obvious ways. Fronted on TV by a fictitious politician from the last century (not David Cameron, boom boom), its core arguments appear to revolve around the expense (there is none), the complexity (which depends on explaining AV disingenuously badly to a classroom of obligingly dim-witted straw men) and the unfairness of second or third choice candidates coming first. I gather this really is, very occasionally, mathematically possible under AV, and would if we adopted it occur on average about once per century. It is not significant.