Two-tribe politics is over -or it can be

What I liked about this article Two-tribe politics is over. But the likes of John Prescott can't see it is the brief rehearsal of the pros and cons of AV:

Proponents of change will contend that first past the post awards parliamentary seats in a way which is wildly out of proportion with votes cast and that weakness has become so pronounced in recent years that MPs can now get elected with the support of fewer than three out of 10 voters. (They will be right.) Opponents of reform will say that AV can also distort the will of the electorate. (They will be right too.) Supporters of the status quo will insist that the current voting system has the great merit of producing reliable parliamentary majorities for single party governments. (That it does – except on those quite frequent occasions when it doesn't, as it didn't at the last election.)
Campaigners for change will say that AV gets rid of tactical voting, forces candidates to seek support from at least half their electorate and gives everyone the chance of their vote counting for something. (That it does.) Those hostile to AV will say that preferential voting privileges the supporters of smaller and fringe parties over mainstream parties. (This may be their best argument.)

So how would we decide in the referendum? Well, we really do have to recognise that any voting system is a judgement of balance between competing desirable characteristics. But what we have to bear in mind, I believe, is that our political culture has decisively changed and is now ill-served by a two-party system:

The alternative vote is not a perfect adjustment to this transformation, but it does at least recognise that, for millions of voters, their first choice is neither Conservative nor Labour. AV also has the merit of tending to reward politicians who try to reach out to as many of their constituents as possible. It better aligns how we vote with how most of us now think about politics. A declining minority of people identify wholly with one party. For the majority, any choice is a compromise, there are more colours in the rainbow than just red and blue, and cave-dwelling tribesmen belong in TV documentaries not modern British politics.

And the point therefore is to start moving our political system to a less-adversarial more plural-recognising one. AV isn't the best solution, but it is a step in the right direction especially of a system that encourages politicians to seek to work with a range of people and constituencies (note small 'c': I'm not meaning simply parliamentary constituencies here). That is so much better, surely, than knowing that the governing party is enjoying an absolute and terrifying majority with less than 40% of the popular vote: that scarcely counts as democratic.

Resist the argument to vote as if this is a referendum on how you're feeling about the coalition policies at the moment. Something much more important in the long-term is at stake. Tactical voting is less than transparent in conveying intentions -as we already know because for so many of us elections have been an invidious choice between two or more 'evils' and the unelectable.