The Deputy Prime Minister is today arguing the case for AV. Or rather he is making claims without apparently advancing any substantive arguments. Saying that in future the arguments against AV will appear as nonsensical as those used against giving the vote to women is as questionable as it is irrelevant to the substance of the debate. He claims that changing to AV will bring the system ‘up to date’. What on earth does that mean? There’s nothing new, or up to date, about AV. It was devised in the 1870s and is used for national elections by only Australia, Fiji and Papua New Guinea. And Australians apparently are not too keen on it. It is not new or widely used. I am still waiting for some substantive arguments.