A big advantage of the current First Past the Post (FPTP) system is seen to be the direct connection that MPs have to the people in the constituencies that elect them. MPs are elected by their constituents, they represent them and can be 'kicked out' by them at election time.

In the current debate about AV, YES campaigners have been keen to argue that under AV the link between MPs and their constituents will be strengthened, because MPs will have to get more votes from their constituents.

'Yes to fairer votes': “A constituency link comes with a real connection to the voters that put them in power. With so many MPs lacking even a basic mandate from their voters, any claims to a constituency link under First Past the Post look laughable.”

Facts

Under AV MPs are likely to have gained a vote from more of their constituents under AV, because where they do not get more than half of the 1st preference votes, they will have to attract next preference votes.

However, under both AV and FPTP an elected MP represents all of their constituents in Parliament, whether or not they voted for them.

The formal link between MPs and their constituents would therefore be the same under AV as FPTP.

Indeed, according to the Hansard Society, a charity who conduct research into parliament, MPs see their constituency link is very significant, and they put a lot of time and work into constituency work. Their research on the 2005 intake of MPs showed that after a year in their role, MPs were spending nearly half of their time on constituency work.