But spending in key marginals even exceeds that, because much of it can be justified as national expenditure. For example, the resources (staff, equipment, databases) needed to target the marginals effectively is not a constituency-level cost, but will be used for targeted constituency-level campaigning.

I know from our own campaigning that a key marginal can be targeted without exceeding spending limits by including surrounding constituencies (e.g. with mobile billboards).

There are always loopholes and workarounds, and the bulk of campaign expenditure is ultimately aimed at the marginals.

Which of the good arguments for electoral reform do you think the ERS keeps ignoring? That’s a nice accusation, but you haven’t elaborated on it.

8k per constituency, plus another 4k for electors, is around 12k. Twice, once for each party strongly contesting the seat. There’s around 150-200 constituencies marginal enough to potentially change hands. So, 150*12k*2 = around 3.5 million pounds within the strict limit period alone. That’s probably significantly more than is spent in the (larger) group of safe seats.

There are strict election spending limits, which kicked in on 1st January this year. Sure, Ashcroft may have chucked his money in before then, but election spending is most powerful closest to the election.

And close to the election, you’re limited to a specific amount per constituency, with a hard cap for the nation as a whole.

I can’t remember the exact amounts, but it’s in the region of £8,000 per constituency plus 7p per elector.

That’s not big money. Big money is America, where you can get $10m spent on a congressional race.

There are good arguments for electoral reform. But the ERS keeps ignoring them to peddle half-truths at best.

Mr. Sensible: The only recent general election in which AV would have been likely to give a hung parliament in which FPTP didn’t give a hung Parliament anyway is 1992 (and since the Conservatives lost their shaky majority before the end of that Parliament, it’s hard to hold this up as a success of FPTP in producing a strong government). Conversely, it’s possible that AV would have prevented the hung parliament of February 1974, and saved the need for another election.

Opposing PR systems on those grounds is fine, but AV isn’t a PR system and is not any more likely to give hung parliaments and coalition or minority government than any other system.