I’m sorry. Please forgive my appalling pun in the title, but calling the post “responsive curry” wouldn’t really have explained what we did the other night.

A while back, a number of designers, developers and thinkers all got together at Microsoft’s offices for a round-table pow-wow to discuss where the future of Responsive Web Design was headed. The Responsive Summit got its attendees talking about the tools they used, how to approach certain design problems and even turned out a polyfill for a non-existent element!

A small minority on twitter decided that the event was elitist, closed and a bit of a circle-jerk of the internet glitterati. Jealousy is a terrible thing. But it showed, once again, that the vast majority of people miss the point of events like this.

Instead of bitching about how you never get invited to things like this (see also If a group exists, join it; if it doesn’t, start one) how about organising one yourself.

Once again, that’s exactly what I did. With curry and beer.

(download)

Click here to download:

currying-favour-with-responsive-web-developers-mdjHodjoxpetzldzftqI.zip (7.01 MB)

Responsive Curry

Now, admittedly, the event didn’t start out as a responsive summit-esque event. Last week, my wife and son were away at my father-in-law’s place in Wales, so with no plans, I decided to ask some friends if they fancied going out for a curry. These friends just so happened to be web developers who just so happened to be interested in Responsive Web Design and I was organising the curry right around the time of the twitter backlash.

Thus, the #ResponsiveCurry hashtag was born as a bit of a tongue-in-cheek dig at the vocal minority, a Lanyrd event page was thrown together and a domain name was purchased and we threw open the doors to anyone that could make it to Leamington.

Discussing Responsive Issues over a Curry and some Beer

We spoke about a number of topics – navigation, designing breakpoints, starting with mobile or desktop first, whether RWD was the answer to all the web’s problems (it isn’t), responsive images and device and connection capabilities - and discussed how each of us was tackling, or planning to tackle, the issues at hand.

For navigation, we discussed the different ways of creating navigation methods that worked across multiple devices and breakpoints. In examples where navigation collapsed or became part of the footer, we spoke about how it needed to be obvious to newcomers to the platform, and spoke about looking at the kinds of buttons and icons that could be created, with the ‘three line’ menu icon being cited as a front-runner, being used in Twitter’s bootstrap, and rising to prominence much in the same way that the video ‘play’ icon has.

With breakpoints, the discussion turned to making sure that breakpoints were clearly designed in CSS, but also designed in JavaScript – or designing our JavaScript in such ways that it didn’t need to be aware of the presentation elements.

I posed the (loaded) question asking if Responsive Web Design was the answer to all of the web’s problems (hint: it isn’t) and we spoke again about making sure that the starting point for each design is considered in conjunction with a long, hard look at the audience and the environments in which each application or website is primarily used.

There was much discussion about the non-existent (for now) picture element – for which Scott Jehl has created a polyfill – and how, in a similar fashion to the <video> element, it could be an answer for future responsive image needs. Other methods, including setting cookies and Jeremy Keith’s reminder of the now-deprecated (but, perhaps soon un-deprecated) lowsrc attribute of the <img> element, were also discussed.

Then we spoke about how designing for the web was about considering all aspects of the audience – especially when it comes to their device capabilities and the bandwidth of their connection to the internet.

Finally, we agreed that, instead of building massive designs and then re-designing for each, that a pattern- or component-based approach was the best to take, ensuring that each piece of the puzzle comes together in a responsive fashion.

Don’t bitch about it, organise one yourself

So that’s it. We got together. We had a curry. We drank some beer. We spoke about responsive web design.

This may blow your mind: It’s something you can do too.

Whenever I see mention of an event like the Responsive Summit on Twitter, Lanyrd or other places, I take a few minutes to think about the event – what its goals are, the type of people going, what the topics will be – and, if there’s no chance that I’ll be invited along or can attend, I think about how I could put a similar event on.

As developers, designers and content creators, we’re all lucky to live in the current age where it’s easy to reach out to our friends, colleagues and peers via the intenet and organise little get-togethers like The Multipack, HydraHack, iOS Midlands and WordPress Birmingham.

A quick, but heartfelt note of thanks goes to Campaign Monitor for their support of the event – giving us some money to go towards the night for everyone who attended. I dropped them a line on their Giving Back page and explained my idea for the event and they were happy to give us something towards the evening. Our next event will be featuring some discussions for the real-world topic of email newsletter design for which Campaign Monitor have a great template base ready to build upon.

If you want to organise a Responsive Curry (drop me a tweet and I’ll make sure that, when the website’s up, we’ll list your event) or a Repsonsive Bowling Night or a Repsonsive Roundtable, or a Responsive Club Night then go ahead and make it happen – just don’t bitch about it and do nothing.

Anyone can do that.

Let's get straight to the point, because I promise you I'm going to meander a bit during the middle of this post: I think broadcast television – that is, the channel model, where you tune in to channels at specific points in time to watch episodes of your favourite shows – is dying.

More and more of us own Sky+, TiVo or DVR boxes that will record these from television and keep for us to watch at our leisure. With the exception of live events, real breaking news – I don't mean the kind of sensational crap that justifies 24-hour news channels – and some live sporting events, broadcasting through the air – from ground stations or satellites in space – to our television sets is something I don't expect to see for much longer.

Sport

You're probably aware that I'm not the biggest of football fans, but an interesting piece of news has resurfaced recently, featuring the story of the pub landlady who has won a legal battle against the Premier League, who challenged her right to screen premiership football matches using a far cheaper Greek satellite decoder.

You're probably also aware that I'm not the biggest fan of Sky, or the exorbitant and extortionate fees that it charges for access to sport – even more so given the fact that, as of next year, I will be denied access to half a season of my favourite sport, because of the deal that FOM have struck with the BBC and Sky.

The ruling itself is not surprising – it was inevitable, in my humble and quite uninformed opinion on European competition laws, that a legal challenge to the monopoly on screening rights to a member state of the EU would succeed – but what is interesting is the discussion that arises around the Premier League's ability to raise funds on its property.

Satellite killed the Free-to-Air Star

A while back, during a very interesting conversation I was having with my buddy Paul, we spoke about the topics of F1 and cricket, and how the latter's move to Sky will affect our ability to watch the races. We also spoke about how cricket – another game which suffered from a high profile move to pay-TV – underwent similar changes many years ago.

The question Paul posed during our chat was simple: did the move to pay-TV affect the audience of the game of cricket. Speaking only from my own experience, I remember watching the cricket with my Uncle Jim on television throughout the summer holidays.

On days when the weather was particularly excellent, he'd sit in the back garden with the 14" portable TV perched on a chair with a makeshift sun shade, whilst my sister and I played. Gradually, he'd explain the rules of the game and I stopped finding it boring and instead became an armchair fan. By 2006, when Sky took the rights from Channel 4, his ability – as a pensioner – to watch the cricket disappeared in a puff of smoke.

Given the current state of play in the market, unless people are paying close to £500 a year (or per month if you're a business), there is no way to watch the game of cricket on live television – for newcomers to the game, that's a shame.

I fear that the same will happen to F1.

Supporting your favourite sport

There is no doubt that Sky has, over the last 20 years, pumped billions into the top flight of English football, but Sky's 'investment' in the game hasn't reaped much in the way of reward – the last time England reached the semi-final of the World Cup was in 1990, and the last time they reached the semi-final of the European Championships was in 1996.

Then there's the sense of entitlement that a lot of players succumb to, and the lack of respect for officials and fans – there's no need for me to go on about that subject again. Add to this the fact that the excesses of money and fame have created an unsustainable future for the game – ever more evident as more clubs go into administration.

The Premier League will no doubt find a new way to secure its rights and capitalise on them from businesses, much in the way that F1 is exploring new ways to get more money from the fans of the sport. One option being the creation of the Premier League's own channel.

Many people forget F1's aborted pay-TV exercise - F1 Digital Plus, or "Bernie-Vision" as it was derisively called – which was available in the UK during the 2002 season, but throughout Europe from the 1996 season. What you got back then was very similar to what you get now – lap counters, team radio, rev counters, etc.

The choice, if you were a Sky Digital subscriber, was between watching the F1 coverage live on ITV with the adverts, or paying £12 per race weekend to watch extended coverage over multiple channels. Unsurprisingly, take-up was low, with the most popular race of the season attracting just 25,000 punters.

But what would happen if, instead of paying the middle-man broadcaster, you paid the sport directly for the coverage.

Major League Baseball as a future model

The days of negotiating rights with broadcasters are drawing to an end – as more and more people shift from traditional terrestrial, satellite and cable TV to more modern methods of streaming direct from the source, I predict that more sport, events and television shows will be broadcast directly from the providers themselves.

If you have one of the new 2nd generation Apple TV boxes, you might already be aware of a service called MLB.tv. If you're a baseball fan and an iOS or supported Android device owner, you've probably also heard of MLB At Bat.

MLB have recently announced new, simpler subscription options for their streaming and app offerings. Making things simpler – and cheaper – means that more people start to see it as a viable alternative to their overpriced broadcaster/service provider offerings. In the UK we have Sky and Virgin Media as the alternative service providers – in the states, there are more still, some with exclusive deals with the content-providers.

Instead of the competitions, leagues, sports, teams and sportsmen getting paid from the residuals of television broadcasting contracts, they're paid from a larger chunk of money coming in directly from the fans and spectators. Big chunks are no longer taken up to pay the media companies' executives, and instead, more money goes to the sport itself.

Now forget about sport for a minute

Instead of sport, think about your favourite TV show. When was the last time you were watching a television show only to see that the American TV network that comissioned it was unhappy with the viewing figures and canned the series? As a general rule of thumb now, I won't even bother watching a new show unless it's into its second series for exactly that reason.

Louis CK's "Life at the Beacon Theater" experiment has netted him over $1 million since he released it last December. Instead of going down the route of region-specific releases, going through distributors and making the material available through exclusive deals with broadcasters, he released it – at $5 – in a DRM-free format that allowed you to watch it as many times as you like, burn it to DVD or "do whatever" you like with it.

What if, instead of being beholden to TV studios and networks, the creative masses turned to the internet for distribution and Kickstarter and their likes for funding? I think the entertainment industry landscape would change altogether.

Perhaps it's already starting to.

“I finally cracked it.”

Steve Jobs is famous for a number of things but one of his major achievements was to unshackle the music industry's wares and give them a digital distribution platform worth billions of dollars. The ripples of disruption the iTunes Music Store caused still rock the industry today, where executives still hanker for a time when the customers' choices were largely dictated to them through restrictive distribution and high prices.

The last barriers to TV over IP are falling away, as broadband speed and quality continue to increase. My father-in-law, who lives beyond the brecon beacons in a deeply rural setting, gets better broadband than I do – a testament to the wireless technology that his solution operates on.

As these barriers fall away, IPTV solutions will become more prominent. Apple's hobby will, eventually, become a large scale consumer product. What Steve meant when he told Isaacson that he'd cracked it is anyone's guess – but I'm sure we'll find out one day.

What is happening, however, is that the traditional broadcasters – particularly those with no original content – will start to die out, just like the news organisations who are in the process of dying. Broadcast television will eventually go the way of the daily, largely-advertising-funded, printed newspapers.

They will be replaced by things you want to pay for, want to support, want to watch.

Which is no bad thing, surely?

Here's something I threw together really quickly for use when designing on top of Twitter Bootstrap. It's a responsive grid which, in the gist shared below, sits on the BODY element of your markup and follows the standard 12-column layout.

It's very much webkit only at the moment, since that's what I tend to do most of my initial designing in, but it would be very simple to add additional CSS gradient based rules for other vendors – I just didn't get round to doing so.

Here's a very basic demo. If you find it useful, feel free to run with it.

Having a ton of things to write about, a head full of ideas and opinions on all sorts of things pales in insignificance next to a complete lack of sleep, a busy day job, a wonderful son who is becoming more wonderful by the day and a pregnant wife with only around 7 weeks left of being pregnant.

I'll be dusting off the half-written blog posts over the next few days. Any that aren't fit for posting will be grouped together and turned into a "posts that might have been" post.

How very meta.

I got my first computer when I was 4 years old which, for those of you who know me, probably explains a lot. It was an Acorn Electron, it had 32KB of RAM, it cost my parents a fortune and, until 1993, it was my only real piece of computing kit. Sure, I had an Atari 2600, but with my Electron, I could play games that I'd bought, type out page after page of code from "Electron User" to run games featured in the magazine's pages – because my parents couldn't get the version with the tape on the front – and, ultimately, learn BASIC and create my own software.

My parents' gift and foresight – in seeing the value of buying a computer for me at such an early age – were probably the most valuable things I would be given at such an early age, despite not knowing it until long after I'd left school. Aside from hours spent playing Repton, Elite and the myriad of other fantastic Superior Software games, the Electron gave me a grounding in programming, something which has been a huge contribution to who I am and what I do today.

The Computer Room

By the time I was 10, we'd moved from the centre of Birmingham to the suburb of Great Barr on the very edges of the city, and in September 1990, I started secondary school at Stuart Bathurst R.C. High School. My earlier tour of the four-storey building that formed part of my new school in Wednesbury, hadn't included a visit to the room in the corner of the top floor which housed the Maths department, but my first lesson in that room changed everything.

At my primary school – St. Catherine's in Birmingham, if you must know – we had a single RM machine. I can't remember much about it, apart from the fact that it was very basic and didn't sound anything like my computer sounded when it was loading programs from the cassette tapes. But this amazing computer room was packed full of computers – a few Archimedes machines, but mostly BBC Micros hooked up to monitors of varying capabilities.

Slightly more amazing than the lab full of computing equipment, however, was the teacher who inhabited it.

The Nun

During the 80s, I'd grown up with the vision of bespectacled old men with beards who taught computing – if you're around my age, and you had any interest in computing around that time, you might remember The Computer Programme which was commissioned by the BBC. The story is much longer and complicated but, as basically as possible, Acorn Computers and the BBC had designed the BBC Micro to be an essential part of british education, and it certainly fellt like Stuart Bathurst had embraced that vision with gusto.

Except that whilst sometimes seen wearing glasses, our teacher didn't have a beard and wasn't a man, but was an intensely intimidating nun, who went by the name of Sister Celsus. Those that messed with her soon learned not to, and it wasn't long until everyone was given a basic understanding of computing and the BBC BASIC langauge.

The small handful of us who had already been exposed to BBC BASIC and knew our way around the computers were quickly identified and nurtured, motivated into spending more time with the computers and often pushed, in class, to deliver advanced work. In the first two years at the school, we were given access to the computer room at lunchtimes and some were even given access to help out with more technical projects, taught about databases and more interesting uses of the machines.

Long before computing became part of any syllabus, Sister Celsus was teaching kids how to program, how to properly interact with computers – not simply how to use Microsoft Word, Excel and PowerPoint and choose Comic Sans as your font.

Whatever happened to Computing in schools?

At the start of my second year, the BBC Micros had all but been replaced by Archimedes machines, and by the start of my third, RM-branded, watered-down PCs – no doubt cheaper than their Acorn counterparts – had started to make their way into the computing lab, and many classrooms around the school. Computing became less of a subject about programming and more about how to use computers for everyday needs, for writing letters, creating presentations and basically learning how to get around Windows.

When the time came to move into my third year, Sister Celsus had left the school, and the real passionate forces behind computing at Bathurst began to disappear. More and more Windows PCs, complete with ClarisWorks and very early versions of Microsoft Office, became commonplace throughout the school. Of course, a handful of students used to spend as much time on the remaining BBC and Acorn machines, mucking around and playing games like Elite and Exile until as late as 1993 on machines which had been distributed throughout the school.

It was around that time that my Electron moved to it's final resting place in my parent's loft, shortly after they'd bought me a Commodore Amiga. I'm sure both computers are still up there, and I imagine they both still work, though, if I remember correctly, one of the Electron's loose chips might need a bit of a jiggle in order to get it running again – something those who teach computing could probably do with. I got further involved in BASIC programming through AMOS Professional on my Amiga, but the early lessons in how to program stuck with me.

Much of everything I've heard about ICT classes in schools recently makes me cringe. Horror stories of students being taught that the style of a presentation is more important than the content, and – particularly abhorrent to me – students being taught how to create websites using PowerPoint. Friends of mine who actually failed their ICT course because they created a website using commercially acceptable methods instead of using Microsoft Office to do so. Perhaps it's just my interest in the field that clouds my memories, but I remember my computing classes being nothing like that – while we did learn how to use word processors and other applications, we were always encouraged to find new uses for the technology we were using.

Yes, there have been whispers of suggestions from Whitehall that the teaching of programming will be making a comeback to our schools, but it's the likes of Anna Debenham, who I'm sure will be the subject of many future ALD-themed blog posts, who are the real pioneers here. Becoming involved in schemes where us developers actually go out into schools and ask to be part of unconventional ICT lessons is a great way to help in this area – it's just a shame that teaching students something that doesn't involve office productivity software is labelled as unconventional.

Perhaps what should be thought of as unconventional is actually teaching kids – the potential developers of tomorrow – how to learn, and how to keep up with the rapidly changing standards and moving targets of modern web development.

Being thankful

Having a teacher like Sister Celsus bolstered the investment my parents had made, and whilst no-one stepped into the void left by her with the same level of interest, the time she dedicated to the subject galvanised my interest in the subject. I'd probably still be doing something with regards to computers right now, but I doubt I'd be as interested as I am had it not been for her.

Perhaps it's down to the fact that computing has become so ubiquitous, so big a part in everyday life, that the teaching of the subject has become so watered down, but I hope there are still teachers out there who recognise pupils with a knack for computing and who give them the same level of encouragement that I received from that amazing little Irish nun.

This entry is my contribution to Ada Lovelace Day 2011. You may also be interested in The Nun and the Archimedes – my buddy Matt Patterson's ALD post from 2009.

The version that aired was great. This one's so much better.

"About the only thing you can't do, is ignore them."

So long, Steve.

Thanks for inspiring generations of geeks.

Chris Ross (@darkrock on twitter), as part of his excellent talk on defining success on the App Store at iOSDevUK last week, said something that resonated with me. Based around the topic of iterating and evolution, Chris said that collaboration helps to bring great ideas to the forefront and to filter out the bad ones.

Coming from Brighton, Chris has access to a plethora of dense tech talent in a relatively small area, and as he discussed how he found his business partner through the Brighton iPhone Creators meetup, he said something really quite profound.

If a local group exists, join it. If it doesn't, create one.

Chris Ross

This caused an almost involuntary tweet to spring, via my fingers, from my brain:

What say you, @daveaddey – shall we start one in the midlands? #iosdevuk

— Anthony Williams (@abitgone) September 8, 2011

The response from Dave Addey and other midlands-based attendees was encouraging enough for us to get together during the BarCamp that evening and fix a date and a venue – or, in this case, two venues.

When and where?

We're going to meet up on every fourth Thursday of the month, and we're going to alternate the venue on a two-month basis.

Starting on September 22nd this year, we'll meet in Leamington Spa on the odd months of the year – that'll be January, March, May, July, September and November. I'll be speaking to people at The White Horse, The Sozzled Sausage and The Fox who all have rooms that would be available for such a gathering.

Then, starting on October 27th this year, we'll meet in Birmingham on the even months of the year – that'll be February, April, June, August and October. I imagine you may have other things on you rmind, or be somewhere else on the fourth Thursday of December, so we'll have a festive break during that month. I've already spoken to people at Birmingham Science Park Aston who would be very happy to host us for such an event.

As for a name, we've gone for "iOS Midlands Meetup" – if you've got a better idea, I'm all ears – the events are listed on Lanyrd as "iOS Midlands Meetup" (or just subscribe to the events in your calendar) so if you're interested in attending, please add yourself on Lanyrd.

So the local group now exists. All you need to do now is join it.

A colleague just got in touch with me, as they'd heard about this brand new social network that was coming from Google, and wanted to know my opinions.

One of the first things I saw about Google+ was their lovely interactive tour, which uses the Google Maps engine to serve up a huge great big image – something we were talking about last night, at the Leamington Multipack meet-up, was this exact technology and how you don't need Silverlight or Flash to make it work.

Google's design, of late, has really stepped up a gear – the interface design shown in the tour is lovely, and there are a bunch of really nice little touches – when you drag a contact into a circle, for instance.

Having seen most of the 'bits' that make up Google+, it looks like they are nothing more than add-ons to the Google experience. So the social aspect will be handled by the Circles 'app'. Talking to groups of people will be handled by the Huddle 'app'. Photos and image sharing by the Images 'app'.

Why quote 'app'? Because I think these individual bits are akin to the way that Facebook refers to 'apps' on their platform. So while both Facebook and Google+ are apps built atop their respective platforms, Google's collection of services and apps are an evolution of what's already there, with the addition of a few new things.

Arguably, Circles already exists, to a certain extent, if you're a Google Profile user – you can add contacts to groups on your profile – but it looks like Google are taking this a step further. Additionally, while there are bound to be tons of differences in the way that Google+ and Facebook are perceived, my take is that Google+ will be more of an experience built on top of the things you already do on Google.

What do I mean by that? Well, different to Facebook, I don't think that Google+ will be a destination, per sé. You won’t need to go to plus.google.com to do everything – though I'm sure you'll be able to – but you’ll go to the individual bits that you want to use Google Circles, or Google Huddle.

This is, in a way, analogous to going to the different apps within Facebook, with the exception that while Facebook is a walled garden that does its best to keep the internet out, Google will embrace the internet and make your ‘social experience’ part of it – especially when you’re searching for things, because that's where most people will see their interactions and, knowing Google, they'll do their best to make your friends suggestions have an impact on the results they serve to you.

So, if you think of Google+ as a social network, my honest opinion is that it’ll take a couple of years – at least – for it to gain any sort of critical mass. For the vast majority of users, I don't see a mass exodus from Facebook any time soon, especially given that Google is doing this on an invitation-only basis right now.

But, if you think of Google+ as an extension of Google’s current service offerings, who knows what to expect. It's something to watch, certainly; something to think about, definitely; but something to do something about right now?

I can't say I'm sure it is.

I write things because I think I've got something that's worth reading. I create websites because the people I make them for have something worth showing off. I talk because, more often than not, I have something worth saying.

I vote because I want the people that work for me to do their job.

In 2005, I voted for Labour - not because I wanted to vote for Labour, but because I knew that tactically, it was my only real choice. Last year, I emplored everyone to abandon tactical voting and use their vote properly, because I – somewhat naively – believed that the party I normally vote for, the Lib Dems, had a real chance at securing some sort of power.

Tactical, Schmactical

Looking back, it was inevitable, really, that in the last push to get votes, the different camps would turn around and employ methods of scaring people into persuading them back into voting tactically. Their weak explanation was simple: there are only two real choices in modern day politics - those of the Conservative and Labour parties.

Thing is, though, I'm neither a Conservative nor a Labour supporter. Sure, I've voted Labour since my I received my first polling card, but I've never really supported the full ideals of either party. I don't think I'm alone either.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that there is a large portion of the population who support other parties. Some of these people vote for the party they support - which is what I started doing last year. Others succumb to the tactical voting crowd, voting for – in their mind – the lesser of two 'evils'. More worryingly, however, is the remainder who develop a level of apathy to the whole idea, and simply don't vote. Don't get me started on that topic.

Our current voting system - first past the post - encourages and fosters this, meaning that those who represent us at the highest level of politics are elected, in some cases, by the tiniest of majorities. It also gives us outcomes where the parties that run our country often have more of the seats in parliament, but less of the votes of the populace.

First Past the Post and the Alternative Vote

Many celebrities, more articulate than I, have waxed lyrical about the Alternative Vote. Where FPTP forces you to think tactically and vote that way, should you so desire, AV completely wipes out the need for tactical voting, since you can vote with your principles in mind. Both voting methods are explained in the Electoral Commission's video, shown below:

Looking back to the results of the General Election in 2010 for Warwick and Leamington we can see that Chris White of the Conservatives was elected as our member of parliament. The results, sourced from Wikipedia, are shown below:

It has to be assumed that some of the people who voted for Labour did so because they felt that the party they really wanted to vote for had no real chance of winning the election. I expect that, in the case of AV, there will be plenty of UKIP voters who would probably have the Conservatives as their second choice.

It's impossible to know how people would have voted using AV in the last election, because – simply – they didn't. I expect that, with the fear of having 'wasted your vote' lifted from people's shoulders, they would vote with their heart as opposed to voting with someone else's head, and that the results would have been very different.

Would Alan Beddow have triumphed? Would James Plaskitt have retained his seat? Would Chris White have won anyway? I don't know – but I'd like to find out next time.

It's not Rocket Science

There are some who say that it should be one vote for one person – it is. You still only get one vote, it's just that if your first choice is eliminated, your next choice gets your single vote. Some say the system is too complicated. I say the public are cleverer than these people give them credit – if, as these people say, the general populace is incapable of ranking candidates in order, then we are truly screwed.

Others say that they only want to vote for one person – that's fine, just make sure you don't put any numbers higher than 1 on your ballot paper. Today, people are, have and will be voting for representatives of their local and county councils, as well as on the referendum. In the case of local and county council elections, you often have more than one vote. For instance, in Warwick and Leamington, we have 3 votes for the county council and 5 for the local council. It's not rocket science.

Another argument against AV is that it doesn't offer a fair representation. Take a look at the table below:

To FPTP supporters, that's a fair outcome. To AV supporters, it's far less fairer than having a government where the number of seats a party occupies tallies a little better with the number of votes they received during the election.

If seats were put in proportion the number of votes received by the populace, this is how things would look:

AV is a step towards fixing that problem, ensuring that each elected member has the backing of at least 50% of their constituency.

Why I'm voting Yes

However, the biggest reason for me voting yes, is simple. I don't want to have to vote tactically, and I don't want everyone else to vote tactically. I want them to choose how they want to vote, unencumbered by the fear that, because their person doesn't stand a chance means they can't vote for the person they want to.

Some say that AV is a compromise. Sure it's not the system that everyone wants, and it's not a completely representational system – only changes in boundaries can make sure that our population is represented in a fairer fashion – but if this fails, there's very little chance we'll get another shot in the foreseeable future.

The referendum gives us a chance to make sure the people's voice is being heard, and gives them a chance to feel that their choice matters. For me, voting yes means my voice, and the voices of others who feel they're not being listened to, will be heard a little clearer.

People aren't stupid. Let's not treat them that way.