If you believe that AV will end the 'political jobs for life culture', you are living on cloud cuckoo.
Do you really believe that the Millibands and Cameron will be anywhere other than a safe seat?
And what if they do, by some persons 6th vote, lose? Well, they do a Kinnock and Mandelson and get into either the EU and/or the Lords, get political appointments to some quango or another.
The only people getting lit up by this non-subject are the political activists/elite who see a way to keep power, award contracts to their mates for the voting equipment, jobs for their cronies and families, and 'lovies' like actors who want a Knighthood, like dining with politicians and unreformed zealots and champagne socialists like multi-millionaire Mary Jenkins - Polly Toynbee to Garuniad readers.
And what part of the 'party stitch up' do you like about the current coalition? I only ask because there will be a lot more coalitions if AV is adopted.
And what part of 'one person, one vote' is wrong? Why should one person get 3, 4, 5 or even 6 votes while most only get 1? Their first vote is still wasted for some, but they get another chance and another chance and another chance. You could argue that anybody who has not had their candidate, under any system, has wasted their vote. The way to stop votes being 'wasted' is to have enough support that you stand a chance of being elected.
Often, I would have liked to vote 'None of the above' because the candidates and policies were rubbish, but I voted anyway because that is what you do in a democracy.
If you are worried about the system, think that only 3 countries use AV; Australia, Fiji and Papau New Guinea. Australia had to introduce compulsory voting because people didn't like AV and didn't vote, and are now looking at reverting to first past the post, Fiji is dropping it and nobody knows what is happening in Papau New Guinea.
There are far more pressing 'political stitch ups' to worry about, such as: Scots, Welsh and NI votes on purely English matters, the subsidies given to the provinces at the expense of the English Taxpayer, the democratic and financial deficit with the EU, all with no democratic input from the voters. Surely these are more worthy of an expensive referendum. Hey, they can cough up for referenda on Scots (several times), Welsh (several times) and Northern Irish devolution, if Hartlepool should have a mayor, and even on AV. But, they cannot cough up for referenda that matter to the taxpayer.
Finally, do you like the idea of small parties being able to hold the nation to ransom because they hold the balance of power? It will happen, the Law of Unintended Consequences tells us it will.