Whatever the circumstances that brought it about the referendum on reforming the voting system for the House of Commons will go ahead on 5 May. I will be voting Yes. I also hope and expect that my local Labour Party in Reading will remain consistent with the position it has supported for more than 20 years and that taken by my friend Martin Salter in his time as MP for Reading West and also back a Yes vote.

Unlike some, who back the Alternative Vote with reservations, I will vote yes with enthusiasm.

In most seats AV would not affect the outcome, but it would end the indefensible position in a minority of constituencies where an MP is elected on little more than a third of the vote.

AV is perfectly understandable. The ‘no’ campaign is seriously suggesting that people in the UK cannot grasp the idea of writing 1, 2, 3 and 4 in order of preference. Is it really possible to insult the intelligence of the electorate more comprehensively?

AV is also a better system than ‘first past the post’ for the age in which we live. At a time when the two dominant parties polled between them more than 85% of the vote ‘first past the post’ was perfectly adequate. But that hasn’t been the case since 1970, and you know what – that time isn’t coming back any time soon.

But, though I’ve supported electoral reform since the first election in which I became involved (in February 1974), in time I’ve come, partly through working with many MPs, to view AV as not just an improvement on ‘first past the post’ but as the RIGHT system for electing the House of Commons.

Despite the indiscretions and transgressions that have led to the crisis of confidence in politicians of recent times, there remains an attachment to notion of their ‘Constituency MP’. The electorate, whose collective wisdom politicians dismiss at their peril, genuinely values the notion of an identifiable individual who represents them, who they have the right to meet and lobby, who is there to go into bat on their behalf, who is accountable to them and to whom they can unceremoniously show the door. AV, unlike the more proportional systems on offer, retains the constituency link effectively. Supporters of STV (Single Transferable Vote with multi-member constituencies) conveniently ignore the fact that while their preferred has constituencies, in the UK those constituencies would be of around 350,000 voters electing five MPs. On that scaled it is almost impossible for the MP to build any meaningful relationship or for the constituency to have any real community of interest.

AV is not a proportional system and in this respect there is a missed opportunity in this reform proposal – we should also be voting on reform of the second chamber. The second chamber should provide the necessary checks and balances in a democratic system and its voting members should be elected. The first preferences cast at an AV general election could provide the basis for the return of the second chamber based on a proportional list. This approach would provide for the necessary legislative and ‘life’ expertise in a second chamber while also providing the democratic legitimacy that the current House of ‘Lords’ lacks. A role of ‘appointed’ non-voting ‘lords’ could remain – the influence on debate was always more important than their votes. There would be no reason why appointees could not play a role as government ministers. The spurious objections to an elected second chamber from otherwise intelligent people never ceases to amaze me.

But I digress. None of those objections are quite as fatuous as those of the ‘no’ campaign to AV. Just for the record: coalitions are no more likely under AV than ‘first past the post’; it is ludicrous to suggest that AV gives some people ‘two votes’ – it clearly doesn’t; and suggesting that AV will “help the BNP” or empower BNP supporters through their second preferences is dangerously daft. Presumably it is a whole lot better to ignore the concerns of those who mistakenly support extremist parties.

Despite the limited nature of this referendum, AV for the House of Commons remains the right choice. And although I have limited faith in the apparently shambolic ‘Yes’ campaign to deliver I sincerely hope they do. To those who think that it is a good idea to vote ‘no’ because it would be a blow to the deeply unpopular Nick Clegg, I’d say get real – there is a local election at which a vote against the LibDems is just that.

At the AV referendum we’ve the opportunity to restore a little confidence in our badly bruised body politic, everyone seriously committed to democracy and its future should vote ‘yes’.