An astounding argument against AV is that it "doesn't make a difference" to the result of FPTP. I say astounding because logically it begs the question that, if it is *at worst* the same as FPTP, then why not move to it for the potential benefits?
It's like I have a car, does about 30 miles to the gallon if being economical, no airbag. If I want to look for another car, do I discount all the other cars that have better security, better safety, because at worst (being uneconomical) it also does 30 miles to the gallon, and because I don't expect to crash so the inclusion of an airbag doesn't make a difference to me right now?
Of course it doesn't. Moving to a system where it's worst outcome is the best outcome of the old system means that the possibility is there for improvement...at the wishes of those taking part
If those taking part wish to perform like it were FPTP, fine, that's their choice. It'll also be an available option, one I believe that'll be taken by a significant number of voters, to do more than FPTP can offer in terms of allowing their voice to be heard.
Stating that AV might not make much of a difference than FPTP is irrelevant, it's what it allows in terms of further difference that matters...whether voters choose to use that extra influence or not is their choice, and a choice that they should be able to make on their own terms, not solely on the terms of people that prefer that less economical and less safe car.