Forget the arcane mathematics of whose backup votes get transferred to whom. Just look at the personality types of the people lining up to vote for AV vs. FPTP. On the AV side we have arch-ENFP Ed Miliband; on the FPTP side ESTJ bruisers such as Prescott and Blunkett.
Political Correctness is a project ideologically championed by the metropolitan NF elite and enthusiastically cheered on by sentimental SFs everywhere. As we all know, it's characterised by a focus on affiliation (warm hugs for everyone) and the emphasis of values over interests. AV is aligned with this as it blurs the ideas of winners and losers and proposes that as many people as possible get involved in picking the "winner", one way or another. How inclusive could that be?
The opposite of Political Correctness I shall call Skeptical Realism. It emphasises interests over values and rationality over sentiment. It's championed by NTs (and in its most crazily-enthusiastic over-the-top form by neocons) and is cheered on by tough-minded, no-nonsense STs such as Prescott & Blunkett. It likes the ideas of winners and wastes little time for losers, suggesting they get their act together if they want to win in future.
Heres' the prediction: PC politicians will end-up, in the main, in the AV camp; tough-minded politicians will support FPTP. You'll have to guess which way I'll vote ...
NOTE: putting aside all this knockabout hilarity, the problem I have with AV is that it's set up to elect the least-disliked candidate. In my view, this tips the balance too far to the bland. The Wikipedia article has an interesting example: "Imagine that Tennessee is having an election on the location of its capital" which shows how this could work perversely in practice.
