"brass monkey" wrote in message
eb.com...

But when there are multiple options/candidates, this doesn't work. In the
FPTP illustration, the coffee shop won even though more people wanted to
go *a* (though not the same) pub. When they applied some sort of AV (I
didn't quite understand the methodology) they ended up going to a pub
that everyone was happy with.

But didn't they move the goalposts?
3 pubs were involved and only 1 coffee shop.
So, to defeat the coffee bods, the drinkers got together and decided that
ANY pub was better than coffee.
A really crap example, IMHO.


It is however exactly how FPTP works.
You don't get to vote on pub or coffee shop and then on which pub in our
elections.
You get to vote for the candidate (name of pub) and not the party (pub or
coffee shop).

Its the same as having a NuLabore and an independent Labour candidate up
against a liberal.
The liberal could win with 34% of the vote using FPTP (even less with more
candidates).
You don't get to choose between Labour or liberal using FPTP, with AV you
do.

Choosing pub and then which pub is two elections and we don't do that.

It would be possible(desirable?) for a party to stand several candidates and
let the electorate choose which one they want to represent them using AV,
something they can't do under FPTP.