Mark wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2011 15:14:21 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2011 00:19:27 +0100, "Thumper"
wrote:

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/2011 13:05, Thumper wrote:
I'll be voting No because it is actually the fairer system. Each voter
gets 1 vote, votes are added up, candidate with most votes is the
winner. Can't get more fairer than that.

Excpet that:
* Most of the MPs it returns have more people voting *against* than *for*
them, and
You can only vote for someone, not against. And under the AV system it's
possible that a candidate with even less votes that a FPTP winner, will be
elected
Extremely unlikely. Under AV the winner will almost always have 50%
of the vote. This does not happen very often under FPTP.

As that's the definition of the way AV works, then yes the wiiner will
have to have more than half the votes cast.
But that's over half the
people who listed the winner *anywhere* on their list of preferences,
not over half the voters wanting that candidate to win.

Why would they vote for someone at all if they don't want them to win?

Because that's the way it's going to be set up. The propoganda says list
the candidates in your order of preference. So candidate B might be
first, candidate C second, and so on. Depending on the actual votes
cast, it's possible that the one that finally gets elected is the last
(Or, at best the second) choice of almost everybody, but the first
choice of very few.

The plans don't make it compulsory to put a number against each
candidate, but most people probably will. It's difficult to say what
will actually happen, because this exact system has never (AFAIK, but
ICBW) been used anywhere on a larger scale than the equivalent of County
Council elections.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.