In message , Roger Mills
writes
On 07/05/2011 17:36, John Rumm wrote:


A point worth noting is that they did not (or possibly they did but I
did not see it) actually spell out what variation of the rules would
have been used here. It is possible they would have insisted that you
rank all candidates as in some bits of Aus.


Do you have a copy of the booklet produced by the independent Electoral
Commission (not to be confused - as even my MP appeared to do - with
the partial Electoral Reform Society) and circulated to all households?

If so, turn to Page 5 and read the bit where it says:
"You can choose how many candidates to rank.You don't have to rank
every candidate. As long as you rank at least one, your vote will be
counted"

OLD CODGER, PLEASE NOTE!!


[1] though, sadly, not savvy enough to see the merits of AV in
sufficient numbers! g

Do you suppose there may have been some that fully understood the
system, how it works, and the various legitimate pros and cons, and yet
still voted "no"?


Of course. Particularly staunch Tories who worked out that AV would
make a Tory overall majority less likely. But I'm still sad that the
majority decided (or allowed themselves to be brainwashed) that AV was
a bad thing.
I would have thought that allowing oneself to be brainwashed is by
definition not possible.
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha