On Mon, 02 May 2011 21:16:42 +0100, Roger Mills wrote:

On 02/05/2011 20:32, Old Codger wrote:
On 02/05/2011 13:33, Roger Mills wrote:


No - because every time their vote is transferred, their previous vote
is *discounted* - so they're still only left with *one* vote.

Like "Keep voting till you get it right"?

Look at it like this. Suppose it were practical (which it clearly isn't)
to get all the electorate out to vote several times. Every time the
person with the least votes was eliminated they would *all* vote again
for the remaining candidates. Would you be happy with that, and agree
that everyone had the same number of votes?

Similar to the system in France, AFAICR. One weekend you
vote using the full list of people standing. From this, the
two leading candidates only make it through to the second
ballot held on the next weekend where it's a simple vote
for everyone using FPTP. It leads to some interesting use
of tactical voting to get a point across during the first
round leading to panic voting at the second :-)

As I see it, the proposed AV is similar to that, but done
at one vote. After the first pass, everyone's vote is
counted again, with those that expressed their 1st
preference for one of the remaining candidates going into
their piles together with those that voted for a now
eliminated candidate using their 2nd preference rather than
them going into the bit bucket as now. This is repeated
until it is between the remaining two candidates.

Personally, I'll go for anything that reduces the number of
modern-day Rotten Boroughs with safe seats where voting
hardly matters. All that produces is ineffective MPs that
can safely ignore their constituents until retirement.
--
John W