@Godsmacked

1. The first-preference votes are counted up.
2. The totals for each candidate are compared.
3. The lowest-ranked candidate is eliminated.
4. Those who voted for the least popular candidate have their second-preference votes distributed to each candidate.
5. The totals are compared again.

Now, if ALL of the votes weren't recounted (in theory, even if this isn't physically necessary in practise) in step 5 then the winner would be whoever got the most second-preference votes from the candidate eliminated in step 3. This is absurd and not how the proposed system would work. People who vote for the majority candidates don't "lose" their vote after the first round, it is still working in their interest until the winner is announced.

Simple answer to all this buhakki would be to have requested weighting votes.

1st pref has 100% weighting
2nd pref has 80% weighting
3rd pref has 75% weighting
4th pref has 60% weighting
5th pref has 40% weighting
6th pref has 25% weighting

this way your voting preference and its weight in the 2nd, 3rd, nth rounds reflect each other.

is there such a system? to my state comp, graduate level educated middle class brain it seems awfully simple. I dont get how supposedly establishment public school educated media types dont understand very simple systems?

Do we really think choosing a candidate is like choosing which chocolate bar, Ice Cream, or pub?

http://www.youtube.com/user/farbennion#p/u/2/5OwHIleXamA

@Briank.11 - 'I don't think I do like that at all'

Is that because people who vote monster raving loony should be viewed as less worthy of a vote that other 'sensible' people? Who is to judge who is worthy of a vote once we move away from universal sufferage? Has anyone who would even contemplate voting BNP or EDL by that very fact forfeited their right to record their views?

I'm sure people vote for fringe parties for all sorts of reasons - including because they wish to protest about the relevance of mainstream party politics. That is their right. If they think the whole thing is pointless then they presumably won't have a second preference once they've voted MRL. If they do have a second preference then it should be counted along with anyone elses.

The response to the concern that AV will mean more pandering to fringe parties in order to secure second preferences (which i've heard repeated at an event tonight by a No campaigner) is surely not to exclude people (or parties) but to understand concerns and to persuade people (one might even say educate) that their views are misguided.

Even without counting machines, elections under AV are likely to cost more.
Australia’s elections under AV cost three times more than ours do. When preferential voting systems were introduced in Scotland and London, expensive vote counting machines were bought in at a cost of millions. That’s without even counting the need for more polling stations and election staff because AV ballots take longer to complete. An AV system would cost more than FPTP if only because multiple counts would cost more in the wages of those doing the counting.

The BBC are doing themselves and the public a great disservice by not properly explaining AV. writeoff is correct to point out that the BBC is obviously afraid of doing this as it they think it will appear as them being pro AV, just as they are afraid to challenge the no to AV rubbish being pedalled by people who know they can't win the argument and so are being flexible with the truth just to win the referendum.

John Humphrys didn't pursue the point because of time (they had covered Bin Laden before), but that bit of the interview wasn't his finest hour.

More interesting was another part of the interview. Despite fronting a press conference for No2AV http://www.no2av.org/04/prime-minister-and-labours-lord-reid-back-no-to-av/

Cameron gave the "nothing to do with me squire" line on No2AV's claims such as the adverts featuring babies and soldiers. He claimed he was only involved with a Tory campaign.

For more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/03/david-cameron-distances-n...

You should make it clear the French Presidental elections are on a two round system, not AV. The first election establishes the top two candidates and everyone votes again a week later in the the second round to decide between those two. So you do get two votes, but each vote is only counted once.

Why is it that every arguement, from Yes or No seems to be full of half truths. Pox on the lot of you!

What's depressing is that neither Cameron nor Humphrys seem to understand the issues well enough to discuss them sensibly.

It's nonsense to say that people who vote for fringe candidates get an extra vote - the reality of the situation is that in most constituencies everyone gets one vote to choose between the two most viable candidates. Any vote cast for a candidate who is not going to be in the top two on first preferences(i.e. not going to get at least 30 - 35% on first preferences in most seats) is effectively ignored. If you prefer one of those less popular candidates any vote you make for them is essentially ignored. The system keeps moving down the preferences until it gets to the vote you cast for one of the viable candidates and the one of them you prefer gets your vote.

There are all sorts of criticisms of this (the fact that it tends to elect the least unpopular rather than the most popular, the fact that a third or fourth preference ends up with the same weight as a first preference) but none of them are one Cameron was making.

The exchange reveals several things about him that are becoming increasing plain - that he is not as clever as he thinks he is, that he is too arrogant to prepare properly and that he has nasty streak when riled.