In article , 
JN@noparticularplacetogo.com (JNugent) wrote:

> rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> > In article , 
> > pah@invalid.invalid (Paul Hyett) wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 at 00:57:05, JNugent 
> >>  wrote in uk.politics.electoral :
> >>
> >>> rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Why is giving full effect to the preferences of the voters 
> >>>> "fiddling",  pray?
> >>> Define "full effect" in a way that does not depend on Lib-preferred 
> >>> outcomes.
> >> Surely the 'preferred outcome' in any election is that parties 
> >> should be represented nationally in close proportion to their vote 
> >> share?
> > 
> > In the AV (single winner) case, merely that the candidate with 
> > most support wins, surely?
> 
> Correct. And every voter gets one vote, cast once.
> 
> PR: "Count early, count often".

You are ignoring the unanswerable questions which each voter has to answer 
in order to cast their vote most effectively to achieve the outcome they 
desire. In other words, tactical voting. AV largely removes that need, 
allowing more voters to get what they want than under FPTP.

-- 
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Cambridge                    http://www.rosenstiel.co.uk/
Cambridge Liberal Democrats: http://www.cambridgelibdems.org.uk/

rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:

> You are ignoring the unanswerable questions which each voter has to answer
> in order to cast their vote most effectively to achieve the outcome they
> desire. In other words, tactical voting. AV largely removes that need,
> allowing more voters to get what they want than under FPTP.

Removes a bit but does not eliminate it. A candidate has to get sufficient 
first preferences first to be able to benefit from transfers - weren't the 
Lib Dems in the last London Mayoral election arguing for tactical votes to 
get Paddick ahead of one of Livingstone or Boris so as to benefit from that?