So you are asserting three things:
1. "Everyone's" second choice may win
2. People would put someone as a secondly choice that they didn't want as their representative
3. That's worse than putting in a winner who didn't get a majority
On the first point - it may happen, yes. But not all that often, if you look at AV elsewhere. The winner in most Australian electorates is almost always either first or second on the first preference; it's extremely rare that someone who has a significant lead on the first round of voting doesn't win; AV has more effect on a marginal electorate. Your whole 'AV is for losers' really doesn't stack up when you look at the facts and evidence.
The second point makes relatively little sense to me for a couple of reasons. Firstly, why would you put someone as a second choice if you don't want them to represent you? You don't have to, so if you chose not to rank them, then you don't have to. If you put someone on your ballot, you are indicating that you would rather be represented by them than by someone else that you put lower on the ballot. Under FPTP, I am often forced to put my second preference as first on my ballot because there's someone else I want to lose more and my second preference has a better chance of winning (I've done this in the last three elections I voted in). How is this better than AV, where I wouldn't have to do this?
The final point is a value judgement. Personally, I think it's considerably worse to be represented by a candidate that most people don't want. Let's look at a marginal electorate, like Cardiff North. There, the Conservative candidate got 37.5% of the vote; Labour got 37.1%.
What's interesting with that argument is, if a party gets less than 50% of the seats in Parliament, they cannot Govern without support from other parliamentarians. Yet in the electorates, all you need is more than anyone else and you win. Should we change parliament to match your perception of fairness, so that there is no opposition?
Bookmarks