In message , Paul Hyett 
<pah@invalid.invalid> writes
>On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 at 00:33:24, JNugent  
>wrote in uk.politics.electoral :
>>
>>> Your "if" never happens.
>>> It may be the case, under FPTP, that someone with only 35% of the
>>> votes gets elected.
>>> Under AV, the winning candidate (whether he/she is the same candidate
>>> as the FPTP winner or not) would always get at least 50% of the
>>> (valid, continuing) votes, and could not possibly get fewer votes than
>>> the FPTP winner would.
>>
>>Don't be daft.
>>
>>Someone who gets less than 35% (ie, less than the winning candidate, 
>>who gets 35%) cannot be said to get more than 50%.
>
>ISTM that tactical voting under FPTP has a very similar effect to 
>transferable voting systems - either way, it seems you end up with the 
>least objectionable candidate, rather than necessarily the most 
>effective.

Yes, but under FPTP the electors have to guess which of the candidates 
are possible winners and the parties are tempted into dubious claims of 
'only WE can beat THEM' including dodgy graphics and polls.
-- 
Goalie of the Century