In article , 
T.C.Roll-Pickering@qmul.ac.uk (Tim Roll-Pickering) wrote:

> 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? 

SV, as used for mayoral elections, is considerably worse than AV in that 
respect.

The likely top two order was fairly apparent in this example. Look at the 
numbers, though it looks like the Independent was a bit of a wild card.

Upper Deeside is very much an area of Lib Dem/Tory politics. 2 Tories 
(2453 first preferences) and 1 Lib Dem (1286 1st prefs) elected in 2007, 
with SNP getting 991 and Labour 196.

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

rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article , 
> T.C.Roll-Pickering@qmul.ac.uk (Tim Roll-Pickering) wrote:
> 
>> 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? 
> 
> SV, as used for mayoral elections, is considerably worse than AV in that 
> respect.

"worse" = "can't so easily be fiddled in favour of the LibDem".