The aim of AV is to ensure that the successful candidate is the one who, at the end of the day, gets at least 50% of the votes. It seems to me that the key issue is whether you think that is a sensible aim.

Another way of achieving the same thing would be to have provision for second or third etc ballots (in successive weeks, presumably) if no candidate got 50% in the first etc ballot, with the bottom candidate dropping out each time. (Doesn't that happen in the French presidential elections?) Everyone who had voted for the eliminated candidate(s) in a previous round would then have to decide who their second etc choice was. People who had voted in the previous round for one of the candidates who was still in the running would presumably vote for them again.

AV on the other hand achieves this, or something very close to it, without having to spin the process out over several weeks.

It is true that either of these systems gives equal weight (at successive stages) to those who stick to the same candidate and to those who are obliged to vote for a candidate who is not their first choice. But I don't see, 'Baboonery', that that is 'undemocratic', 'iniquitous' or 'transparently unfair.' It all depends on whether (like me) you think it's better to have an MP with the widest possible support within the constituency or whether you prefer having one who, although rejected by the majority of the constituents, still gets more first preference votes than anyone else.

I don't myself favour STV, as it would mean much bigger constituencies and dilute the relationship between MPs and those who elected them. 'AV+', as proposed by Roy Jenkins' commission, is in my view worth condidering further.

I agree that to talk of 'wasted votes' begs the question. I shall avoid the expression in future!