(Difficult to keep track of this discussion, as some posts seem to be subject to a delay in appearing on the forum. My previous posting was in reply to 'IWereAbsolutely...' and 'Bt'.)

All I said, 'Baboonery', was that 50% support was the aim. Obviously, if a large number people choose not to make second and third choices, you might get a situation where a candidate gets elected on less than 50%. So what? You can lead a horse to water, etc. Nobody has to vote at all.

I agree with Michael's latest posting. Who is saying that this is one of the system's 'greatest benefits'?