A month or so ago, Tom Harris, the Labour MP and blogger, posted the image/poster on the right that rather eloquently proposes the argument for first-past-the-post over that of the alternative vote.
It's probably one of the best and most effective arguments against AV I've seen, and does rather illustrate the absurdness of a system where the person that finishes second or third might end up winning. As it says, "it's unfair and it doesn't make sense".
Anyhow, I mention this because Tom Harris posted yestedray about the new Labour leader, Ed Miliband. Tom supported the elder brother David as his post details.
However, what surprises me is that at no point does Tom put forward the very argument he supports in the poster. After all, his chosen candidate for leader won the first round, and the second, and the third but then got pipped in the fourth as the counting of votes, second, third, fourth preferences went on.
Surely the result is also "unfair" and "doesn't make sense"? No? I wonder too if Ed Miliband will be whipping his party to support AV in a referendum given he owes it to the system for the job he now has?