All those those things would be true if we were using AV instead of SV, under the current system used for mayoral elections any second preferences that aren't deeded to the top two candidates are wasted (this amounted to 14.2% in the last London election). As a result of this other ways of wasting votes (invalid ballots, double voting) only 7 out of 23 mayoral elections run on this system have produced majorities. None of those 7 were Ken so it's perfectly possible to win without a true majority.

Whilst SV gives the illusion of being fairer, in reality it simply allows people to vote their protest vote and then their 'real' vote, which as the article points out will invariably remain Labour or the Conservatives. If we used a system like AV that allows more than two preferences we would get all benefits mentioned above, but it's incorrect to say our current system creates no wasted votes and winners with a majority.

I find the discussion about the London mayoral elections difficult to follow. Below is the comment I have put under Katwala's article. But first, I wonder if someone can explain to me how we can have PR for a single appointment!

'"London.................... is not a first-past-the-post contest"

In principle it is worse than a first-past-the-post (FPTP) contest. The first two in the first vote are in that position on a majoritarian FPTP basis. In the second vote (which comes into operation where noboody achieves 51% of the first vote) voters are voting "blind" and have to GUESS who the first two are and cast their vote accordingly. It so happens in the coming contest it will probably seem to the electorate that the first two are likely to be Livingstone and Johnson. But suppose they turned out to be Johnson and the LibDem candidate. Then if the majority of the second vote went to Ken Livingstone they would be completely wasted and one of the the first two would be elected even though the MAJORITY had not voted for them.

This is worse than the French presidential two round elections. At least in the French elections the voters can SEE who they are voting for in the second round. But it in particular will be recalled that in 2002 they were presented with a choice between a fascist and a rogue when the majority would probably have wanted Jospin as the president. But by the time of the seond round it was too late - Jospin was out, largely because in the first round voters had voted for splinter parties, or hadn't bothered to vote at all. The answer in both cases is the Alternative Vote (AV) where people can vote their first preference for a probable loser but their second preference for what I think Sarkozy called a real party.

Come to think of it, the USA would also benefit from AV for presidenial elections!'