In a small enlightened electorate of 150 people somewhere in south Cambridge, they're voting about who is the best country music singer out of Emmylou Harris, Mary Chapin Carpenter and Lyle Lovett. The voting system they use involves putting the three singers in order of preference - one, two and even three. The way it goes is that Emmylou gets 70 first-preference votes, Lyle 60 and Mary 20. So she, Mary, is eliminated (repeat, enlightened electorate), the second preferences of her 20 fans are redistributed - as it happens 10 each to those left in the race - and Emmylou runs out first, with 80 votes to Lyle's 70.
Oppose AV if you will, but for a reputable national newspaper to oppose it, as the Times does today (£), on the grounds that AV breaches the principle of 'one person, one vote', and that 'every vote should count the same', and that 'every citizen should cast an equal vote', is remarkable. Did Mary Chapin Carpenter's fans get more votes than other voters or enjoy a greater influence on the outcome? Not at all. Every voter got to express their full preference-ordering and it's as if two ballots took place, in which each voter got to have their say. In the first round, they all voted with three candidates standing; and in the second round they all voted with two candidates standing. Each voter had the same two 'turns'. It's true that only Mary Chapin Carpenter's second preferences needed to be counted; but each voter would have enjoyed that same opportunity had their first-preference candidate been eliminated. They all had the same voting right and voting power.