Paul Newman seems not to understand the AV voting system he opposes. He states that you can’t be elected with a majority of first preference votes.
Well as a majority is 50 percent + 1 of the votes cast you will be indeed elected under AV. Well either he does not understand what the word majority means or like the Conservative and Labour opponents of AV they think deserve a majority at somewhere about 35 percent. He also does not understand that you do not put a cross against a candidate but a number to indicate who your first choice, second choice etc. will be.
Of course the entire idea of the AV is that the preferred candidate of the entire electorate is elected rather than a candidate that a minority support. Australia does not have the most rigid two-party system on the planet. Four parties are represented in the Lower House along with some independents. The Senate (Upper House) has even more variety. For the most rigid, one would have to go the United States which uses first past the post. That enlightened system is so fair that you need only have millions of dollars to be elected for Congress or close to a billion if you want to be President.
AV does not kill off small party support but increases it as you can direct second preference to larger party. First past the post exaggerates the support of the large established parties as people will vote for the lesser of two evils rather than the party that most represents their principles.
Richard Rudkin, Lewes