But what it would mean is that the 51% of the electorate remaining have expressed preferences which mean that they'd want ANYONE but the 49% candidate, and in my mind it's much fairer that that preference gets heard.

For the record, I don't like AV. I'd much prefer the STV system they use in the Scottish local elections, which among other things lessens the chance of a vote being "wasted". However, it's the only choice being offered to us and I really want to get rid of the first past the post system.

sheffield hallam have removed clegg from their literature and he is their mp,  in my local council seats (2) i have four options, 1 tory, 2 boston bypass independents and a UKIP some choice!

Yes I agree! Like you I would prefer a system whereby the person whom 70 out of a 100 did not want is successful.

See also Ed n Dave Milliband.
(I can quote on m'PC!  

Would someone care to explain how ranking candidate in order of preferance means you want the candidate you place 2nd or lower to be sucessful. It just means you don't want them to win but would rather they win than whoever you place 3rd or lower. A system that elects a candidate that is the 1st choice of less than another candidate and a minority of the people that voted seems to be to be flawed

Well said!

I returned home today to find a telephone message inviting me to a anti-AV  meeting with drinks and  nibbles (whoever they are) and the chance to meet John Prescott. However I'm  busy and besides I don't want to get egged, or have water poured over me by some twatty middle class yob.

I am proud though that part of the Labour Party and my Trade union are at the vanguard of this campaign.