in the modern age

I voted today. That was fun! But next please, I'd like a third box.
This two-choice thing is apparently "the most democratic system". But really? Does it not really just mean that everyone feels a little bit bullied into giving their other vote to Boris or Ken?

The whole thing raises other unanswered questions for me. For example, what if the top two people from the first round get less than fifty per cent? Do they still go through, even though more than half of London voted for neither of them?

Is our bullied second vote an assurance of our complicancy? Once you hold elections, we're all implicated. It's like the Soviet in Poland in 1939, they had elections, the whole population was involved, everyone was a colaborator. But the Nazis didn't, there were no collaborators, everyone conspired against them.

The other thing is, if for example, the top two guys are Brian and Boris, and Ken is third, but Ken has LOADS of second votes, so many that if they were counted he'd easily beat B&B, then is that OK?

And what if the winner has the most votes, but still less than half?

Maybe I should ask my questions to someone who knows.

But, other the other hand, preportional representation for the Assembly thingy, very exciting! Couldn't we develop a similar thing for the Commons? Maybe if we make all the constituencies twice as big, and then each constituency each elects an MP, but everyone also votes for a party list, and the other half of the seats are allocted preportionally based on this second vote? With a 5%, or 10% cut off so it doesn't descend into complete chaos. (For example, inter-war Poland, over 60 parties in government. Or Czechoslovakia, where a coaltion required 5 parties to be a majority).

Preportional representation is the enemy of the stable two-party system.