Well yes, I know that really.
How does it work btw ? If you're both a Labour member and a union affiliate do you get to vote twice ? I'm guessing not, but I don't see how easy it would be to police that.
This makes fascinating reading btw:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Par ... tion,_2010
It gives a full breakdown of how the votes divided after each round, when the preferences were transferred. David Miliband was ahead for each round except the last one, but the interesting thing is that his vote barely increased from one round to the next. He began with 111 MPs, 55905 Labour members and 58189 union members and finished with 140 MPs, 66814 Labour members and 80266 union members. His brother started with 84, 37980, 87585 and ended with 122, 55992 and 119405. It seems like almost all the preferences went to Ed.
This is interesting for a couple of reasons I think. Firstly, it shows that there really wasn't much enthusiasm out there for Ed Miliband. He lost both members and MPs in every round and only limped over the line at the death thanks to 4th preference votes. But there again there wasn't much enthusiasm for David either I guess since he barely got any preferences at all. It's also interesting to note that 2/3 of the people who voted for Ed Miliband as leader are not actually members of the Labour party. I think you have to question a system that can produce a result like that. It's reasonable to suppose that party members have both a much bigger stake in who the next leader is and also are more likely to have been paying attention and so have more informed knowledge of the candidates. They voted for David. Ed owes his position entirely to casual affiliates who may vote Labour in elections but aren't nearly so involved in the party and don't have the same stake in the outcome. Since Ed is pretty much universally seen as having been a disastrous choice perhaps a change to the system might be in order ?