That is pretty much what I said earlier, McGrath, but it does make the assumption there is a means for the least favoured option to be dropped. Which is not only reasonable, but is easy to understand. Voting systems using one of the various Condorcet systems do not do that: instead they use the ranking to assess each pair - leave versus May, remain versus May, leave versus remain - and allocate a total percentage to each option, which would end up looking very like Steve's list.

If it does, it will not matter a jot how clever the mathematics behind it is to ensure fairness in a formal sense, people will see one of two things, or possibly both:

a) There are two things that could be labelled 'leave' and one 'remain', so the 'leave' vote will be claimed to have been unfairly split.

b) the 'experts' behind the scene are rigging the vote.

Which is why I say elimination of the weakest option is vital.



I have also been thinking about any forthcoming campaigns. As I said before, people votes are more based on emotion, in the main, rather than fact - there is plenty of research. So I think to have a chance of winning the Remain camp really does need to talk about 'retaining control' (who believes Trump's America will be gentler than the EU?), patriotism (keeping the UK together) and other such softer things, not just financials.