Under AV there can be a number of rounds of counting - in each round a candidate is knocked out and their votes reallocated until one of the remaining candidates has over 50% of the votes.
"Over 50% of what?" I hear you cry, "Over 50% of the votes" I repeat - seems a pretty simple statement to me.
But, if someone wanted to kick up a storm somehow to avoid addressing a question like "is there *anything* good about FPTP" they may start asking existential questions about "WHAT IS A VOTE".
I suggest a vote is a clear indication by a voter of which candidate they want to support. You can't vote for someone who isn't running and you can't vote for someone who has been knocked out. So a vote is a clear indication by a voter of which of the current candidates they want to support - again seems pretty simple to me.
If you don't like things simple, and want to try to confuse things you could argue that a vote is a piece of paper or similar I guess, but that would be pretty dumb wouldn't it?
If instead of saying "over 50% of the votes" someone said "over half the vote", "support of over half the voters" I guess you could try to pretend that there was a significant different meaning (if you wanted to avoid quesitons like "is there *anything* good about FPTP").
Even 'over half the constituents' seems reasonable (unless you are talking about cat food on TV, in which case the small print has to explicitly state 'who expressed a preference', maybe cats aren't too smart?). Is this so confusing that the whole of the AV counting system has to be explained on every occasion it is mentioned? I don't think so.
If someone published a statement with the intention of deceiving that would be pretty stupid - as it would soon be shot down, and AV is better than FPTP so there is no need to deceive.
By the way is there anything good about FPTP?