Just as a follow-up to that, the primary motivation wasn't necessary to reduce the number of hours of MPs' time being taken up as well as the overall costs. If we're all sitting here for seven hours, the clerks and other staff have to be here, and if it goes into overtime, then it takes more time. You talked about one that was 13 hours long in another jurisdiction. It's not really the primary motivating factor, but it is a serious consideration in the grand scheme of things.
One of the things I'm a little concerned about—although I'm quite in favour of what you're proposing—is that we know what happens when there are seven or eight candidates on the first ballot. If you do a preferential ballot, you don't get to see how things are moving, regardless of where your first-choice candidate placed. You may want to make several changes based on who is still on the second ballot or the third ballot. As an MP, based on what you know about the candidates' qualifications, if your first-place person isn't there, you may have thought your second choice was the next person. Now in the scheme of things as to who's left, you may have decided that there's a different candidate. This process obviously isn't going to allow you to go back and redo that and make a change if you saw the dynamics of the Speaker's race changing in a way that maybe you didn't think was necessarily going to happen. Once you have voted, that's it; there's no changing it, and there's no way of looking at that fluidity of how the actual election is taking place.