It's hard to tell because the votes are kept confidential, so we don't know for sure what happened at each stage of the voting.
In the U.K., we get more robust evidence because of the fact that in the exhaustive system they use in the House of Commons, they actually have a record. There is some indication of partisanship.
If I may go back to what Speaker Milliken was doing, that's a really good example. He was, at that point, a very experienced Speaker. He had six years in the chair. A number of us had been his supporters for many years. Back in 2000 when he first ran, he was shaking hands outside of caucus rooms, and I told him, “Don't waste your time on me; I'm already voting for you.” I was never in a position to doubt the wisdom of having supported him for that role.
Obviously, removing partisanship as much as you can, systematizing the removal of partisanship is a good thing, something which I think has been an evolution. I think the current system, the exhaustive ballot, is an improvement on what we had in that period from 1954 to 1986. I think that is an improvement on the first 80 years, so we're heading in the right direction. This is, if you like, the next step in the evolution.