Before I answer that, I would like to pick up on the first part of your remarks. Although I have no expertise in relation to the House of Commons, it's perhaps worth pointing out that at Westminster the system is, I believe, a little bit different from yours in that the voting figures are announced. That might be something you'd want to look at, because it can have an impact in that candidates who are not doing very well have the opportunity to withdraw, which thereby speeds things up, whereas I understand that in your system nobody knows beyond the candidate who's being eliminated.
Coming to your question, in a technical sense I can confirm that the operation has been smooth and trouble-free. We use an organization called Electoral Reform Services that is widely respected in this country to help us run the elections.
The one aspect that I thought was disappointing is that some voters may have been under the impression that they could strengthen their preference for their preferred candidate by not using all their later preferences. At the time of the elections, I would say to anyone who would listen that you in no way hurt the chances of your favoured candidate by putting later preferences and that the danger with not putting them is that you may end up having no part in the final decision. As my note mentioned, in both elections the final margin of victory was actually rather smaller than the number of votes that had ceased to count because the voters hadn't put enough preferences. That's perhaps not a glitch but a factor. If you were going to decide to recommend the alternative vote, it might be advisable to try to educate members on the advantages of using all of their votes.