Only two go into the run-off. If anyone gets 50.01% of the votes in round 1, there is no run-off. If two candidates each get 49.99% of the first round votes, and the others share .02% then the two 49.99ers have a run-off.

If all six candidates share the first round virtually equally, then one sixth plus one votes will get them into the run-off. So that is the theoretical minimum. If three each get one sixth plus one votes, and the other three get one sixth minus one votes, then there will be a run-off between three, and presumably the whole thing starts over, in that if none of the three gets at least 50% in the run-off, there will be a further run-off.

Don't worry, that won't happen!

But unfortunately they are. Just concentrate on writing a good, readable novel. If anyone wants to make a film from it, you (or the film maker) can write a film script based on the novel. A film script can never read like a novel.

Do you know of any novel written as a ready-made film script?

I haven't, sorry. As explained earlier, I find your style too cumbersome to be read enjoyably.

Geoff

"She stood and looked", or "she is standing and is looking". Not "she stood and is looking". Maybe she looked as if she was standing.

I'm just sat sitting here, not stood standing. I can't stand sitting too long.

There you go again!

I'm sorry. Not having read the earlier parts of the story I am unaware of the exact relationship between the characters, or how informally they ma speak.

In my view that is a serious problem. You are writing a novel, not a play. You need more background information, setting the scene, describing the surroundings etc. There is a lot going on that the characters would not mention, but which would inform and interest the reader.

You said she was "alone". She was not, there were lots of people around her. However she was "on her own" in  that she had no immediate companions with her.

I find your style of writing very difficult. Just as an example of how I think a good editor could help, and I'm not making any claims to being such, take your opening passage, shown in the illustration.

I would suggest that it would be better written thus:

Edith approaches Angela and Edward and greets them as old friends.
“Angela,”  she asks, “sorry to be a nuisance and interrupt your conversation, but could I ask Edward to come and look at the audio system which seems to be having problems?”
“Yes, that’s OK,” replies Angela.
Edward goes with Edith to inspect the audio, while Angela, now on her own, joins the small throng browsing the items on display - until, that is, they are interrupted by a loud, angry voice demanding, “What are you doing here?"
The background chatter is silenced, and eyes are directed at the figure of the Editor of Trade Magazine, who is angrily confronting a disbelieving Angela.
Julia, who was nearby, intervenes, politely asking the Editor if she can be of assistance.
“I want to know what this girl,” he says, pointing rudely  at Angela, “is doing here.”

You, and others may disagree.

By the way, your clause "Editor ..... is stood" begs the question, "by whom?" I think you mean "is standing".

Changing the clocks twice a year doesn't really worry me. It's been going on for as Long as I've lived, and I'm used to it. In the US the advanced clock during the summer is misnamed as  "Daylight Saving Time". That is not what it is or was intended to be. It was supposed to give a saving in power usage. If that is not what it does these days, then it should be done away with. Logically that means that we should stay on "winter" time, that is the real, natural, solar time all year round, not try to kid ourselves that the sun is out of sync!

The times one gets up or goes to bed, or has to get work or the shops etc will automatically be adjusted over time to suit what most people want. No one is prevented from getting up an hour earlier if they want to.

On my working visits to Spain, which despite being farther west than most of the UK, is on Central European time with France, Germany etc,, it was obvious that their population's real daytime had been adjusted to suit. 9am seemed to be the earliest "starting work" time, and at midnight the streets of Madrid were very much still alive, even with young children around.

Perhaps Britain should adopt CET, but as the home of Greenwich, it would be more logical to use GMT at all times.

I presume this is some pun of carnation.

I've concluded that the USA is the nearest thing to it.

Alfred is correct. It was the heading UK&NI that I was referring to.

I have always understood the the French are to be blamed for the title "Great Britain". The northern French province the British call Brittany is called Bretagne by its natives. Grande-Bretagne is what they call the land to the north across La Manche. The economical French language does not differentiate the subtleties of big, large and great, so Grande-Bretagne simply means Large Britain. The British seem to prefer the more flattering translation of "great" with its more grandiose meanings!

It's interesting that now that the UK is getting closer to breaking up, it seems to have been decided that the international identification plate for road vehicles will be changed from GB to UK. What will happen to GBM, GBJ, GBG etc?