Jump to content

Recommended Posts

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Am I the only one who finds the above

> incomprehensible mumbo jumbo?


Almost certainly. It is pretty simple stuff. They teach it in primary schools.


> I might as well be speaking with a Martian.


If you did they would leave thinking there was no intelligent life on earth. Or are you being deliberately daft again?

Loz said:

"... The people that 'voted' for Mr A and Ms B also 'voted' for them again in round two...everybody gets two votes, or three votes, or whatever..."


So it's not one man/person one vote?


Also, going back to your table above, when do the people who voted for Mr A and Ms B have their second vote/preference taken into consideration? Why is it only losers who are allowed to vote more than once?

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz said:

> "... The people that 'voted' for Mr A and Ms B

> also 'voted' for them again in round

> two...everybody gets two votes, or three votes, or

> whatever..."

>

> So it's not one man/person one vote?


Please do not misquote me. The proper quote was, "So, if you are determined to see it as two votes, then everybody gets two votes, or three votes, or whatever." It's pretty self evident - so much so that you felt you had to cut bits out. Stop trying to be intentionally daft.


Many people are voting 'No' for good, well thought-out reasons and you are making them look like a bunch of morons. You don't have to be stupid to vote No. But, as you are showing, it does help.


> Also, going back to your table above, when do the

> people who voted for Mr A and Ms B have their

> second vote/preference taken into consideration?

> Why is it only losers who are allowed to vote more

> than once?


If you can't understand why taking someone's second preference into account whilst their first preference is still in the running is not sensible, then please don't pose the question to me. I can't help you. No one can.



Anyway, I gave you another chance and you have returned to asking purposefully stupid questions. Misquoting me to twist my words was the last straw. I thought you had decided to be sensible, but I'm afraid I was mistaken.


I won't be answering any more of your questions again. I'd love to have a sensible debate with you, but you really can't help yourself, can you? You've had your last chance. Goodbye.

That's not true silverfox. All your points have been answered.


You're deliberately trying to make it seem confusing, but it's not.


These 'questions' are completely dishonest. You're not this stupid.


You mentioned earlier that you were prepared to keep calling a recount in an election to prevent the election being completed.


You are continuing to 'spoil' this thread. You have nothing constructive to add.

Change of tactic silverfox? Now you've accepted it's not complex you're claiming it's boring.


It's not of course, the opportunity to start to set right a massive injustice perpetrated by generations of self-serving career politicians is one of the most exciting opportunities the UK has had for years.


It's a chance to have a political leadership that is required to get the endorsement of the electorate, that seeks consensus rather than partisanship, that rids us of the 'jobs for life' mentality, that strengthens the link with the constituency, limits the influence of extremism and that lessens the scourge of 'winners and losers' that taints our national cohesion.


It would require a particular hatred of fellow Britons to see that as boring.

This is hyperbole - AV is a tweak, no more. PR would be truely representative, but would remove the constituency link which many value.


AV is conceptually and practically more complicated than FPTP, and it could well produce some "unfair" results, where for example, fifth or sixth preferences are given the same weighting as first preferences to enable Ed Milliband candidates to beat the Davids of this world - thats worked out well.


Lets be honest, a lot of AV supporters are in favour as they think it will result in the Labour and Lib dem votes essentially being combined to keep the Tories out. This may or may not be the case, and the tories may benefit, for example, via UKIP votes, plus if constituency sizes are equalised then some of the built in disadvantage of the Tories will go. So actually the impact may not be what AV - supporters expect/want, but their agenda is clear.

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I beg to differ Huguenot my old friend. In fact

> Loz has thanked me on at least two occasions on

> this thread for helping him to put his AV ideas

> over on what is, let's face it, an excruciatingly

> boring subject.


I'll reply one more time just to note that those two 'thank yous' were positively dripping in sarcasm...

I have no interest in the outcome of elections, I am interested in them being fair and representative.


I live in a country that is considerably further to the right than the Tory party.


I see no reason why 'a start to set right...' could be hyperbole? It's the implication that we're on the beginning of a very long road to electoral reform. I don't suggest that we've made it, or that AV achieves all those goals in isolation.


To fail to address this would be to remian exactly where we were in 1928. Whilst that may appeal to elderley autocrats dreaming of a non-existent glorious past era, it bears no relation to the complex modern multicultural world economy that we live in.

No one is proposing PR - to vote for AV on the basis that it is a step on the way to full electoral reform is incredibly optimistic. The only rational decision is to compare the merits of AV vs FPTP on the grounds of representation.


The outcome of AV is unlikely to be any more representative than FPTP, it will still favour a 2 party system, and if anything it could produce more extreme swings than FPTP, as "core" votes would get outweighed by "floating" votes. AV would probably have resulted in much larger wipeout of the Tories in 1997, and potentially a significant Tory majority in 2010 as an "anyone but labour" vote would have increased the number of seats they held - look at council elections and see how they tend to be more variable than General elections.

Re: First Past the Post or AV

Posted by: Loz Today, 10:39AM



"I'll reply one more time just to note that those two 'thank yous' were positively dripping in sarcasm..."


I'm disappointed that you feel that way because you've helped me get a better understanding of the case for AV than would have been possible by simply reading the leaflet that's come through the door, which of course is how most people will make their decision. So, thank you for your explanations and examples.


What I've concluded is what appears to be a reasonable and fairer system at first glance is actually full of flaws and contradictions. My main concerns are:


1 It is not necessary to reach at least 50% to gain a result

2 Some people's second preferences are counted but others' second preferences aren't

3 Some people's second preferences are counted at the same time as others' third preferences

4 The idea of multiple preferences cannot be reconciled with the idea of one person, one vote. It is a false concept and the reality is multiple votes

5 The claim that it is an improvement over the present system is dubious

6 The claim that it will enhance democracy is dubious


In short AV is not as simple or fair as its advocates would have us believe

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm disappointed that you feel that way because

> you've helped me get a better understanding of the

> case for AV than would have been possible by

> simply reading the leaflet that's come through the

> door, which of course is how most people will make

> their decision. So, thank you for your

> explanations and examples.

>

> What I've concluded is what appears to be a

> reasonable and fairer system at first glance is

> actually full of flaws and contradictions.


[sarcasm]

I'm so glad that you read and understood my examples in such a way as to come up with such an interesting conclusion.

[/sarcasm]

I've taken silverfox's conclusions... and let's apply them to FPTP. The main concerns are:


1 It is not necessary to reach at least 50% to gain a result. In fact, at the last election it didn't happen in two-thirds of seats and a minority share of the votes was all that was needed.

2 Nobody's preferences are taken into account

3 If you have a preference for which party/candidate you definitely don't want to see elected, then tough, there is no way of expressing this.

4 The single X cannot be reconciled with the idea of one person, one vote. If you want to vote for anyone but the Big Three then your vote is usually valueless and you really might as well have stayed at home.

5 It forces people to vote for less preferred parties by 'tactical voting' in a bizarre game of guesswork in order to unseat unpopular candidates that have gained their seat with a minority share of the vote.


In short, FPTP is not as simple or fair as its advocates would have us believe.

So what your saying is that FPTP is crap. But it's our crap.


I think AV is a better system and made the case and, even better, I've lived with the system in Australia where it works really well.


So, if FPTP could be improved on and AV isn't better (in your opinion), what do you think is a better system, then?

Couldn't resist this from yesterday's Evening Standard -


"...A poll showed growing support for sticking with first-past-the-post. The YouGov survey for The Sun gave No 44 per cent, with Yes on 37. The seven-point lead grew to 12 points, 45 to 33, when AV was fully explained."


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/politics/article-23940931-voting-reform-rivals-clash-over-funding.do


(Words made bold by me for emphasis)

Every comment is ridiculous. It's dispiriting.


If a five year old child told you they hate you because you haven't given them enough biscuits, you'd tip them the wink right?


Likewise if two right wing newspapers that favour prejudice and bigotry tell you that democracy is rubbish you giggle right? You don't hold them up as beacons of common-sense? Unless you're a dickhead?

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So what your saying is that FPTP is crap. But

> it's our crap.

>

> I think AV is a better system and made the case

> and, even better, I've lived with the system in

> Australia where it works really well.

>

> So, if FPTP could be improved on and AV isn't

> better (in your opinion), what do you think is a

> better system, then?


I notice you're not your usual speedy self in responding, silverfox. Cat got your tongue?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Pickup your dogs shit off the street, it's so simple. Don't own a dog if you cannot do this basic service. Pathetic. Cleaning my shoes of dog shit for the 2nd time this month. What's going on? 
    • Hi SpringTime, I completely understand the concern for protecting birds, but using bells on cats is a bit more complicated. While they may reduce hunting success, they're not always effective & can cause stress for some cats, who are highly sensitive to sound. A better solution is to ensure cats are kept indoors during peak bird activity & providing plenty of enrichment at home to satisfy their hunting instincts. There's a terrible misconception that cats do not require as much mental & physical enrichment as dogs do. But they do, if not more so.
    • But we can train them to kill the foreign invaders, green sqwaky things, and the rats with feathers 
    • Hi Nigello, Many spayed/neutered & microchipped cats actually don't wear collars, as they often go missing & can pose risks.  Microchipping is far more reliable for reuniting lost cats with their guardians. Some of our clients even keep sacks of collars on standby because their cats frequently return without them - a comical but telling example of how impractical collars can be. A major contributor to unspayed/unneutered cats & kittens is purchasing from breeders, where these measures are often overlooked. Adopting from shelters, on the other hand, ensures all precautionary steps - like spaying/neutering, microchipping, as well as vaccinations - are already in place.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...