First Past the Post or AV

[Loz]

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?

[silverfox]

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?

[Loz]

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.

[silverfox]

Okay Loz, I'll call it a day as you're starting to get ratty again.

There are a number of points I've raised that you haven't answered, or been able to answer, but never mind. There's no shame in that. You've tried your best.

Good luck in the referendum.

[Huguenot]

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.

[silverfox]

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.

[Huguenot]

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.

[Magpie]

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.

[Loz]

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...

[Huguenot]

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.

[Magpie]

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.

[ianr]

What is a 'representative' result? What would it be representative of?

[Alan Dale]

removed

[Magpie]

My understanding is that you can rank all candidates if you chose to do so, by representative I mean parliament seats actually representing the relative proportion of votes cast - I don't see how AV creates a better link between the two than FPTP.

[Alan Dale]

removed

[silverfox]

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

[Loz]

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]

[Loz]

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.

[silverfox]

I don't know any FPTP people who claim it's an ideal system. Rather, if we're going to replace the current system let's replace it with something better. AV isn't a better system - it's a dog's dinner of a contrivance.

I rest my case.

[silverfox]

I don't know any FPTP people who claim it's an ideal system. Rather, if we're going to replace the current system let's replace it with something better. AV isn't a better system - it's a dog's dinner of a contrivance.

I rest my case.

[Loz]

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?

[mockney piers]

That Prince William is an awfully nice chap isn't he.

[silverfox]

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)

[Huguenot]

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]

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?