Vote Yes on 5th May

[*Bob*]

That has got to be one of the shittest analogies I've heard to date.

What next? AV ate my hamster?

[Marmora Man]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

Yes silverfox, party A does not win under AV because they do not have a majority.

To give party A control when the majority do not want them in power is not democracy, it's a large scale fraud as big as the one the Tories are currently perpetrating on the public by ruling when 65% of the voters did not want them in power.

That's absolutely clear and simple.

Vote Yes to AV, because it's democratic, it's honest and it's representative.

BUT ......

Half of Party B voters would have been quite happy with Party A in power and more than 25% of Party C voters would have been happy with Party A as well so it's a little simplistic to say that the majority of voters did not want Party A in power.

If you add first & second preference votes together, and give them equal weight, it looks like:

Party A: 4,100 1st Pref votes + 2,300 2nd Pref votes = 6,400 votes

Party B: 3,000 1st Pref votes + 2,900 2nd Pref votes = 5,900 votes

Party C: 2,900 1st Pref votes + 4,800 2nd Pref votes = 7,700 votes

However, due to the vagaries of this more democratic, honest and representative AV system Party C, the one with the greatest number of first & second preference votes is eliminated in Round One. Party A which came first in Round One comes second in Round Two but loses to Party B despite having a greater total of first and second preference votes.

Hugenot says it's simple, democratic, honest and representative but I get confused - and I can handle a 5 ship submarine attack in poor light and high seas using three stop watches, two control room clocks and my brain to compute range(s) [using heights, angles and simple trigonmetry], time, safety, attack angles and torpedo running time while remaining totally undetected.

Vote NO on 5th May - I will, you know it makes sense.

[Willard]

silverfox Wrote:

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

> Imagine living in the following world with these

> headlines from the AV Chronicle:

>

> Fat kid beats Usain Bolt in 100 metres final after

> AV redistributes seconds to make it fairer

>

> Or

>

> West Ham win Premiership title after AV

> redistributes points to make it fairer

OR

Silverfox wins debate on AV on the East Dulwich Forum as AV redistributes ability to come up with analogies that work...

[Loz]

Willard Wrote:

> Silverfox wins debate on AV on the East Dulwich

> Forum as AV redistributes ability to come up with

> analogies that work...

Now that really would be a case of a loser winning. B)

[Willard]

Now now, play nicely....

[Loz]

If you add first & second preference votes together, and give them equal weight, it looks like:

Party A: 4,100 1st Pref votes + 2,300 2nd Pref votes = 6,400 votes

Party B: 3,000 1st Pref votes + 2,900 2nd Pref votes = 5,900 votes

Party C: 2,900 1st Pref votes + 4,800 2nd Pref votes = 7,700 votes

But that is giving everyone two votes, not one. You can only count someone's vote once per round. As I explained in the other thread, you are replicating rounds of individual votes. You need to separate the rounds.

Round One.

Party A: 4,100 votes

Party B: 3,000 votes

Party C: 2,900 votes

At this stage the second, third, fourth, etc. preferences are irrelevant. At this stage we see that Party C has the least amount of votes - they are eliminated and the preferences redistributed.

Round Two.

Anyone who voted for Party A or Party B continues to vote for that party, but now Party C's preferences (800 voting Party A and 2,100 voting Party B as their second preference) are distributed. That leaves us with:

Party A: 4,900 votes

Party B: 5,100 votes

Simples. And if you want further proof, go back to the FPTP result, because however strangely you try and count the preferences, the unpopular Party A never wins like it does under FPTP. That's the weakness of FPTP. That's why we need electoral reform.

Go back to the Cat Video. It explains the counting system in a few seconds and why AV is more democratic. And it has cute cats.

[Loz]

And if kittens don't do it for you, here's a historian instead explaining how we use AV instinctively to get a fair result. And as a bonus, this time everyone gets to go to the pub instead of being made to drink coffee. Probably at Starbucks. Ew.

 

[*Bob*]

All the graphs, charts, calculations and permutations (leading inevitably to Ant and Dec in the top jobs with Peter Andre as foreign secretary) also completely ignore everyone's right to only choose one preference - something which (in my opinion) a lot of people will do, especially if they're all cacking themselves about the graphs, charts, calculations and permutations. Or just because they're not stoopid and can work it out for themselves.

[Annette Curtain]

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> That has got to be one of the shittest analogies

> I've heard to date.

>

> What next? AV ate my hamster?

No *Bob*

AV ate my wagon wheel.

(tu)

[Loz]

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> All the graphs, charts, calculations and

> permutations (leading inevitably to Ant and Dec in

> the top jobs with Peter Andre as foreign

> secretary) also completely ignore everyone's right

> to only choose one preference - something which

> (in my opinion) a lot of people will do,

> especially if they're all cacking themselves about

> the graphs, charts, calculations and permutations.

> Or just because they're not stoopid and can work

> it out for themselves.

Tis true. So for the silverfoxes of this world who find numbering up to 5 boxes far too much handle, you can still just stick that big, old 'X' right next to your chosen candidate. You won't get the full advantage of casting your preferences, but your vote will still count in the same way is always has.

Vote Yes on Thursday. You might not notice the difference, but we will.

[silverfox]

Mr Ben and Moos. Have you noticed how the AV camp have ignored your question why only three countries use AV to elect their governments?

The silence is deafening

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

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

> Mr Ben and Moos. Have you noticed how the AV camp

> have ignored your question why only three

> countries use AV to elect their governments?

>

> The silence is deafening

If you are finding the silence deafening then I suggest you turn your hearing aid up then.

I answered at 11.24am and MrBen has - quite pleasingly - noted my answer and replied stating that he is now in the Yes camp. As Kryton would say: "Engaging smug mode".

[*Bob*]

Silverfox - You've still got 'look, there's concorde!' and 'are you sure you didn't leave the iron on?' left in your arsenal.

I wouldn't worry about it though. You will win. Why? Because hardly anyone cares. They don't even care enough to vote in the first place, let alone consider endless 'what if' ramifications. They don't care, because they don't feel it'll make any difference.

And if you seriously consider that to be victory - then that's a bit sad. All you're really doing is putting more people off voting by boring them to death with stats.

[silverfox]

Bob, I've just chased a pro-AV squirrel off my pear tree. It made it's preferences clear by half-munching several of them but of course that's only one dining session

[Marmora Man]

The No vote will win on Thursday because a majority of people will intinctively prefer FPTP as a fairer and simpler, somehow more natural system, to a contrived mathematically suspect process that some experts have devised to suit their own ends.

FPTP appeals to the heart - AV appeals to mechanistic meddlers.

[edcam]

This thread admirably demonstrates why the NO vote will win. Marmora Man sums this nicely above.

[Asset]

I'm voting YES.

Obviously the tories don't want AV as they are well aware they will win fewer seats.

It doesn't necessarily mean more coalitions and IMO minority governments are no bad thing as it means they are less able to bulldoze unpopular bills through parliament.

[DJKillaQueen]

I'm voting yes too and am completely with Huguenot on this, and those that rightly say this is the last chance for electoral reform in our lifetime.

[mockney piers]

So gut feel over rational reasoning? Hardly compelling.

The real reason is that the no vote realises it has much to lose and has been motivated to turn out more successfully than the target of the yes vote. The appeal that AV will help erode voter apathy has sadly failed to do anything about voter apathy.

If a no vote wins then those that stand to gain from more democracy can only blame themselves for not actually having their say, when for once they actually could.

I'll be voting yes, but like every other vote I've ever cast I'm sure it'll be wasted.

Depressing really.

[silverfox]

Not necessarily mockney. AV can still win if there's a low turn out and the pro-FPTP bunch can't be bothered to vote.

Why do you think that the Referendum was planned for this week? Hidden away in between Bank Holidays, Royal Weddings and Osama bin Laden executions to distract the pro-FPTP crowd.

Crafy blighter that Cleggy chap. Wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him let alone have him running the country.

[Huguenot]

That's another lie silverfox, you've got loads.

The vote coincides with local elections which are dominated by older voters.

Older voters like yourself rarely have ambition for a fairer future and a more balanced nation, they'd prefer that everything just stayed the same. Having lived your life you're not really motivated to help other people have a better one.

This means that the timing of the vote benefits FPTP.

Success for the 'Yes' vote rests entirely on being able to motivate voters under 40 alongside rational altruistic progressives (a group that you despise for their liberal views).

You have frequently made clear your views that democracy is too expensive, you like rousing militaristic religious fervour, you want strong leaders instead of rational ones, and that you think freedom to carry guns is the solution to crime.

In that context saying 'no' to democracy and telling lies to get your way seems entirely predictable.

[silverfox]

My, what a lot of assumptions you make about me.

Look Huguenot, to show how fair minded I am, I've just spent about half-an-hour explaining your and Loz's pro-AV arguments to my dotty Aunt Doris.

She thought it was a great idea ... and then added "and don't forget the toast"

[Huguenot]

Assumptions? I just read your posts.

Most people can understand a run off in a presidential vote - they happen the world over when no candidate gets a clear majority.

Most people think a run off is the right anf fair thing to do, including Brits. Most people agree that it would be nonsense to exclude people from the run-off vote who voted for other people in earlier rounds.

Even you silverfox, would not be so daft as to refute that.

That's all AV does - allows you to do a run-off without returning to the polls in cases where no candidate gets a clear majority.

Tories and dinsaurs don't want fair, they don't want democracy, they want to cheat to get a minority government.

Vote 'Yes' to get your nation back.

[silverfox]

Huguenot said:

"...That's all AV does - allows you to do a run-off without returning to the polls in cases where no candidate gets a clear majority..."

Good, now you're starting to grasp what I've been saying. If people did return to the polls they would be voting for a second time - having more than one vote.

That's why I don't agree that preferences are not, in reality, extra votes

[Willard]

silverfox Wrote:

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

>

> Good, now you're starting to grasp what I've been

> saying. If people did return to the polls they

> would be voting for a second time - having more

> than one vote.

>

What - you mean just like in the last general election?