Loz

MM - I fully agree that the Yes camp's approach to the argument has been, frankly, terrible. On the other hand, whilst the Yes camp has been guilty of some cringe-worthy hyperbole, at least they haven't gone for the bare-faced lies approach of the No camp. Sadly, the No camp's approach has been depressingly effective. Which just goes to show that, while the electorate claims they want politicians to stop lying to them, they still believe those lies and vote accordingly. So, who can blame the politicians? They will just keep on lying as it is so effective. Do you agree that if No win on Thursday then any electoral reform will be off the agenda for many years to come? And whilst a Yes is no guarantee of further reform, it will at least keep the topic on the table?

Did it deliver the fairest outcome? Compared to FPTP (i.e. naming Party A the winner) then, yes, absolutely. Reflected the preference of the voters? Again, compared to FPTP, then yes, of course, as FPTP ignores any preferences of the voter except their first choice. AV is often referred as IRV - Instant Runoff Voting. The concept is the same except, as you've noted, those whose preferences are still 'live' as assumed not to change their votes between rounds. It's a tradeoff for the sake of simplicity, speed and cost. That is why examining preferences of live votes is a bit of a red herring - they don't actually 'exist' until needed. It's bit like asking the voters in your 'true' runoff in round 2 which way they are thinking of voting in round 3, 4, etc, and trying to take that into acoount. As I said, examining other options is no bad thing, but the choice is between AV and FPTP. Which do you think is better and fairer?

Mark Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > - I get the impression the first past the post > system works best when there are just two main > parties, there aren't two main parties any more. That is the main reason why we need a better system today - we have more choice than we used to. Back in the fifties when there was really only two main choices, 86% of MPs were returned with a majority. In the last election that had dropped to 33%.

Unsurprisingly, I'm voting YES. Actually, make that 'have voted' - it is already in the post.

westdulwich Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz, please tell me - in the example above, do you > think that B winning is the fairest outcome? (I've > given my reasons above why I think it isn't). Do > you think that B winning adequately reflects the > preference of the voters? Really interested to > hear from any in the Yes camp on this. What you are doing here is not actually looking at AV - you are looking at various possibilities that *might* be an alternative to AV. Which is good in a way as you are accepting that electoral reform is A Good Thing. But, the question tomorrow has two options: AV or FPTP, so in your example it is rather irrelevant if you think that Party C has gotten a raw deal. That's not on offer. What you need to look at is this: which is the more deserving winner in your example: Party A or Party B? It is fairly obvious that between those two, Party B has the legitimacy and the majority support recognition under AV that Party A cannot demonstrate under FPTP. When you compare AV to FPTP, AV delivers a much more democratic solution. Yes, there might be better systems out there, but we only have two choices tomorrow. If you say no tomorrow you are saying no to any electoral reform.

I rather like the optional preference idea - let's face it, if you are faced with 10 candidates you are only really going to care up to 3-5 preferences. For those that choose to still only mark one preference then, yes, they will miss out on the the full vote value that preferences give, but hey, it's a free country and it's their right to do as they see fit. Will it make it less effective? I don't think so, but in any case at least it will still be more effective than FPTP. As for the Australia lie, well there is now a thread open in the lounge as well. I answer that earlier, so forgive a bit of cutting and pasting here: That is a complete fabrication by the No camp. There was a single poll held in the days following the last general election (which had ended in only the second hung parliament in Australia in a century). That poll did indicate dissatisfaction with the current voting system, but actually found that most Australians would actually prefer Optional Preference Voting ? i.e. the version of AV that would be adopted in the UK ? to either Compulsory Preference Voting (the current Aussie system) or First Past the Post. But also, the No camp fail to tell you that no one is embracing FPTP - in fact, quite the opposite. As a report says:

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* 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.

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.

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.

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)

Yep, westdulwich - the FPTP vs AV results are correct. But - "Party C is the party that most would be prefer, if their first choice was eliminated." - not sure about that one as that isn't really what AV is about. For instance, the Greens or an independent may get loads of second preferences from the Big Three, but very few first preferences. So just cutting away all first preferences and examining the second prefs doesn't really tell you much and certainly not how the system works. You need to score high on first prefs to stay in the ballot.

LilDT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm currently a neutral on this and am still > listening to both sides of the debate and will > probably only make my mind up on the 5th. Keep the > lobbying coming it could help me (and others like > me out there) decide. Anything in particular concerning you LilDT? There are many, many pages of debate (and some posts from silverfox) over in the Drawing Room If it's any help, this video Brendan found explains AV in an easy way, and even features a cat with lasers for eyes. Who could ask for more?

Karlene Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bob, you are utterly hilarious. I have no idea HTF > it all works and what is best but you have given > me a bloody good laugh! I am supposed to be voting > via post. Hope I haven't missed deadline, don't > even know which way I am voting yet..yes, it get's > worse... Get your skates on Karlene - it has to arrive before Thursday, so if you don't get it in the post today (or maybe tomorrow) you'll miss out.

MrBen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is there truth that AV is currently only used in > three nations worldwide; Australia, Fiji and Papua > New Guinea? And that Australia is looking to drop > the system? As the resident Aussie, I'm happy to knock that one on the head - again. That is a complete fabrication by the No camp. There was a single poll held in the days following the last general election (which had ended in only the second hung parliament in Australia in a century). That poll did indicate dissatisfaction with the current voting system, but actually found that most Australians would actually prefer Optional Preference Voting ? i.e. the version of AV that would be adopted in the UK ? to either Compulsory Preference Voting (the current Aussie system) or First Past the Post. But also, the No camp fail to tell you that no one is embracing FPTP - in fact, quite the opposite. As a report says: Of course, most countries are introducing forms of PR, but this does at least show FPTP is totally unsuited to modern-day politics. If we don't grab the chance and vote yes on Thursday then I really do believe electoral reform will be lost for a generation. PS Nice to see some more voices - on both sides - into the debate.

womanofdulwich Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > were the majoral elections AV or single > transferable vote? whatever they were i liked them > and they were easy to understand. They were a form of AV where you were limited to two preferences. For the AV system being proposed you will be allowed to number as many (or as few) preferences as you like. As you say, AV is easy to understand - the only people who could possibly find AV complicated are those that can't count to ten.

but also So AV is more complex than FPTP, but it is a dumbing down? You are just contradicting yourself now, silverfox. You're not making sense. But then, few of your rambling posts have.

Ignoring silverfox's silly trolling - he doesn't understand anything he writes about and just mindless regurgitates whatever he reads in the Daily Mirror that day. I mean, like you could 'dumb down' FPTP - after all, it's the voting system that's so simple, only the simple like it. Anyway, there are two things to remember going into Thursday's vote. 1) If the AV question is lost on Thursday, then any electoral reform will be off the agenda for a generation. 2) Everything that is fair and honest and reasonable about AV can be summed up in Brendon's excellent video link. So good, it's worth repeating. The cool cats vote Yes to AV.

No, it's not. The Tories are bankrolling the No campaign because they want to keep FPTP. They are in power (and let's face it probably will be for 5 to 10 years) and will kill any thought of electoral reform should they get a No vote. I'll say it again, because it is worth remembering: if the AV question is lost on Thursday, then any electoral reform will be off the agenda for a generation. If you want to keep FPTP, then vote No. If you want to keep PR on the table, vote YES on Thursday. If you want electoral reform, vote YES on Thursday.

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- >> this is especially good for >> the 10% of 'wasted' votes - those that currently >> go to smaller parties who do have a preference for >> one of the bigger parties. And also to an >> inestimable number of voters who currently put in >> a tactical vote for the big three, but would >> rather count themselves a Green, or a UKIP or an >> independent... whatever. They are the ones that >> AV will effectively re-enfranchise. > > Isn't this just a way of saying to these voters > "Yes, yes alright, you're a Green/UKIP/Indie etc > very good. Now then let's have your second choice > and get on with the real business of electing one > of the big three? Yes, that may be the effect in the short term. But, as the Greens managed to show at Brighton Pavilion, there is a potential support for the smaller parties that is held back due to the FPTP system 'pushing' people towards the big three. What you are asking for is PR, but that (rightly or wrongly) is not on the table. But you can bet that, if the AV question is lost on Thursday, then any electoral reform will be off the agenda for a generation. I'm not saying that voting yes to AV will lead to PR, but voting no to AV is voting no to any electoral reform. What do we have to lose by voting Yes, then?

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Surely no fervent supporter of a main party, be it > blue red or yellow, is going to think "I want a > tory mp, but if that's not on the cards then a > labour one sounds okay too". Out of all of the possible combinations, that is probably the only one that rings true. However, I'm sure that many Tories have a preference between their vote going to Labour or LibDem, or Labour voters having a preference between Tories and LibDem. But, as Huguenot says, this is especially good for the 10% of 'wasted' votes - those that currently go to smaller parties who do have a preference for one of the bigger parties. And also to an inestimable number of voters who currently put in a tactical vote for the big three, but would rather count themselves a Green, or a UKIP or an independent... whatever. They are the ones that AV will effectively re-enfranchise.

Sorry, Hugue, but unless there is an underlying substory that I (or probably you) don't know about, there is no way that poster is, on the face of it, offensive - and especially not racially offensive. But we are now in a position where two people's actions are undermining an entire school and there is only one way out - they both must depart. I agree that teachers get a pretty raw deal in the UK, but from what I've read here there is a massive schism at the school and only an entire overhaul will sooth that wound.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz, mate, the governer and the Head standing down > are not equivalent. I'm sure they are not, and nor have I argued they are, but both standing down is the only way this school is going to move forward.

As can Alan Shearer. Though there is some doubt about Gabby Logan being in there.

I suppose that, to me, poverty is not having the basic necessities for living - food, adequate shelter and basic healthcare. So, to that end, there is very little actual poverty in the UK. That's not to say there are not lots of poor people in Britain, or people in hardship. But to call it poverty undermines the ones that actually are living in life-threatening poverty and leads to the confusion that vinceayres describes.