Loz

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Once again Loz you fail to grasp the obvious even > in your own examples. The examples are obvious and self-explanatory. They show the simplicity of AV, the fairness of AV and put to bed the (oft repeated) lie that expressing a preference is the same as multiple votes - it is not. You can try and make it look as complex, silverfox, but it won't wash. You can try and say that "I'd like a KitKat, if not that I'd like a Twix, if not that the I'll have a Mars Bar." is the same as having a bite out of three chocolate bars when it is patently obvious it is not. Both pontman and I have used AV. We know it is simple and fair. You can try and argue the opposite but you would only be insulting you own intelligence. The No argument has been built on a pack of lies and half-truths (as the Charlie Brooker article on page 10 shows). Your argument is more of the same - trying to make a simple system look complex because trying to show the plus side of FPTP is an impossible task. Hopefully the electorate will see through the lies and vote for a better system. Sadly, lying to the electorate seems to be an acceptable tactic these days and one the No camp have taken on with gusto. Will the lies of the No camp win the day? We shall see. I hope not.

pontman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Off the topic of candy and back to voting. > > I feel we should be concentrating more on what > system heeds the best results as opposed to how > 'fair' we believe the system to be. > > Shouldn't the Question be which system gives us a > candidate that best represents the beliefs of the > constituents? I tried that one back on about page 4, pontman. silverfox is not big on establishing the beliefs of the majority. In fact it was another simple concept his fatally insulted intelligence had quite a bit of trouble comprehending.

Sorry silverfox, you and your badly insulted (ha!) intelligence are still trying (and failing) to overly complicating a simple system. Again (as we're on a new thread page)... A mum is going to a shop and asks two children what they want. Child A says "I'd like a KitKat. If I can't have that I'd like a Twix. If they are out of those I'll have a Mars Bar." Child B says "I'd like a Bounty. If I can't have that I'd like a Twix. If they are out of those I'll have a Mars Bar." The shop has Mars Bars and Bounties. Mum returns with a chocolate bar each. Child A gets a Mars Bar - his third preference. Child B gets a Bounty - his first preference. Both get one chocolate bar, each. That is AV. Or, in this case, the Alternative Chocolate. It is very simple. It is very fair.

True, but if you believe silverfox, the other kid should be complaining that the first kid was allowed three choices of chocolate, which is clearly not the case.

That make no sense and is the sort of convoluted rubbish that the No camp tries to put over. Had a bite from each? What rubbish. I've expressed three preferences and received one chocolate bar. However way you try to cloud the matter, that fact remains. Or, looking at it a different way. Child A says "I'd like a KitKat. If I can't have that I'd like a Twix. If they are out of those I'll have a Mars Bar." Child B says "I'd like a Bounty. If I can't have that I'd like a Twix. If they are out of those I'll have a Mars Bar." The shop has Mars Bars and Bounties. Child A gets a Mars Bar. Child B gets a Bounty. One happens to get his first choice, one got his third choice. You don't get one of the children complaining the other got three chocolate bars, or three bites of chocolate bars because it didn't happen. Both get one chocolate bar. Both are happy. It is very simple. Stop trying to make a simple system seem complicated because you don't understand it. Or, I should say, because you don't want to understand it.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you vote for x and y and z that's three votes, > not one. By claiming it's a simple concept a child > could understand you are deceiving yourself and, > by extension, the public by perpetuating the myth. I'd like a KitKat. If I can't have that I'd like a Twix. If they are out of those I'll have a Mars Bar. Have I had three chocolate bars? No. Have I expressed my preferences? Yes. It is really not difficult. Very young children understand it. Most adults have no problem with the idea. I really can't believe that after 10 pages you still can't grasp such a simple and basic concept. It is fairly typical of the poor level of argument put forward by the people who want to keep the unfair FPTP system. It's worth saying again... "As I said, silverfox, you have struggled to understand the basic concepts of voting systems - there is 10 pages of evidence of that in this thread. And when I have challenged you for your 'big idea' on electoral reform you have continually mumbled some dubious excuse and changed the subject. It's put up or shut up time."

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Get real it's one particular brand of lager > (Staropramen) they are selling in there at that > price. They also do Stella, Fosters and Carling. > All cheaper. Maybe, but only one the alternatives qualifies as drinkable.

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why do the Tories not like AV? That's easy. Voting > trends show that the country is, on the whole, > slightly left leaning. That mean the Tories would > struggle - at least in the short term - to gain > the majority 50% support needed under AV. Needless > to say that rather turns them away from AV. > > Loz - I take it that you are Australian. I further > assume you have lived mostly in London over recent > years. Within the metropoliltan, ethnic / > political / cultural mix that makes up London's > political geeks your comment would pass as > received wisdom. However, I believe your view is > slightly misguided or based on a misapprehension. > > Those of us that have lived in UK all our lives > and are old enough to remember the 80s can recall > a time when received wisdom was that the > Conservatives were the natural party of > government. Sorry MM, you are quite right - there was an important word missing from my post. It should have been, "Recent voting trends show that the country is, on the whole, slightly left leaning.". I was referring to the last couple of decades. And yes, it is not evenly spread across the country - there are Labour, LibDem and Tory strongholds but, in general, the broad picture is a slight leaning to the left at the moment. And, yes, I am an Aussie - but I have been here 20 years! I have voted in both Australian and UK elections and, as such, I am in a pretty good position to compare and contrast the two systems.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz said: >> "...Oh, come on. You've repeatedly complained that >> AV confuses you and have continually demonstrated >> that you have difficulty understanding its >> relatively simple concepts..." >> > On the contrary, I've continually rejected its > concepts and found them wanting - for example, > The arguments you have put forward are dubious to > say the least and intellectually wanting, while > the insults from the yes camp above are the > desperation of scoundrels trying to mislead the > public. Look - I spent ages explaining to you a very basic concept - the difference between 'preferred' and 'don't want'. For you to try to claim intellectual high ground now is a bit rich. Some of the posts you have made - the votes for Hungarian children being a particular low point - have been confused at best and downright daft at worst. And as for the 'desperation of scoundrels trying to mislead the public' - have you seen the lie-packed No pamphlet? "AV will cost ?250m" - lie. "AV will help the BNP get elected" - lie. The No camp may yet be taken to court over the lies that it has used in the campaign. That is how low they have sunk As I said, silverfox, you have struggled to understand the basic concepts of voting systems - there is 10 pages of evidence of that in this thread. And when I have challenged you for your 'big idea' on electoral reform you have continually mumbled some dubious excuse and changed the subject. It's put up or shut up time.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Personally I think cost should not be an issue if > it furthers democracy. Excellent. The minimal one-off cost of changing to AV is money will spent, then. > However unquantifiable costs for a dubious > proposition like AV cannot be acceptable. As I've > repeatedly argued, if we're going to have a root > and branch reform of the electoral process let's > do it properly rather than be presented with this > dog's dinner of a compromise. Oh, come on. You've repeatedly complained that AV confuses you and have continually demonstrated that you have difficulty understanding its relatively simple concepts. It's probably the simplest of alternatives to FPTP on offer. Anything else, like PR, you have no hope of ever understanding. And I'm still waiting on and explanation this magical alternative to electoral reform that you believe in. I don't think you actually have one. And remember - a vote of No to AV is effectively a vote against any electoral reform for a generation.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm sure dictatorship is even cheaper than FPTP. > Maybe we should go for that instead. A bit like the House of Lords model? i.e. we get told who should govern us. Let's face it - the cheapest election is no election at all. And some people round here seem to like democracy on the cheap. Personally, I like 'fair elections' like AV over 'cheap elections' like FPTP.

pontman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ordering all 74 senate candidates is mighty painful.... Pontman - you are confusing the issue. What the UK call AV is what we would call Preferential Voting - i.e. the voting system for the House of Representatives. The Australian Senate is elected under STV (or PR as it is called here).

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well, millions of extra pencils and pencil > sharpeners for a start. > > If millions of half-wits can't make their minds up > and insist on wasting everyone's time seeing if > they can count up to ten with their preferences > without putting down the same number more than > once then millions of miles of extra lead/graphite > in pencils will be required. That's not counting > the pencils that have been chewed while the > trainee-mathematicians concentrate on their > preferences as well as those who snap the pencils > in frustration at the over-complication of the > whole process. Plus the wear and tear on pencil > sharpeners. You seem to work on the premise that we need to keep FPTP because a vast number of British voters are mentally retarded.

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Finally you have exhibited a tendency in this > thread to characterise opponents of AV as right > wing and anti democratic, implying somehow that > left of centre is more democratic. Given that over > half the parliamentary Labour Party is intending > to vote no - including a number of shadow cabinet > members such as Caroline Flint and John Healey I > cannot see how the Left /Right analysis supports > the Yes case That's true, but it worth scratching the surface to see why Labour is a bit torn on this. Why do the Tories not like AV? That's easy. Voting trends show that the country is, on the whole, slightly left leaning. That mean the Tories would struggle - at least in the short term - to gain the majority 50% support needed under AV. Needless to say that rather turns them away from AV. So why does Labour not support AV wholeheartedly? Because the left vote is more fragmented that the right - spread out amongst Labour, Greens, SWP, some Lib Dems, etc. So FPTP rather suits Labour as FPTP forces the lefties that may wish to vote for the smaller parties to vote for them to save wasting their vote. AV may see Labour lose some vote share and some in the party don't fancy that. The more progressive Labour people that believe in electoral reform are throwing their weight behind AV. The ones that are just looking out for Labour's best interests are behind FPTP. FPTP, by it's nature, delivers a political duopoly (or, in the UK, an oligopoly) so new players and smaller players are forced out of the market, so it suits the big incumbents like Labour and the Tories. And that is why AV is fairer. Trying to argue 'fairness' (as some have) by comparing which of AV and FPTP are more proportional is a bit like comparing a Ford Focus and a VW Golf by looking at which flies better. Neither are designed for it. Comparing fairness between AV and FPTP is better shown by the fact that you are not forced to vote for a subset of candidates to make your vote count, the wider way you can express your vote and how it allows you to vote for the party you believe in (and not being forced to vote for a party you believe could win). You can say that FPTP is simple and is cheap, but you can't say it's fair.

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When Scotland introduced STV the cost of elections > rose, over twofold, from ?17 million to ?39 > million. A similar increase would lift the current > cost of a General Election from circa ?85m to > roughly ?185m. > > The Scottish costs included the cost of vote > counting machines, and I know that Australia don?t > use vote counting machines but they are, > essentially, a two party political system ? UK is > a three party and AV, in UK would, I content, tend > to increase the number of ?bit player parties? > making vote counting machines inevitable. > > My forecast of ?50m additional cost was intended > to be a conservative (no pun intended) estimate ? > so as not to court charges of hyperbole. You are not really comparing the same thing. STV is an entirely different beastie (it is full PR) and is much more complex to count. So far there has been a one-off estimate of ?26m for education (which seems a bit overdone to me, but is official) and... that's pretty much it. I mean, what other cost could there be? AV ballot papers are virtually the same as FPTP. The list of candidates will be the same. The count may take a little bit longer, but the cost of that is such a small part of the overall election cost. The eztra costs claimed by the No camp are at best a red herring and at worst an outright lie.

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LadyDeliah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I'm sure dictatorship is even cheaper than FPTP. > Maybe we should go for that instead. > > Dictatorship is way too expensive - mainly of > lives, not money. cf: Libya, Syria, Bahrain, USSR, > China, et al. On that basis, look at the cost of FPTP - after all it is the favoured voting system in Zimbabwe, China, Pakistan, Belize, Iran, Yemen. If FPTP is cheap it is because you get what you pay for.

Special mention to the Keating Estates leaflet dropper who put leaflets under car windscreen wipers on Saturday, just before the rain. Apart from being littering, the wet leaflets shed all over my windscreen and my newly washed car. A good advert not to use them. B'stards.

Sporthuntor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I understand that southwark council needs to cut > ?50m from its budget. Find another 99 bonkers > schemes like this and we are there - any more like > this that you are aware of James? Well the 'feed the middle class and rich kids' free school meals for all policy is a bit of a bonkers doozie. At least ?2m per year wasted.

And if you don't, click here to send a 'Keep Calm and Carry On' email to your MP. www.franklyIcouldntgiveatoss.com

What's wrong with the station? Apart from the appalling crowd flow since they installed the gatelines? Apart from the fact the roof leaks and doesn't cover a lot of the trains. Apart from the fact that the concourse is freezing cold in winter as the wind whips through the station? And that moving from one area of the station to the other is via stairs, making it a nightmare for people with disabilities and luggage? Apart from all that I suppose it's fine.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I met with council officers about this scheme > yesterday. > They've since confirmed that of the 12 reported > collissions on Grove Vale in the last 3 years, 3 > considered to involve speed as a contributory > factor - one being the fatality when the car hit > the kerb and flipped. Wasn't that at about 5am in the morning with someone doing a completely ridiculous speed on an empty road? A bit dishonest to use that as justification for peak hour traffic management.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I really like that picture Loz. The writing on the > board over my shoulder makes more sense than your > explanations and attempts at justification for > AV. You believe that FPTP is better than AV, so yes that powerpoint would make a lot of sense to you. "What are the advantages of FPTP, silverfox?" "Buark buark, buark. Buk!" > Only three countries use AV to elect their > governments: Australia, Papua New Guinea and Fiji. Hang on - AV is already used extensively to elect many forms of government in the UK. Why is the UK not on your list? It's also used to elect the president of Ireland. It's also used extensively across the US to elect various forms of government. But let's look at the bastions of democracy that use the FPTP system. First up, Zimbabwe. Yes, FPTP is the weapon of choice for Mr Robert Mugabe. After all, if you are going to rig an election, you may as well use the easiest system to manipulate. Next up - China. They don't really like elections, so it makes sense to use the system that is the least democratic, so FPTP it is. Who else? Pakistan, Belize, Iran, Yemen. FPTP - the election manipulator's choice. Why worry about democracy when you have FPTP? > You need to ask yourself why this is Loz? Why > Koalas always looked stoned as they ponder that > voting system? and why my board above makes more > sense than the four page explanatiion of how AV > works that popped through my door. Do the Brits really need a four page explanation of how to number some boxes? Really? Wow. No wonder employers are complaining the educations system is failing. Or is it that naughty No campaign trying to make AV look harder than it really is? (And shhh! Koalas don't vote.) And still dodging the question, silverchicken. Still dodging.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've already said it would be an insult to you to > give you a quick answer given the political, > philosophical and procedural issues involved in > answering your question. It would also be off > topic on this thread. So I'll save it for another > time, another thread. No, no. No insult at all. Please enlighten us. You've already tried insulting our intelligence today with that weird Hungarian story, so I'm surprised at your concern. Or is this a picture of silverchicken giving a lecture on voting systems?

Anyway, I've spent a lot of time extolling the many virtues of AV, but I think more needs to be said on the weaknesses of FPTP. The main arguments are: - FPTP creates a lot of wasted votes - people who vote for minor parties may as well not bother to vote. This leads to at least 10% to 20% of votes in any given election being effectively ignored. - FPTP unduly focuses both the election debate and the party campaigns on a small number of marginal constituencies; - FPTP is very ineffective at representing the views of minor party supporters, particularly when that support is geographically spread - FPTP, in most situations, elects candidates with only a strong minority vote, rather than the support of the voter majority. - FPTP is the BNP's voting system of choice. That in itself says a lot. What is FPTP's single strength? It is simple. Can't argue really - it is really, really simple. I mean, FPTP is really, really, REALLY simple. But, AV is hardly complicated - you number as many candidates as you like. Can you count from 1 to 10? Hey! You passed the AV test. Somehow the No camp seem to suggest this is beyond British intelligence levels. Australian's have been successfully using the system for decades and, unless the No camp want to put forward the argument that Brits are lot less intelligent than Aussies (though silverfox's posts do go some way in making this argument), then the UK shouldn't have any difficulty voting with AV.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But the Hungary example is based on the same > thinking as AV surely? EG, > > How a person can have a vote but it's unfair if > the candidate they chose doesn't win so they need > another vote, otherwise their vote is wasted. It > extends the idea of disenfranchisement as does AV. > Also, if AV is voted in it will be continually > tweaked over the years and could well include > children. > > In fact my dog, Butch, probably desrves to put his > paw prints on a ballot paper as he's under > represented in the current electoral process. You could make the same (poor) argument that the weaknesses in FPTP (which you've admitted exist) means that it would need to be extended to children. The rejection of a valid, strong system such as AV would lead the UK down the path of trying desperately to tweak FPTP into something more democratic. It is, of course, a silly argument. As is yours. Especially since Hungary uses a form of PR. So it's a complete non-sequitur to the UK debate. Anyway, silverchicken - where's that answer to you admitting that FPTP could be improved on and AV isn't better (in your opinion), so what do you think is a better system, then? http://farm1.static.flickr.com/9/11364375_ba370ac73f.jpg