Loz

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Radio Four Woman's Hour. Now. 10.00am Monday 18th > April 2011. > All about AV! Missed it PR. Anything good? Lots of positive stuff from the Yes people? Lots of half-truths and scare stories from the No people?

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For those who may think AV is the thin edge of the > wedge, cop a load of this: > > Hungary considers giving mothers extra votes [...] > Sound vaguely familiar? Errm, no. It sounds vaguely irrelevant. You've tried it on with some weird scare stories, but that is as far away from AV as you can get. In fact, the only familiar ring to it is that fake and irrelevant scare stories are the only real tactic of the No camp. I got my leaflet in the post on Friday and the number of half-truths and downright lies in it were an embarrassment to democracy.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz said, > > "...I am really starting to see why the BNP are so > in favour of FPTP. Let's face it - they will never > have majority support in the UK, so the best they > can hope for is a minority following that can > split the opposition vote. With AV in place they > could never hope to gain seats." > > Can you state that with any certainty Loz? I can > see many cases where the BNP may get a second > preference protest vote. Or the Green Party get a > second Preference vote because they'll never get a > majority. If minorities won't really benefit under > AV then that means there is no benefit to the > Green Pary etc under AV and they may as well stick > with FPTP. They may pick up the odd preference from the UKIP people, etc, but it does not take much analysis to see that the BNP would never gain enough support to push them up to a 50% majority needed to win under AV. This is the 'I really don't want X to win' scenario that works so well under AV. If the worst happened and BNP support in an area went up to, say, 25% then that is 'win territory' under FPTP, but as that will almost certainly be the end of their support they would fail to score the seat under AV. Of course, it's easy to see why this would not apply to Greens, etc. The BNP want you to keep FPTP because they know it is the only way they can ever win a seat at Westminster. AV would permanently scupper their chances.

Alan Dale Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree with SF. > > I wasn't sure before but his calm and reasoned > explanations have convinced me. > > That and the fact that Loz and Huge nought seem > like fanatical nutters. Quick question, Alan: if calmly explaining a voting system and the weaknesses in the current system make me a fanatical nutter, what do you call someone that spends hours and hours fastidiously going through a forum deleting hundreds of his own posts? I suppose nutter really doesn't cover that one.

Magpie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He has you there Loz I'm afraid - a decision needs > to be voted on (who should be my MP), the one that > got most support won (the lib dems) - seems pretty > democratic to me - the remainder haven't been > disenfranchised, they were in perfect right to > vote for whoever they wanted. The person they > voted for could not muster enough support to win - > end of. Wow. I really cannot believe that you think that 29% support is democratically elected. And the reminder that chose to *not* vote for the 'winner' (or lucky loser) of the vote. How have their wishes been followed? I am really starting to see why the BNP are so in favour of FPTP. Let's face it - they will never have majority support in the UK, so the best they can hope for is a minority following that can split the opposition vote. With AV in place they could never hope to gain seats.

PS Still waiting for that answer. Has silverfox turned silverchicken?

The data is at http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=tdLut_gO0qo_C0JevIxnZ2g#gid=1 - I'm sure you'll find new and interesting ways to misinterpret it. You can try to dress it up any way you like, but anyone elected with 29.36% of the vote can never be seen as having a mandate to govern. As you correctly noted, a vast majority - over 70% - of the voters voted against this person. How can the wishes of the minority overridden the wishes of the majority in a democracy? That poll cannot ever be said to have delivered the wishes of the people - the fairest result would have been to say that no one won and call it a 'no result'. Because that is pretty much what happened: no result. And there are many more examples from the 2010 election. Many more. FPTP is faulty. FPTP is undemocratic. It consistently produces a result where there are no winners. In fact, this happened in two-thirds of constituencies in the last election. The 'solution' to this major flaw? FPTP gives the prize to the 'lucky loser' - a person with no mandate to represent.

29.36% - that's not democracy. That's a disgrace to democracy.

Looking on their website for SE22, they have 42 properties on there, of which 5 are under offer. Doesn't sound a brilliant hit rate.

Just having a look at some stats from the last UK election and 9 people were elected with less that one-third share of the vote. One third! The worst case (a Lib Dem as it happens) was elected with a mere 29.36% share of the vote. Democracy?

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > (Your earlier question is worthy of a proper reply > which would be off topic here. If you'd like to > start a new thread I'll happily explore this with > you) A quick answer will do me. I'm reasonably knowledgeable about voting systems. Unlike some.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And if you think that divide only exists on > Chinese building sites you've never worked for the > NHS. Or London Underground. Or the Fire Brigade. > Or BA. It's not just manufacturing - service > industries is where it's at. So... anywhere where there is a heavy union presence. Are they the cure or the cause?

You're lucky DJKQ that that place isn't located in an airport...

Alan Dale Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am really wavering on this. > > Currently thinking that it's an unnecessary > expense. Alan, What additional expense do you think there will be? .

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ballot papers as long as toilet rolls Sigh. The ballot paper will be exactly the same size as FPTP. Clueless, silverfox. And still avoiding my question earlier...

Alan Dale Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Will it slow down the results by much? > > More marginals makes better TV but slow results > would off-set that enjoyment... Yes, but hard to say by how much. As I said, I have seen this work fine in Australia but there you are allowed to vote at any polling booth, including overseas missions. Since, for AV, you have to really have the ballots all in one place (or at least a very large majority of them) this slows the count down a bit. But they still usually declare a winner within 12 hours or so. In the UK you only have a choice of postal vote or attend a single polling site, so that should speed the count up compared to Oz by quite a bit. Of course, should we go electronic polling (as we probably will sometime soon) then results under any system would be near instantaneous, which will take the theatre out of it anyway.

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?

Shaggy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've an idea. Why not get cyclists to wear bells > around their necks, like cats, that jingle-jangle > as they pedal? That way pedestrians won't be > startled by them, and cyclists won't have to > rudely ring their bells at people to get them to > move out of the way. Even better... Swiss cowbells!!!

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?

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz - all I know is that I wouldn't want to that > job for love nor money. Driving a tube train? Or standing next to Bob Crow on a picket line? Actually, what's wrong with driving a tube train? Seems a reasonable way of earning ?40K+ a year. I'd rather be a tube driver than a teacher - that is one job you'd never get me doing. (And that's no dig at teachers - I'm an awe at the crap you have to deal with.)

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.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People do not strike for fun. They do not strike > because it's a hoot and a chance to stick two > fingers up to management. They strike because it > is a last resort and they are desperate. They > strike because all other avenues of negotiation > have failed and they feel it is a last resort. Unless you work for the RMT. At that point it becomes a hobby.

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]

This topic has been sooo done to death.

I would back your recommendation of Dan at Dulwich Multitrade - absolutely brilliant and amazing value for money.