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...

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.

To misquote Al Murray, the Pub Landlord... His gaff, his rules.

No, GG, but I believe that there is an M&S Food coming real soon now.

Are you a union person? If so, then no, don't go. Me? I'd be over there in a jiffy.

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?

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Non dairy ice cream. Just not right! > We need certainly an Italian type specialist ice > cream parlour in Lordship Lane, certainly! It's not LL, but what's wrong with Scoop?

John247 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some of you may have seen this, which highlights > some of the rather more dangerious driving out > there - > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12334486 There's some awful car drivers out there. There's some awful cyclists out there. There's some awful motorcyclists out there. There's some awful van drivers out there. There's some awful people out there.

The same way they got the other 40 votes in round 2 - they counted all the ballots a second time. The people that 'voted' for Mr A and Ms B also 'voted' for them again in round two. So, if you are determined to see it as two votes, then everybody gets two votes, or three votes, or whatever. But, when each persons ballot is counted in each round, there are exactly 100 votes. You can see that in the table. You are trying to conjure 'extra' votes when there are none. Each voter gets the same number of votes: one. They fill in one ballot paper. The returning staff count the same ballot paper each time. In later rounds there are, however, less candidates to vote for so, in each round, your highest ranked remaining candidate is counted. So in round two, when there are only three candidates left, why would you deny 10 people having their vote counted in the second round and only count 90 of the 100 votes? So much for your belief in one person one vote. You are too set in your ways to understand that having one 'vote' does not just mean you can only mark one person on your ballot paper. A vote is a wider concept. In the London Mayoral elections you could note down two people (in preferred order) on the ballot - a simple form of AV. You don't hear anyone complaining some people got two votes there or that the concept was too complex to understand. At last years council elections, you could mark up to three candidates on your vote. Any cries of anguish about one person, one vote there? Nope. See? You are already using different voting systems and you've survived so far. And the world, or at least UK democracy, hasn't ended.

No, that's not correct - there is no 'cumulative total' that keeps increasing. The total number of votes at the end of each round of preference redistribution stays exactly the same. For example, in a four candidate election with 100 voters: [pre] Candidate Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Mr A 40 45 55 Ms B 30 35 45 Dr C 20 20 -- Sir D 10 -- TOTAL VOTES 100 100 100 [/pre] The total number of votes in each round remains at 100. It doesn't change. One person, one vote.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Preferences are votes- full stop. No they are not. They are expressions of wishes of how you want your vote to be cast. If you leave ?100 in your will to your cousin, but in the event they are dead then you express a second preference for it to go to the cat home, you have not given away ?200, have you? It's the same here. Or, if you like, if 100 people vote in an AV election with 10 candidates and, after redistribution of preferences, Candidate C defeats Candidate F by 53 votes to 47, where have all your 'extra' votes gone? Some voters' preferences will have been distributed numerous times, but in the end there are still 100 votes cast and 100 votes tallied.

Well, one person one vote is a principle enthusiastically upheld in Australia where they use successfully use AV. Simple.

And have a look at this from about a year ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCvl_kzjaj0&feature=related FF to 4.22 where he confidently predicts that the gulf oil leak will destroy the entire region due to the whole reserve being allowed to leak. So his crystal ball is a little... erm... faulty. I love how anyone who doesn't agree with his little doomsday prophecy is a 'zombie'. I think we are safely into nutter territory here.

He's been predicting 'the collapse of industrial civilisation' for ages now. I mean, when you run a site called CollabseNet then declaring that everything is hunky-dory might just be a little bad for business. Apparently now a few component shortages in two industries is going to cause the end of the world as we know it. At least he's put a date on it and we can look forward to him being able to STFU in August.

You are right. AV will not be revolutionary. And that's not a bad thing, as the UK doesn't really do revolutionary. And yes, in the majority of cases, a move from FPTP to AV will not change the result. But two-thirds of MPs in 2010 were elected with less that 50% of the vote. Granted, those between 40% and 50% would probably pick up the necessary remaining preferences, but less than that, and certainly where the margin is less than 5%, then AV may make a difference. Unfortunately, I can't seem to dig out any figures how many seats this may apply to. But all this slicing and dicing of preferences ignores the biggest impact that I think AV will make - that is, changing the way people place their FIRST preference. How many people currently vote Lab or Tory because 'no one else can win'? How many more people will vote Green, knowing that their second preference for Labour will hold? How many UKIP? How many SWP? How many Monster Raving Loony? And even how many - gulp - BNP? Given the paper-thin ideological differences between the three main parties, will new parties emerge with a wider political view? Now, this may not change the overall landscape at Westminster (let's face it, we going to be dancing the Lab/Tory shuffle for a good few years yet), but now we can start to accurately see what sort of support the minor parties really have. Now that may be a slight opening to Pandora's Box, but that's democracy for you.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why am I lying? > > What I'm saying is once you get past a person's > real vote (that is the first person they vote for) > as far as I can see it becomes a numbers game, the > result of which, I've yet to be convinced, bears > any real relation to the will of the voters. Hoorah! Marmora Man: you may not like my examples, but I've finally - *finally* - stopped silverfox trying to say that a second preference is the same as 'not wanting'. OK, he's yet to be convinced about AV - but then, he never will be. *Goes and has a well-earned lie-down*

nicolajaneG Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The families here are more down to earth > than the posey ones seen in Lordship Lane and > taking over eateries without consideration of > others. I can't fathom what this sentence is trying to say. Are entire families taking over eateries inconsiderately across ED? How do you take over an eatery? And do it inconsiderately as well?

Tarot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The ground where the mum and baby bays should > have visible lines painted in pink maybe, Except that they are not 'mum and baby bays', they are 'parent and child' bays. It is the 21st century - Dads take an active role in parenting these days.

It's worth considering how much you have to pay off. As a lot of deals these days attract a fee of many hundreds of pounds, if you only have a few tens of thousands left on your mortgage it might actually be a false economy to change, as the lower interest payment per month may not be worth it. E.g. ?25K at 4% is about ?83 per month in interest. ?25K at 2% is about ?41 per month in interest. If you get a new mortgage with ?750 fee then you will be 19 months down the line before the change is worth it. Of course, this does not take into the account the pros and cons of fixed deals.

I refer you to point I have made previously... And can anyone help explain to silverfox the meaning of the word 'preferences'. He seems to think it's a binary yes/no situation, that 'The icecream I like is strawberry, vanilla and chocolate, in that order' is the same as 'I don't want vanilla'. AV shows that chocolate was the least popular flavour when you take all the opinions of all the voters into account. FPTP mistakenly makes chocolate the 'most popular' by only taking in the opinions of a large minority. For more help, see the 'poisonous chocolate' example.

Provided it is out of CC hours, I second quids' route.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A rather astonishing performance by Shane Watson > vs Bangladesh. > > Headline figures: 185 not out off 96 balls. 15 > fours and 15(!) sixes ... from a score of 232/1. So he scored about 80% of the runs in the run chase. Amazing. Also, his first 100 was quick (but failed to beat Matt Hayden's record of 66 balls). After that he upped a gear. His next 50 came off 14 balls! # 100 off 69 balls (11 x 4, 6 x 6) # 150 off 83 balls (13 x 4, 11 x 6) # 185 off 96 balls (15 x 4, 15 x 6)

frierntastic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz, > > That really is an awful example! Whether you > believe in FPTP or AV, the point of an election is > to represent (as best as possible) the public's > will. In your example above, the Omega's, with > 35% of the vote, clearly represent the most > significant slice of public will. > > You cannot debate FPTP and AV by turning parties > into goodies and baddies! It is an extreme example, yes, but it does show how the 35% 'significant slice' can sometimes fails to show the complete and utter disagreement of the majority 65%. Can you not see that? Is understanding the wider picture not showing the true 'public will'? It was not meant to be an emotional argument, but one that shows that the Alpha's preferred their own candidate over the Bravo candidate, but they definitely did not want the Omega candidate, for very good reasons. Silverfox has been clouding the issue of 'preference' and 'don't want' - this example makes it clearer which is which. It's similar to the poisonous chocolate example I put together above.

The 'poisonous chocolate' example is a really good one, as it shows what happens under FPTP when a popular vote is fragmented. Imagine this... In a land not far a away, a right-wing racist party starts gaining popular support. The country has three main races, the Alphas, the Bravos and the Omegas. The Alphas and the Bravos get along very well, but the Omegas hate the Alphas and the Bravos and want them all deported back to the far away land from which their ancestors came. When the next election for president came around, the Alphas, the Bravos and the Omegas all put forward their candidate. The Alpha and Bravo candidates put forward a programme of peace and prosperity, the Omega candidate a programme of enforced deportations and ethnic cleansing. At this point, let's split into parallel universes... In the FPTP universe, the Alpha and Bravo candidates poll 32% and 33% respectively. However, the Omega candidate polled 35% and, now in a position of power, put into place his horrific programme and those Alphas and Bravos that were not deported were hunted down and killed. Over in the AV universe, the Alpha, Bravo and Omega candidates again poll 32%, 33% and 35% respectively. However, under the AV system the Alpha candidate was eliminated and his preferences redistributed. Since the Alphas all knew that the Omega's wanted them dead, they all put the Bravo candidate as number 2 on their vote. The final results was the Bravo candidate wins the election by 65% to 35% and peace continues. This is taking things to the extreme, but it shows how a large minority cannot impose it's will upon the majority. Again, like the 'poisonous chocolate' example, once you bring life and death into it, the qualities of AV shine through, mainly by underlining the difference between 'preferred' and 'don't want'.

I notice, silverfox, that you conveniently ignored this bit. I suspect because it is hard to misconstrue and shows the underlying strength of AV. Because you have big problems understanding the concepts of 'want', 'don't want' and 'prefer', bringing in the concept of poison should help you. People may prefer pistachio over vanilla (but don't really mind either), but when you bring into the equation the fact chocolate is poisonous to part of the electorate then even you should be able to get the concept of 'don't want'...