Loz

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So really we've come full circle back to Loz's ice > cream example. The majority of people have ended > up with what they didn't want in the first place. Please cease misleading people as to my ice cream example. If you don't understand it, fine, but stop using it to back a statement that is not correct. AV does two things... and in this order. 1) First it discovers if there is a candidate that has a majority. If that candidate does indeed command the vote of the majority of the electorate, then they will be elected. 2) If that fails, (and this is where it has the democratic advantage over FPTP) it seeks to discover which candidate is the most preferred. Or if you like, ensuring that a candidate that is least preferred does not get elected. The point of the ice-cream example is to show that, although chocolate would win under a FPTP regime, it is actually the most disliked by the *majority* of the electorate. Because, under FPTP, the more candidates there are, the more likely a minority 'clique' can steal an election over more preferred choices. Going back to the ice-cream example, silverfox's assertion that, "The majority of people have ended up with what they didn't want in the first place" is just a false statement and belies logic. What the majority *didn't* want was chocolate - and FPTP would have declared the least-wanted candidate the winner. AV remedies this loophole. And that make it the more superior voting system. Think of it with a more significant implication. Going back to the ice-cream example (and for late-comers, it is here). Consider that 40% of the electorate love chocolate, but it is completely and fatally poisonous for the other 60%. Under FPTP the 'elected' flavour would be chocolate... which will kill the majority. How can that ever be democracy? Under AV, the danger is recognised, chocolate does not win and everyone lives. AV rocks.

Hang on... person actually knocks on the door and asks before taking - and is still publicly branded as a 'thief'?? Unbelievable.

Especially China. China has a big, rather unreported, problem with terrorism from separatist regions.

Of course, Sainsburys can't 'fine' you as such anyway - no private company can. What they can do is put an invoice on your car for ?50 cunningly disguised as an official looking fine. When you park in Sainsbos, you form a contract with them and part of that contract is a charge of ?50 if you park where you are not supposed to. But, this contract is with the *driver* of the vehicle - not the owner. So, even though Sainsburys will send the owner the fine (since they do it via the DVLA), they still have to prove that you (or someone else) were the driver in order to pursue the contract. They generally do this by asking you, so if you don't (or can't...) tell them, then they are a bit stuffed. They would have to pursue it like they would any other unpaid invoice and have to prove in court who the person the contract was made with. So, if you don't tell them then unless they have some other proof (CCTV or something) that you, the owner, was the driver then they're unlikely to get anywhere. Usual disclaimer: I am, of course, not a lawyer.

Sorry - you've tried my patience too long. I am responding no more to you.

katie1997 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Btw, this thread has been very interesting (minus > the insults). Sorry. I'm normally a very patient person (hey, I lasted 4 pages!) but even I have limits. But, as they say: never argue with an idiot - they drag you down to their level and then try to beat you with experience. > Apparently a few years ago they said it > was a 'minor step' towards PR (which was their > previous aim). That's probably correct... providing PR is your final aim. The ERS does like PR, but they're happy to support AV simply because it is an improvement on FPTP. I have some doubts about PR and whether it would work in the UK's House of Commons, especially given the fear a lot of people are currently expressing over coalitions. I kind of like Australia's model - AV for the lower house and PR for the upper house. It gives AV's balance of fairness and stability in the lower house and PR's wider range of opinions in the upper house.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz quote: > No Loz, it's just that every time you try to > explain AV by way of an example you seem to shoot > yourself in the foot by giving examples that > strengthen the case for FPTP, ie forcing kids to > eat ice-creams they didn't want and having four > votes to reach the same result that was arrived at > in the first place. That's not it at all. You have been intransigent, obdurate and purposely daft throughout the thread. For each example I've given you made silly and frivolous observations - your completely ridiculous remark about the 2012 Olympic result being a case in point. Your 100m Olympic example was, quite frankly, one of the dumbest things I have ever read in relation to the referendum. You're not here to debate or learn something about FPTP and AV. You just want to nitpick on non-issues because you have no argument of your own. You have nothing intelligent to add. You have been useful in allowing me to explain to other readers lots of good points about AV, but your time is over. I will no long respond to your childish posts.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Doesn't sum up my points at all. "...after three votes more people ended up with an ice-cream they didn't want in the first place." and then earlier this evening, "Your Olympics example above shows what a complete waste of time AV is. [...] After four ballots under AV the result was exactly the same." I think what I wrote seems like a pretty accurate summary of your position to me! B) > Query. In the Electoral Commission brochure it > does not make reference to third, fourth and other > ranked votes being taken into consideration, only > second votes (presumably it thinks this will be > enough). However, if a 50% majority isn't reached > do third, fourth and possibly more ranked votes > come into play? Yes. Which I suspect you know already, so this is obviously leading up to a weird, parallel-world take on this by silverfox...

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry to keep picking on your examples Loz, but > your Olympics example above shows what a complete > waste of time AV is. > > In round 1, FPTP, London won and Paris came > second. After four ballots under AV the result was > exactly the same. In that example, yes. Doesn't mean it will happen every time. For the 2014 Winter Olympics, the voting was: [pre] City Round 1 Round 2 Salzburg 25 ? Pyeongchang 36 47 Sochi 34 51 [/pre] So, to summarise your past few posts, if AV shows that candidate leading after one round still wins, to you that proves it is a waste of time. But if a candidate who is not leading after the first round wins on preferences, to you that proves it is terribly unfair. Not closed minded at all then, silverfox... :)

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My fear is that AV will pander to the lowest > common denominator - offering the electorate > unaffordable goodies to win their votes - and > bankrupting the country in the process of > delivering their foolish commitment. Why would you think that is any different to what happens under FPTP? Bring Australian, I've seen AV in action and really, the election process - and the shameless bribes offered to the electorate for their votes - are no different at all between Oz and the UK. I mean, did you not think the 'free school dinners for all kids' in the last Southwark council election wasn't a shameless bribe to the electorate? No AV in sight there. It'll happen under any voting system.

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My suggestion of weighting the alternative votes > was to stimulate debate - mathematically it won't > work. However, it is disengenuous to suggest that > if I rank 8 candidates in order of preference that > I rate them equally, this is patently not the case > - otherwise I couldn't rank them. You have to understand what AV is trying to replicate. Take the Olympic host city vote as a real life example. The vote is done in rounds of individual ballots - after each round the candidate city with the least number of votes is eliminated and the vote re-taken. For 2012, the voting went: [pre] City Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Moscow 15 New York City 19 16 Madrid 20 32 31 Paris 21 25 33 50 London 22 27 39 54 [/pre] Now it would be bizarre to say to the people who voted Moscow in the first ballot that their vote was only worth half in the second round because they didn't get their first choice city. Ditto the people who voted New York in the second. So, even in second, third, fourth, etc, round/ballot, all votes are considered of equal value. And still all counted equally. As it should be. AV is the same, but with one major assumption: that people whose candidates have not been omitted do not change their vote between rounds. Thus, redistributed preferences are not 'getting their vote counted more than once', or choosing a lesser wanted candidate - just choosing from an available (though smaller) set of candidates, just like they did in the first round. And just like the first round/ballot, they can abstain from voting if they don't like any of the candidates on offer, as they don't need to number all squares.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've got water problems - always put it down to > age... Would that be in the Bellenden area?

pinkhalf Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Regarding the women's only shop, I seem to > remember that it was that men were allowed to > visit, but that they needed a female escort to do > so. Would a blow-up doll count?

There is nothing illegal about publishing a magazine for men, women, white people, black people, gay people, whatever, because there is nothing stopping someone not in your target group from purchasing the magazine. There are 'gay bars', yes, but again, straight people are not barred. Actually denying someone entrance to a shop on the basis of gender, sexuality or race is not allowed without some legal reason (e.g. women only spas).

QueenMab Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I used to work in a "women only" shop. We were > always getting chippy tossers trying to come in > and tell us we were "discriminating" against them. > On being invited to call the police, the > disgruntled were told that our store was private > property and they had no "right" to enter the > premises at all. I'm really surprised you got away with that. Try opening a 'whites-only' shop with that logic and see how far you get. A legal example of 'private property' (i.e. your own house) not being exempt from discrimination laws.

Go and rob a bank CS. You can't lose!

I had this problem for years - one friend I shared a hotel room once and said the noise was "really loud - like someone drilling through a brick wall". It caused me problems with jaw ache and my jaw would click loads when I ate. I think it's one of those things where treatment varies per person, but I had terrific success with calcium/magnesium supplement tablets coupled with multivitamin tablets. Sounds seriously weird, but it really did fix the problem to the extent I don't take them any more. You need to take them for at least a month. I just used the bog-standard Sainsburys ones. I found it on the internet and tried it more out of desperation than any real belief it would work, but really glad I did.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No Loz, what I was saying is the argument you > advanced i.e. because of x, then y, is b*llocks. > And it is, for the reasons given. Nashoi said; > > "I've always thought the best option for cyclists > is to treat red lights the same way the emergency > services do ie as giveway rather than stop > signals" > > which may or not may mean that he thinks red-light > jumping should be legitimised for cyclists, but > doesn't affect the b*llocks-ness of your > proposition. Nah, sorry DaveR you are talking in code here. What was the "argument I advanced i.e. because of x, then y"? And trying to make light of what nashoi said is just covering your ears and saying 'la la la'. It's pretty obvious that what nashoi said that the cyclists should treat red lights as give way signs - i.e. not in line with the law. You really can't wriggle out of that one, no matter how you try. > And introducing a new offence for the purpose of catching maybe one person every three to five years > is a waste of time and effort. Bad guess. 29 pedestrians were killed in Britain in accidents involving cyclists between 1998 and 2007. I suspect few of those were the fault of the pedestrian, but I suspect you will try to argue otherwise. And the worst case penalty at the moment for killing someone? A fine of ?2500. I suspect you think that is too high.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Anyway, the point is, a cyclist moves fast enough > to seriously injure and/or kill pedestrians. They > should have the same onus of the law upon them as > any other vehicle on the road." > > This is just b*llocks. It is already against the > law to cycle on the pavement and to jump red > lights, and nobody is seriously arguing that it > shouldn't be. Erm... I think nashoi was pretty much trying to say exactly that: he/she considers red lights are optional for cyclists. And the point of the 10 Minute Bill is put the same level of severity and punishment for the "charge of causing death by dangerous cycling" as it is for "charge of causing death by dangerous driving". So, no, it is not b*llocks.

That was their average speed. Averages mean little. What was their top speed? Anyway, the point is, a cyclist moves fast enough to seriously injure and/or kill pedestrians. They should have the same onus of the law upon them as any other vehicle on the road. That means that for cyclists like nashoi, you can't pick and choose what laws you want to obey and expect the law to turn a blind eye. (And I accept that there are many other cyclist like applespider that don't so this sot of thing.)

You go faster on your sofa? On second thoughts, don't answer that...

Pearson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @ LOZ - lol, get over yourself. > > I am saying it is very hard for a cyclist to get > up to and over 30mph period. > What's your average speed then smarty pants? At the moment? Zero mph. I'm sitting on the sofa.

Is the police station on Lordship Lane still empty? That would almost class as a spectator sport, watching the squatters being turfed out of that one.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The PM cited Winston Churchill's view that AV > > meant "the most worthless votes go to the most > > worthless candidates". > > > > > > Can anyone explain this? It doesn't actually > seem > > to make any sense. > > Certainly, think of your ice cream example - after > wasting everybody's time shuffling votes around > like a fairground conjurer hiding a marble under > cups, everybody ends up with what nobody wanted in > the first place. Anyone want to try and explain silverfox's explanation? 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 chocolate, vanilla and strawberry, in that order' is the same as 'I hate vanilla'.

Nice bait-and-switch. My 'never, ever' has become 'rarely'. So the answer you are giving to my question "Are you saying your average cyclist never, ever gets to 30mph?" is actually, "No, the average cyclist can get to 30mph and above".