silverfox

But haven't I just had a damn good mouthful and chew of 1 and 2 as well? I've had a nibble at all three surely?

Pontman, am I or am I not correct in saying that under AV my first preference is counted? (Answer: yes, you are correct Silverfox) Then Portman, if my first preference candidate is eliminated from the running because too few people voted for him/her is my second preference then counted? (Answer: yes, you are correct Silverfox) And, Pontman, if this person then drops out because I keep backing losers, is my third preference then counted? (Answer: yes, you are correct Silverfox) So Pontman, all three of my preferences that were given to three different people were counted, that is, played a critical part in the voting process and the ultimate outcome of the election? (Answer: yes, you are correct Silverfox) Okay, last chance Pontman, you are saying that all three of my prefernces were counted, not just one? (Answer: yes, you are correct Silverfox) Then please, Pontman and Loz, stop wasting my time and insulting my intelligence.

Loz said: "...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..." Loz, I am absolutely astounded that you cannot see the stupidity in your logic. If the shop doesn't have a KitKat or a Twix, only a Mars Bar you cannot do a 1, 2, 3 preference. You can only have 1 vote, for the Mars Bar. What is so difficult about that that you can't comprehend it? Therefore, by voting 1, 2, 3 you have had KitKat, Twix and Mars Bar - you have sampled all three. How can that not be the case? You cannot vote for something that doesn't exist. Voting for candidate 1 is taking a bite from the Kitkat and moving to candidate 2 is taking a bite from the Twix. How can this not be the case? I am absolutely astonished by your wilful blindness to the obvious. And you wonder why I haven't troubled you with more meaty voting options ....

Loz said: "...But you aren't. You are voting for x or y or z. 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..." I'm glad you've repeated this misconception Loz because this is the great fallacy of your, the AV, argument. This is not what happens in fact - and I've been surprised how many otherwise intelligent people have been deceived by it. Let me patiently try to explain this to you one more time using your example: "...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..." Yes, you have - you have had a bite from each of them. Why? If you would like a KitKat and they don't have any in the shop you can't have a KitKat. Full stop. So if your next choice is a Twix and the shop doesn't have those in stock you can't have a Twix. Full stop. So you'll have to have the Mars bar. In short you can only have one of these chocolate bars. But what AV does is allow you to have a bite from the KitKat, and then another bite from the Twix and finally to finish off with the Mars Bar. This is the fallacy of AV. Rather than only having one product like FPTP, AV allows you to taste all three. Rather than one vote you get three on this example. This is why it is disingenuous to claim it's a simple concept that even a child understands. A child in a sweet shop who is told they can only have one chocolate bar understands what that means (like FPTP). You are trying to tell the child they can sample other chocolate bars before ending up with a Mars bar. The question then becomes, why should the shopkeeper allow you to give back your KitKat with a bite taken out of it and give you another bar, a twix for you to take a bite out of it before plumping for the mars bar. The shopkeeper now has three products he can't use and presumably you only want to pay for one. Things don't work like this in the real world Loz. As they say, there's none so blind as those that won't see!

Therefore AV is not an improvement and you've got to jump through hoops with extra pass the parcel votes for no gain Mockney?

Loz said: "...Look - I spent ages explaining to you a very basic concept - the difference between 'preferred' and 'don't want'..." I know you have Loz, but you've failed. Preferred isn't the same as one vote. It's a false concept. And repeating it ad nauseum and calling others stupid because they don't accept it does not make it a valid concept. 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. It's simple - even a child who didn't want a vanilla ice-cream, but has ended up with one, knows they don't want a vanilla ice-cream even if the AV camp tells them it's fair.

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, I reject: - the idea that multiple preferences and transfers of preferences equate to a single vote - I do not consider it 'fair' that some people have more votes than others under AV, that is having second and third votes taken into consideration while others do not - you, Loz, have demonstrated with your examples that more people can end up with a result that was the least favoured at the outset. In short more people would have been happier not even voting in the first place under AV - I have repudiated your idea that the 'majority' are somehow hard done by under FPTP by showing that the 'majority' of which you speak isn't some unified opposition but basically a grouping of disunited, divided minorities. Nobody forced them to vote for the losers 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. There is a reason why hardly any country in the world has adopted AV to elect it's government and of the three that have one makes it compulsory under threat of fines to get their electorate out of bed.

Personally I think cost should not be an issue if it furthers democracy. 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.

But I thought it varied between the states, eg, in NSW you are not required to use preferences and can vote for only one person or doesn't this apply in Federal elections?

So, not only are you forced to vote in Australia, ie it's compulsory, but you're told how you must vote?

Loz said: "...what other cost could there be?..." 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. That bill must come to a couple of million for a start, especially if the Greens insist the pencils must be locally sourced.

Here's some fiction that you'll recognise Huguenot: Multiple preferences and transferred preferences equals one vote. Be off with you Huguenot and hang your head in shame for being such a half-wit in believing that nonsense.

AV has already cost tens of millions preparing for this referendum and at the moment it's just a wish from a bunch of nerds. If it's voted in costs will inevitably soar because of the bureaucratic nature of the multiple voting. That's not a lie. Unless computerisation is introduced many polling forms will be manhandled possibly three or four times in an electoral equivalent of pass the parcel. How can this not increase costs?

Great leader in The Times this morning. Well worth a read. Here are the juicy bits: Alternative Reality AV has almost none of the attributes its most passionate advocates claim make it appealing ? The striking thing ? was that the advantages ascribed to AV ? presumably regarded by its proponents as the strongest case for the change ? were things that AV has no power whatsoever to bring about. The first claim was that AV would ?make MPs work harder for you?. This begins with the incorrect ? and in most cases, insulting ? assumption that the problem with MPs is that they do not work hard. It then asserts that a different voting system would produce more industrious representatives. It remains a mystery why the ?yes? campaign believes that this would be the case. ? The ?yes? campaign states that the reform it advocates would greatly reduce the number of safe seats and require MPs to get more than 50 per cent of the vote in each constituency. Neither of these arguments is correct. Seats that are safe under the current system are unlikely to be vulnerable under AV. And ? despite the vehemence and frequency with which the assertion is made ? it would not be necessary to win 50 per cent of the vote in order to win a constituency under AV. The ?yes? campaign also seems, rather oddly, to suggest that under AV, Members of Parliament would have a less comfortable way of life, and would not be able to claim so much in expenses. There is a delicious irony about a campaign promising more honesty in politics through the deployment of an argument it must know to be entirely dishonest?. The ?yes? campaign?s broader argument ? that AV is a fairer system ? is no better founded. The alternative vote is not a proportional system and there are many circumstances in which the outcome would be less proportional than the current system. Thus, even if proportionality were the correct measure of fairness, AV would not be an improvement on first-past-the-post. Campaigners for AV like to suggest that it will open Westminster to fresh air and sunlight. Its opponents are painted as staid defenders of the Establishment; its proponents as the bright-eyed harbingers of change. But saying no to AV is about stopping the current electoral system, for all its flaws, from being replaced by a worse one. The more that we learn about the system of AV, the less there is to like about it. In fact, there is something very ?old politics? about the ?yes? campaign, in the gulf between its rhetoric and the reality that lies behind. It is a false promise. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article2990967.ece (subscription required to read full article)

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. Only three countries use AV to elect their governments: Australia, Papua New Guinea and Fiji. 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.

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. My concern at the moment is that the yes vote could win this referendum because of a low turnout and the Scots' support for AV could be the deciding factor. The Scots? Yes dear friends, can you imagine. They have their own parliament but can you fathom Rab C Nesbitt types determining whether we have to adopt AV?

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.

For those who may think AV is the thin edge of the wedge, cop a load of this: Hungary considers giving mothers extra votes Hungary's new government is considering controversial plans to give mothers with small children additional votes in elections. Jozsef Szajer, a senior official from the ruling conservative Fidesz party, explained that 20 per cent of Hungary's population are children and that "the interests of future generations are not represented in decision making". The proposed legislation, which would be a first for modern democracy, is inspired by a concept developed in 1986 by American demographer Paul Demeny, who argued that children "should not be left disfranchised for some 18 years". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/hungary/8457723/Hungary-considers-giving-mothers-extra-votes.html Sound vaguely familiar?

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.

Loz, You have an advantage over me in that I haven't seen the figures you are so concerned about. Therefore I'll have to go back to first principles. Prima facie, the fact that a person was elected to Parliament on 29.36% of the total valid vote is not democratic. However, in my opinion it is perfectly acceptable and totally democratic. Why? Because under FPTP, the system you quote, people are free to vote for whomever they choose. There is no compulsory voting (unlike Australia). So, of those who turned out to vote and didn't spoil the ballot paper (ie, 100% of the valid votes) the winner achieved 29.36%. This means 70.64% of people (the majority) didn't vote for the LibDem candidate. But here is the fallacy of the pro-AV argument. This 70.64% isn't actually a majority. What it is is a divided mob, each of whom have been given the chance to cast their votes as they see fit. In doing so, by not being able to agree, the LibDem candidate has rightly emerged as the winner. There is nothing unfair about this. Nobody forced the 70.64 to vote the way they did. Each individual voted freely, whether tactically or otherwise. The majority isn't some disenfranchised group. They voted for various candidates who were less popular than the winner at 29.36% of the vote. What is unfair about that? Why should they be given the chance to change their mind because the result wasn't what they hoped? This is why the AV argument is naive. It starts off from the absurd premiss that the majority have been hard done by when the majority is not some unified whole - rather it is a disunited, fragmented, heterogeneous group pf individuals

Nobody asked the other people to vote for the losers. They made their choice and their candidates got less votes than the winner. What's unfair about that? That's democracy - you make your choice and if your candidate doesn't win you accept the result. You don't go around whinging about it and asking to take your vote back so you can give it to someone else.

All that overtime transferring votes for a start - they'll be raking it in. (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)

I'll cost a fortune in chewed pencils. And what about deforestation?

It'll be chaos I tell you. Ballot papers as long as toilet rolls and returning officers running round like the Andrex puppy. Voters, or should we say preferencers, chewing the pencils to splinters as they try to figure out the instructions of how to vote/prefer.

Couldn't resist this from yesterday's Evening Standard - "...A poll showed growing support for sticking with first-past-the-post. The YouGov survey for The Sun gave No 44 per cent, with Yes on 37. The seven-point lead grew to 12 points, 45 to 33, when AV was fully explained." http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/politics/article-23940931-voting-reform-rivals-clash-over-funding.do (Words made bold by me for emphasis)