silverfox

Dear Admin, You did a marvellous job on the General Election opinion poll. Would you consider doing a similar poll in the run up to the FPTP/AV Referendum? I realise it may be extra work for an already hard pressed team but the Referendum has the potential to fundamentally alter the face of British Politics in ways we cannot yet imagine. Silverfox

Loz quote: "I think what I wrote seems like a pretty accurate summary of your position to me!" 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. Loz quote (in reply to question, 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..." Well why doesn't the Electoral Commission brochure explain this clearly. IE, instead of 4 pages explaining AV why don't they make it 100 pages and make a decent job of it. Not everybody is as clever as EDF members but their vote is just as important, assuming they know what they're voting about. And let's face it, the more we look at AV, the more it looks like an exercise in obfuscation.

Okay, maybe some of you are finding that question a bit difficult. Let's try it from another angle. In the Electoral Commission brochure it tells me I can vote for as many of the candidates that I wish, ranking them in order - ie, I can rank more than two people. Presumably this is all about empowering me, making me feel my vote counts. But then the brochure only talks about re-distributing the second votes of the eliminated candidate, no mention of third or fouth votes (ie, equally valid votes that really count and take my opinion into consideration). Are we being sold a pig in a poke?

Anyone?

Doesn't sum up my points at all. 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? It is not made clear in the brochure so how are people meant to make a decision on such a vital change?

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.

You'll have to do better than that Huguenot. Here we have one of the biggest constitutional changes proposed since the 1832 and 1867 Reform Acts and Women's Emancipation and Huguenot sums up the case for the 'Yes' vote: "...Vote 'Yes' for AV just to avoid siding with the slack-jawed hypocritical retards." Hardly an intellectually rigorous exposition of the arguments for AV. I'd leave the case for the 'Yes' vote to people such as Loz if I were you. Your unwelcome interference is more likely to drive the undecided voters to the 'No' camp.

You can if you're Welsh or Scottish apparently

Yep

Exactly Ms B they are mean. They're even freezing council tax and water rates at your expense so they don't have to spend their own money

Quote: Many many 100's of local councillor seats have only one candidate standing - they've been delcared the winners without a single vote having to be cast. FPTP is the reason for this. The reason for this is nobody else is standing surely? This would be the case if AV was in operation.

Perhaps, but it's your money they're spending - and let's face it, Alex Salmon looks like he's eating his way through it.

Quote: I spotted a teenage girl walking to school aided by a single crutch. When a bus came she popped the crutch under her arm and ran like crazy to get on board. Yep, aiming high that one so she can claim 'the sick' when she leaves school.

Having a street party just off Lordship Lane. Don't worry Ms B, it won't cost any public money because there's none to spare - the Welsh and Scots have taken it all for free prescriptions. I'd join us and boycott Scotland if I were you.

Interesting statement on page 8 of the above leaflet: "Because voters don't have to rank all of the candidates, an election can be won under the 'alternative vote' system with less than half the total votes cast." However unlikely or rarely this event may occur, it contradicts the whole justification for introducing the AV system in the first place, ie a minimum 50% of the vote is required. Intellectually flawed or what?

Just got my Electoral Commission brochure through the door 'Local elections and Referendum'. Page 4 explains the first past the post system. Pages 5, 6, 7 and 8 explain what the Alernative Vote is and how it works. I suppose if AV is introduced it will keep the vote counters in jobs and there'll be plenty of overtime.

Hello fairyuk27. I hope you're settling into the area. ED is a friendly area and like everywhere else caters for all tastes and opinions. However, if you find yourself meeting locals for the first time it may be wise to keep your views to yourself until you can gauge the opinions of the person you're talking to on the following areas of local contention: Marks & Spencer/Waitrose versus Iceland/Co-op Royal Wedding Street Parties Local independent shops good value or too dear Plastic bags Dog Poo Mums with children's buggies Travellers parking on your street Faith Schools Whetherspoons pubs Cars v cycling Cultural differences between the Dulwich end of ED v Peckham end of ED Late night opening and people being ill in your garden Queuing up outside Purveyors of High Quality meat shops First past the post versus AV voting Depending on your views fairytuk27, within minutes you can be accused of fascism, nazism, racism, homophobia, being anti-scientific, anti-jewish, anti-poor and so on. Welcome.

Quote: Then yesterday, I saw an old guy pushing his own wheel chair up the hilly bit of LSL, then getting back in it at the top to carry on wheeling himself by hand. Sounds like one of the Government's 'Fit for Work' tests to weed out the work shy.

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.

... And that Cameron (and Milliband, for that matter) were both elected by forms of AV? ... Churchill was right. I rest my case.

Loz said: ".... No one, but no one, can take this long to understand a relatively simple concept." Today's Sun says: 349-word solution to grasp AV THE Alternative Vote system is so complicated the Electoral Commission took 349 WORDS to explain it. By contrast, the current First Past the Post system was unravelled in 57. The commission, overseeing the May 5 voting referendum, yesterday sent information booklets to 28 million homes. The plain language experts it used took seven times longer to decipher AV. Meanwhile, David Cameron attacked the system in a Swansea speech. The PM cited Winston Churchill's view that AV meant "the most worthless votes go to the most worthless candidates". He added competitors "coming second or third can end up winning", and said: "We wouldn't do it in the Olympics, we shouldn't do it in politics. We've got to vote no to this crazy system." http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3505610/Electoral-Commission-takes-349-words-to-explain-the-AV-system.html

just looking at the latest pro-AV junk mail to come through my door (how many millions are being wasted on this?) point two states under the heading 'A stronger voice' this philosophical gem: "Ranking candidates in order gives you more say -in who comes in first and who comes in last. By ranking as many or as few candidates as you like, you can still have a say even if your favourite doesn't win" This goes back to your ice cream example Loz where everyone was 'Forced' to have vanilla ice cream which hardly anyone wanted in the first place. Neo-fascism abounds in the AV lobby See Loz's ice cream example above where, after three votes, more people ended up with an ice cream they didn't want (70%) than if they hadn't bothered to vote in the first place (60%).

Be careful malumbu - there are good reasons why the word "allegedly" is used.

Can't really help you there PeckhamRose except to say that this referendum has nothing to do with PR. However, you're right to be concerned and I advise you just to vote a big fat NO (only one x required here) Put it like this: the men's 100 metres final in the Olympics will be won by the person who runs the fastest and breaks the tape first. If AV reasoning was applied to this this is unfair because the other seven racers lost. the reason the winner won was because he was the fastest. But he may of had longer legs, more stamina, been fitter, trained harder, a bigger lunch box etc. none of this matters. apply AV and give it to the fat asthmatic kid with eczema

Silverfox has given up posting for Lent but if he hadn't he would answer NO to this question. This is an automated message. Please do not reply to it.