[hugh]

In message , Old Codger
writes
On 02/05/2011 13:33, Roger Mills wrote:
On 02/05/2011 13:05, Thumper wrote:



I'll be voting No because it is actually the fairer system. Each voter
gets 1 vote, votes are added up, candidate with most votes is the
winner. Can't get more fairer than that.

Excpet that:
* Most of the MPs it returns have more people voting *against* than
*for* them, and
* It tends to give an overall majority to a party for whom most of the
electorate didn't vote

Can't get much *un*-fairer than that!

Except by electing one of the other candidates who had even more people
voting against them

You don't vote "against" anyone in an election - you vote FOR someone.


Snip
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha

[Invisible Man[_2_]]

On 04/05/2011 13:59, hugh wrote:
In message , Old Codger
writes
On 02/05/2011 13:33, Roger Mills wrote:
On 02/05/2011 13:05, Thumper wrote:



I'll be voting No because it is actually the fairer system. Each voter
gets 1 vote, votes are added up, candidate with most votes is the
winner. Can't get more fairer than that.

Excpet that:
* Most of the MPs it returns have more people voting *against* than
*for* them, and
* It tends to give an overall majority to a party for whom most of the
electorate didn't vote

Can't get much *un*-fairer than that!

Except by electing one of the other candidates who had even more
people voting against them

You don't vote "against" anyone in an election - you vote FOR someone.


Snip

Can't agree with that. Because AV does not exist I like many others vote
tactically to keep someone out. Very sad.

[Adrian]

Invisible Man gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Except by electing one of the other candidates who had even more
people voting against them

You don't vote "against" anyone in an election - you vote FOR someone.

Can't agree with that. Because AV does not exist I like many others vote
tactically to keep someone out. Very sad.

You're still voting _for_ somebody - a candidate who you find acceptable
and who you believe can win.

[Old Codger[_4_]]

On 04/05/2011 13:59, hugh wrote:
In message , Old Codger
writes
On 02/05/2011 13:33, Roger Mills wrote:
On 02/05/2011 13:05, Thumper wrote:



I'll be voting No because it is actually the fairer system. Each voter
gets 1 vote, votes are added up, candidate with most votes is the
winner. Can't get more fairer than that.

Excpet that:
* Most of the MPs it returns have more people voting *against* than
*for* them, and
* It tends to give an overall majority to a party for whom most of the
electorate didn't vote

Can't get much *un*-fairer than that!

Except by electing one of the other candidates who had even more
people voting against them

You don't vote "against" anyone in an election - you vote FOR someone.

Agreed! I was just using Roger's argument against him.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

[hugh]

In message , Invisible Man
writes
On 04/05/2011 13:59, hugh wrote:
In message , Old Codger
writes
On 02/05/2011 13:33, Roger Mills wrote:
On 02/05/2011 13:05, Thumper wrote:



I'll be voting No because it is actually the fairer system. Each voter
gets 1 vote, votes are added up, candidate with most votes is the
winner. Can't get more fairer than that.

Excpet that:
* Most of the MPs it returns have more people voting *against* than
*for* them, and
* It tends to give an overall majority to a party for whom most of the
electorate didn't vote

Can't get much *un*-fairer than that!

Except by electing one of the other candidates who had even more
people voting against them

You don't vote "against" anyone in an election - you vote FOR someone.


Snip

Can't agree with that. Because AV does not exist I like many others
vote tactically to keep someone out. Very sad.

But you are not voting against anyone, you are voting FOR another
candidate whatever your motive and that applies whether you have AV or
not.
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha

[Mark[_30_]]

On Wed, 4 May 2011 22:17:05 +0100, hugh ] wrote:

In message , Invisible Man
writes
On 04/05/2011 13:59, hugh wrote:
In message , Old Codger
writes
On 02/05/2011 13:33, Roger Mills wrote:
On 02/05/2011 13:05, Thumper wrote:



I'll be voting No because it is actually the fairer system. Each voter
gets 1 vote, votes are added up, candidate with most votes is the
winner. Can't get more fairer than that.

Excpet that:
* Most of the MPs it returns have more people voting *against* than
*for* them, and
* It tends to give an overall majority to a party for whom most of the
electorate didn't vote

Can't get much *un*-fairer than that!

Except by electing one of the other candidates who had even more
people voting against them

You don't vote "against" anyone in an election - you vote FOR someone.


Snip

Can't agree with that. Because AV does not exist I like many others
vote tactically to keep someone out. Very sad.

But you are not voting against anyone, you are voting FOR another
candidate whatever your motive and that applies whether you have AV or
not.

You're still not voting for the person you might actually /want/ to
win though. AV allows you to put that person first without the
inherent risks that FPTP has.

At the very least with AV we would be able to see what candidates
people /really/ want even if the number of MPs from each party elected
is roughly the same as now.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

[Bernard Peek]

On 04/05/11 22:17, hugh wrote:

Can't agree with that. Because AV does not exist I like many others
vote tactically to keep someone out. Very sad.

But you are not voting against anyone, you are voting FOR another
candidate whatever your motive and that applies whether you have AV or not.

Whether an individual voter is voting for someone or against someone
else is something which only that voter knows. It's nobody else's business.


--
Bernard Peek

[Roger Mills[_2_]]

On 05/05/2011 10:26, Bernard Peek wrote:
On 04/05/11 22:17, hugh wrote:

Can't agree with that. Because AV does not exist I like many others
vote tactically to keep someone out. Very sad.

But you are not voting against anyone, you are voting FOR another
candidate whatever your motive and that applies whether you have AV or not.

Whether an individual voter is voting for someone or against someone
else is something which only that voter knows. It's nobody else's business.



Indeed. And it is clear that, under FPTP, a great many people vote
tactically by voting (say) for Labour to keep the Tories out - even
though they would prefer to vote for (say) the Greens but know that they
have no chance. Whilst they are physically voting *for* Labour, their
intent is clearly to vote *against* the Tories.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

[hugh]

In message , Bernard Peek
writes
On 04/05/11 22:17, hugh wrote:

Can't agree with that. Because AV does not exist I like many others
vote tactically to keep someone out. Very sad.

But you are not voting against anyone, you are voting FOR another
candidate whatever your motive and that applies whether you have AV or not.

Whether an individual voter is voting for someone or against someone
else is something which only that voter knows. It's nobody else's business.


So where on the ballot paper do you put a mark to show you are voting
against a candidate? What goes on in your head is irrelevant.
The X is FOR that candidate.
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha

[hugh]

In message , Roger Mills
writes
On 05/05/2011 10:26, Bernard Peek wrote:
On 04/05/11 22:17, hugh wrote:

Can't agree with that. Because AV does not exist I like many others
vote tactically to keep someone out. Very sad.

But you are not voting against anyone, you are voting FOR another
candidate whatever your motive and that applies whether you have AV or not.

Whether an individual voter is voting for someone or against someone
else is something which only that voter knows. It's nobody else's business.



Indeed. And it is clear that, under FPTP, a great many people vote
tactically by voting (say) for Labour to keep the Tories out - even
though they would prefer to vote for (say) the Greens but know that
they have no chance. Whilst they are physically voting *for* Labour,
their intent is clearly to vote *against* the Tories.
Exactly, they vote FOR Labour in your example and when the votes are
counted it counts FOR Labour, not AGAINST the conservatives
(Sorry caps are for emphasis not shouting)

--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha

[Bernard Peek]

On 05/05/11 15:17, hugh wrote:
In message , Bernard Peek
writes
On 04/05/11 22:17, hugh wrote:

Can't agree with that. Because AV does not exist I like many others
vote tactically to keep someone out. Very sad.

But you are not voting against anyone, you are voting FOR another
candidate whatever your motive and that applies whether you have AV
or not.

Whether an individual voter is voting for someone or against someone
else is something which only that voter knows. It's nobody else's
business.


So where on the ballot paper do you put a mark to show you are voting
against a candidate? What goes on in your head is irrelevant.
The X is FOR that candidate.


The X is for whatever the voter wants it to be.


--
Bernard Peek

[Roger Mills[_2_]]

On 05/05/2011 15:19, hugh wrote:
In message , Roger Mills
writes


Indeed. And it is clear that, under FPTP, a great many people vote
tactically by voting (say) for Labour to keep the Tories out - even
though they would prefer to vote for (say) the Greens but know that
they have no chance. Whilst they are physically voting *for* Labour,
their intent is clearly to vote *against* the Tories.

Exactly, they vote FOR Labour in your example and when the votes are
counted it counts FOR Labour, not AGAINST the conservatives
(Sorry caps are for emphasis not shouting)


The proof of the pudding would be whether they would STILL vote for
Labour under AV. I very much doubt that they would - not as a first
choice, anyway.

AV allows them to vote for their *real* first choice, and *also* to show
a preference for one of the other parties over one which they really
dislike. FPTP doesn't!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

[Tim Watts]

Bernard Peek wrote:

On 05/05/11 15:17, hugh wrote:
In message , Bernard Peek
writes
On 04/05/11 22:17, hugh wrote:

Can't agree with that. Because AV does not exist I like many others
vote tactically to keep someone out. Very sad.

But you are not voting against anyone, you are voting FOR another
candidate whatever your motive and that applies whether you have AV
or not.

Whether an individual voter is voting for someone or against someone
else is something which only that voter knows. It's nobody else's
business.


So where on the ballot paper do you put a mark to show you are voting
against a candidate? What goes on in your head is irrelevant.
The X is FOR that candidate.


The X is for whatever the voter wants it to be.



The voter can think what he likes, but as far as the system cares, the X is
for the candidate whose name it appears along side. End of.



--
Tim Watts

[hugh]

In message , Bernard Peek
writes
On 05/05/11 15:17, hugh wrote:
In message , Bernard Peek
writes
On 04/05/11 22:17, hugh wrote:

Can't agree with that. Because AV does not exist I like many others
vote tactically to keep someone out. Very sad.

But you are not voting against anyone, you are voting FOR another
candidate whatever your motive and that applies whether you have AV
or not.

Whether an individual voter is voting for someone or against someone
else is something which only that voter knows. It's nobody else's
business.


So where on the ballot paper do you put a mark to show you are voting
against a candidate? What goes on in your head is irrelevant.
The X is FOR that candidate.


The X is for whatever the voter wants it to be.


Sorry but no it doesn't. It stands for and is counted as a vote for that
candidate.
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha