On 03/05/2011 23:24, Roger Mills wrote:
On 03/05/2011 21:08, John Williamson wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:


See the whole thing illustrated rather cleverly in Dan Snow's video,
to be screened on TV this evening - and available he
http://www.yestofairervotes.org/page...03DanSnowEmail


Doesn't match my experience of such things. Beer or coffee? Okay, which
pub/ coffeshop? But that's not really relevant to Parliament.


It was just an illustration of choosing between alternatives - and is
equally applicable to drinking venues and parliamentary candidates.

When there were just 2 venues/candidates - no problem, simple majority
sorts it.

But when there are multiple options/candidates, this doesn't work. In
the FPTP illustration, the coffee shop won even though more people
wanted to go *a* (though not the same) pub. When they applied some sort
of AV (I didn't quite understand the methodology) they ended up going to
a pub that everyone was happy with.

When there are multiple candidates in an election, simply choosing the
person with the most votes even though they are way short of 50% isn't
the best way of finding the candidate whom most people are happy with.

But AV will not necessarily find the candidate most people are happy with.

--
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]