On 04/05/2011 09:52, dennis@home wrote:


"brass monkey" wrote in message
eb.com...

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.

But didn't they move the goalposts?
3 pubs were involved and only 1 coffee shop.
So, to defeat the coffee bods, the drinkers got together and decided
that ANY pub was better than coffee.
A really crap example, IMHO.


It is however exactly how FPTP works.
You don't get to vote on pub or coffee shop and then on which pub in our
elections.
You get to vote for the candidate (name of pub) and not the party (pub
or coffee shop).

Whilst our present system is designed around the selection of candidates
it is possible to pick a candidate purely on party lines so it is
possible in FPTP to select "pub or coffee shop"

Its the same as having a NuLabore and an independent Labour candidate up
against a liberal.
The liberal could win with 34% of the vote using FPTP (even less with
more candidates).
You don't get to choose between Labour or liberal using FPTP, with AV
you do.

Independent labour is not labour, his views differ from the official
party line so your example effectively gives three candidates and three
parties.

Choosing pub and then which pub is two elections and we don't do that.

Indeed.

It would be possible(desirable?) for a party to stand several candidates
and let the electorate choose which one they want to represent them
using AV, something they can't do under FPTP.

Provided the alternatives all had to be the same party that could work
but our politicians would consider it too complicated.


--
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]