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.