On 07/05/2011 16:51, Roger Mills wrote:
On 06/05/2011 21:04, Old Codger wrote:
On 04/05/2011 22:35, Roger Mills wrote:
On 04/05/2011 20:43, Old Codger wrote:
On 03/05/2011 23:24, Roger Mills wrote:


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.

Indeed. I don't think there's *any* system which would provide a cast
iron guarantee of that. But, in general, over 50% of the population
would have expressed *some* sort of preference for them

Just noticed the "over 50% of the population" bit. Rarely, if ever,
does over 50% of the population vote.

Despite some of those folk expressing that preference because they
believe they have to, even if they really would not want that candidate
elected.


Well, you keep saying that - but that doesn't make it true. Even if
people were given the impression during the campaign that they have to
rate *all* candidates, there would have been plenty of time to
re-educate them before AV was actually used.

Do you believe appropriate reeducation would happen or even that the
voting instructions would clearly state that more than one vote should
be given only if the voter was prepared for the additional candidate(s)
to be elected? I certainly don't.

As I have said elsewhere in this thread:

"*If* the voting instructions were to say: "Put 1 against the candidate
you want elected. If there are other candidates you are prepared to see
elected you may rank these in order, 2, 3, etc. However, do not vote
for more than one candidate unless you are prepared to have any of these
additional candidates elected" then there would be some justification
for a claim that over 50% of voters had expressed some preference for
that candidate. However, given that this is all for the benefit of the
Liberals and given that they expect it to give them an electoral
advantage I can't see them accepting any wording that does not strongly
suggest that all candidates should be ranked. There will be words
saying you don't have to but they will be the small print. Many folk
will therefore rank all the candidates and the winner will claim over
50% support, even if that is only 25% of the electorate.

Voters are reasonably savvy[1] and most have worked out how to vote tactically when appropriate.

[1] though, sadly, not savvy enough to see the merits of AV in
sufficient numbers! g

No, no, no, no, no. The voters were savvy enough to see through the
scam that was being presented and chuck the whole idea into the dustbin.
:-)


--
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]