On 07/05/2011 18:30, Roger Mills wrote:
On 07/05/2011 17:36, John Rumm wrote:


A point worth noting is that they did not (or possibly they did but I
did not see it) actually spell out what variation of the rules would
have been used here. It is possible they would have insisted that you
rank all candidates as in some bits of Aus.


Do you have a copy of the booklet produced by the independent Electoral
Commission (not to be confused - as even my MP appeared to do - with the
partial Electoral Reform Society) and circulated to all households?

Not to this household it wasn't. Since this is the first time I have
heard it mentioned I suspect that I am far from being the only household
not to have received a copy.

If so, turn to Page 5 and read the bit where it says:
"You can choose how many candidates to rank.You don't have to rank every
candidate. As long as you rank at least one, your vote will be counted"

OLD CODGER, PLEASE NOTE!!

Noted. That is what I would expect for the small print. The Liberals
would have ensured that the impression would be that all candidates had
to be ranked. Those words in the small print would be their get out
clause (see other post tonight).

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

Do you suppose there may have been some that fully understood the
system, how it works, and the various legitimate pros and cons, and yet
still voted "no"?


Of course. Particularly staunch Tories who worked out that AV would make
a Tory overall majority less likely. But I'm still sad that the majority
decided (or allowed themselves to be brainwashed) that AV was a bad thing.

Do you really believe the crap that was put out by both sides could
brainwash anybody in either direction? As I have said elsewhere I heard
nothing from either campaign, or in reports of their "campaigning", that
would have caused me to think about the subject and to vote. I had
formed an opinion long before the so called campaigning started and
looked to the campaigns to either confirm that opinion or cause me to
reconsider. Threads like this on the other hand made me think out and
argue my case and as a result my opinion strengthened and I voted
accordingly.

If anybody has been brainwashed it seems to me it has to be the pro AV
folk. How anyone can consider AV to be a fair voting system, or even
fairer than FPTP, is beyond me. I think I have read all the pro
arguments in this thread and they just don't hang together.

--
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]