On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:27:38 +0100, Mark wrote:

One thing that could be done with AV is add a "no candidate" option,
which might appeal to some of the posters here.

Spoiling ones ballot paper does that surely? Isn't your vote still
counted as part of the turn out or at least as a number of spoiled
papers but not to any candidate.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:04:02 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:27:38 +0100, Mark wrote:

One thing that could be done with AV is add a "no candidate" option,
which might appeal to some of the posters here.

Spoiling ones ballot paper does that surely? Isn't your vote still
counted as part of the turn out or at least as a number of spoiled
papers but not to any candidate.

Spoiled ballot papers are noted but cannot affect the outcome. However
in AV with the "no candidate" option enough votes could stop /anyone/
being elected.
--
(\__/) 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.

On 19 Apr 2011 09:46:40 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2011-04-19, Tim Streater wrote:

What we should certainly *not* do is make voting compulsory. Why not?
Because low turnouts are another signal to the political establishment
that things are not as they should be.

A signal which they utterly ignore.

Exactly. Low turnout is one of the things that allow them to get away
with anything they like.

A "no candidate" option, however, would be a lot more difficult to
ignore.
--
(\__/) 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.

On 19/04/11 09:27, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:56:21 +0100, djc wrote:

On 18/04/11 09:24, Mark wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 19:57:42 +0100, djc wrote:

On 15/04/11 10:25, Mark wrote:

I disagree. By allowing people to vote for multiple candidates (if
they so wish) it would eliminate tactical voting. It would also mean,
that if you don't vote for the winner, that your vote is not totally
wasted. Hopefully this will encourage more people to to vote make MPs
more accountable.

a. What's wrong with tactical voting.

What's right with tactical voting?

You vote for someone you don't want to elect in an attempt to stop
some other person you don't want to elect.


Just like AV then. Because I have no wish to elect any of the
self-important, self-serving busybodies who are offered.

There's no proposal to making voting compulsory.

One thing that could be done with AV is add a "no candidate" option,
which might appeal to some of the posters here.

When I was at U.Warwick some years ago the student union had some complex
voting system that required candidates to be numbered in order of
preference. There was an option for 'reopen nominations'. Got a lot of
votes did RON. But the union hacks didn't like it when there were a dozen
candidates and people voted 1. candidate_a, 2. cadidate_b, 3. RON. "Its
not supposed to work like that, you either list all candidates in order, or
vote RON." That's the problem with politicians, they don't want to
represent your wishes, they wish to tell you what to do.



--
djc

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:

On 19-04-2011, Tim Streater wrote:

What we should certainly *not* do is make voting compulsory. Why
not? Because low turnouts are another signal to the political
establishment that things are not as they should be.
A signal which they utterly ignore.

The Libs certainly do; they're just interested in getting elected.

Another signal that things are in poor shape is the low esteem in which
politicians are held (as seen by comments here), even though many work
very hard.

Constituency politicians by and large do a fair job. Its the cabinet
lot, and the local councils who are a total waste of space.

Or local district councillor did a huge drive to get people to put
dog**** on bags.

Now the bags of dog**** are everywhere - even in places that are
'agricultural' land.

And people are so anti-dog that they have had to take on extra dog
wardens to deal with all the complaints

On 19 Apr 2011 10:15:36 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2011-04-19, Mark wrote:
On 19 Apr 2011 09:46:40 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2011-04-19, Tim Streater wrote:

What we should certainly *not* do is make voting compulsory. Why not?
Because low turnouts are another signal to the political establishment
that things are not as they should be.

A signal which they utterly ignore.

Exactly. Low turnout is one of the things that allow them to get away
with anything they like.

A "no candidate" option, however, would be a lot more difficult to
ignore.

Given that politicians routinely ignore "signals" up to and including
rioting in the streets, I wouldn't bank on it.

But it wouldn't just be a signal. If more than 50% of the votes were
for "No candidate" then noone would be elected.
--
(\__/) 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.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:52:49 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
Huge wrote:

On 19-04-2011, Tim Streater wrote:

What we should certainly *not* do is make voting compulsory. Why not?
Because low turnouts are another signal to the political establishment
that things are not as they should be.

A signal which they utterly ignore.

The Libs certainly do; they're just interested in getting elected.

And the Labs/Tories/Greens/Unionists ....

Another signal that things are in poor shape is the low esteem in which
politicians are held (as seen by comments here), even though many work
very hard.

Indeed.
--
(\__/) 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.

Mark wrote:
On 19 Apr 2011 10:15:36 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2011-04-19, Mark wrote:
On 19 Apr 2011 09:46:40 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2011-04-19, Tim Streater wrote:

What we should certainly *not* do is make voting compulsory. Why not?
Because low turnouts are another signal to the political establishment
that things are not as they should be.
A signal which they utterly ignore.
Exactly. Low turnout is one of the things that allow them to get away
with anything they like.

A "no candidate" option, however, would be a lot more difficult to
ignore.
Given that politicians routinely ignore "signals" up to and including
rioting in the streets, I wouldn't bank on it.

But it wouldn't just be a signal. If more than 50% of the votes were
for "No candidate" then noone would be elected.

Sadly it doesn't work like that..

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:24:36 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mark wrote:
On 19 Apr 2011 10:15:36 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2011-04-19, Mark wrote:
On 19 Apr 2011 09:46:40 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2011-04-19, Tim Streater wrote:

What we should certainly *not* do is make voting compulsory. Why not?
Because low turnouts are another signal to the political establishment
that things are not as they should be.
A signal which they utterly ignore.
Exactly. Low turnout is one of the things that allow them to get away
with anything they like.

A "no candidate" option, however, would be a lot more difficult to
ignore.
Given that politicians routinely ignore "signals" up to and including
rioting in the streets, I wouldn't bank on it.

But it wouldn't just be a signal. If more than 50% of the votes were
for "No candidate" then noone would be elected.

Sadly it doesn't work like that..

No. But it /could/ with AV.

--
(\__/) 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.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:17:24 +0100, Mark wrote:

But it wouldn't just be a signal. If more than 50% of the votes were
for "No candidate" then noone would be elected.

And then what do you do? Hold another election or just appoint
someone?

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 18:38:21 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:17:24 +0100, Mark wrote:

But it wouldn't just be a signal. If more than 50% of the votes were
for "No candidate" then noone would be elected.

And then what do you do? Hold another election or just appoint
someone?

You could hold another election. Appointing someone would be a very
bad idea.

However I posted this idea since many posters here hate all
politicians so this would give them what they want!
--
(\__/) 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.

In message , Tim
Streater wrote

even though many work very hard.

But not for the people who elected them.

My local council has just spent £25million on road "improvements" which
now makes the town centre a no-go area and makes it almost impossible to
travel from one side of the town to the other in any reasonable time
frame. As a result of recent their press releases the local radio
station decided to report on the success of the project. The gist of the
report " The sea front and railway entrance look great after all the
work. It took 2 hours to get into the town to report on this."

This is the same council who ripped up native trees to plant £100,000
worth of now dead palm trees last year.

All those touting for our votes to join the council seem to have other
priorities. Dog crap on pavements is one of the major campaigning
issues.
--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:

On 2011-04-20, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Alan wrote:

In message ,
Tim Streater wrote
even though many work very hard.

But not for the people who elected them.
My local council has just spent �25million on road
"improvements" which now makes the town centre a no-go area and
makes it almost impossible to travel from one side of the town to
the other in any reasonable time frame.

That would be the County Council then (or are you unitary?)

So what?

As a result of recent their press releases the local radio
station decided to report on the success of the project. The gist of
the report " The sea front and railway entrance look great after
all the work. It took 2 hours to get into the town to report on this."
This is the same council who ripped up native trees to plant
�100,000 worth of now dead palm trees last year.

That would be the District/City council then (or are you unitary?)

So what?

Who cares which bunch of useless incompentent lying *******s are
which? They
all have their hands in your pocket.

Hmm, and then we wonder why such things happen. People get the
politicians they deserve, and with an attitude like yours, you'll just
get more of the same.

catch 22 innit?

On 19/04/2011 16:39, Tim Streater wrote:

Another good reason not to have it then. It already costs a lot to hold
elections.

I doubt it will (would) cost very much more to run elections under AV
than the current system. Those who compare the costs here with those
under AV in Australia might like to remember that the distances involved
there are rather larger.

And those getting excited about this might also like to look at how few
seats would actually have had different results under FPTP as opposed to
AV in Australia.

Andy

Andy Champ wrote:
On 19/04/2011 16:39, Tim Streater wrote:

Another good reason not to have it then. It already costs a lot to hold
elections.

I doubt it will (would) cost very much more to run elections under AV
than the current system. Those who compare the costs here with those
under AV in Australia might like to remember that the distances involved
there are rather larger.

And those getting excited about this might also like to look at how few
seats would actually have had different results under FPTP as opposed to
AV in Australia.

...assuming people voted in the same way with fptp as av..


Andy

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 21:45:35 +0100, Andy Champ
wrote:

On 19/04/2011 16:39, Tim Streater wrote:

Another good reason not to have it then. It already costs a lot to hold
elections.

I doubt it will (would) cost very much more to run elections under AV
than the current system. Those who compare the costs here with those
under AV in Australia might like to remember that the distances involved
there are rather larger.

It won't cost much more since it will only take a little longer to
count than FPTP.

If you have seen the "No" campaign leaflet you will notice that they
claim costs for voting machines, which is an outright lie. In fact I
have not read anything or heard anything from the "No" campaign that
did not contain factual errors.

A lot of people cite Australia as a reason to prove AV is bad but they
have compulsory voting there -- so there is a big difference.
--
(\__/) 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.