On Fri, 06 May 2011 21:02:16 +0100, Old Codger
wrote:

On 04/05/2011 21:17, dennis@home wrote:


"Old Codger" wrote in message
...

But AV will not necessarily find the candidate most people are happy
with.

Neither will FPTP.

Indeed but it does find the candidate the least folk are unhappy with.

Not at all. FPTP purely gives the candidate that the largest group of
people voted for. For all we know all the other electors could really
hate that candidate.
--
(\__/) 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 Sat, 07 May 2011 17:36:39 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

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

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

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.

[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"?

Very few, I suspect, and most of those were based on outcome rather
than the pros and cons of the system itself. Personally I think
most people voted on popularity and this vote was a personal
punishment for Nick Clegg. A lot of people probably voted based not
on AV at all, since there was so much misinformation and
disinformation being presented.
--
(\__/) 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 Sat, 07 May 2011 19:34:29 +0100, Old Codger
wrote:

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.

You're not the only one. We did not receive this either. However I
had already taken the time to research what the proposals were.

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.

Why on earth would they do that?

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?

Yes. The "No" campaign were spreading lies about AV and creating
straw men to scare people away from AV.

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.

I also did not change my mind. However, I would be prepared to change
it if I heard a convincing argument.

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.

How anyone can consider FPTP to be a fair voting system, or even
fairer than AV is beyond me. I have read all the anti arguments
presented in this thread and elsewhere and they don't hang together.
--
(\__/) 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 Sun, 08 May 2011 13:35:29 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
Old Codger wrote:

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.

I suspect I had a copy, but that's the problem. Why should I need a
booklet to indicate how to cast my vote?

You may have understood how AV works but it is obvious to me a that a
huge number of people did not. Whether you were in favour of AV or
not would you not agree that people should actually /know/ what they
are voting about?

As a voter, I should be
spending my time understanding the *issues* and candidates' positions on
them, not trying to understand how the voting system works.

Not if you are being asked vote on how the voting system works.
--
(\__/) 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 09/05/2011 09:22, Mark wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2011 21:02:16 +0100, Old
wrote:

On 04/05/2011 21:17, dennis@home wrote:


"Old wrote in message
...

But AV will not necessarily find the candidate most people are happy
with.

Neither will FPTP.

Indeed but it does find the candidate the least folk are unhappy with.

Not at all. FPTP purely gives the candidate that the largest group of
people voted for. For all we know all the other electors could really
hate that candidate.

Using that argument even more electors would hate *any* of the other
candidates therefore FPTP finds the candidate least electors are unhappy
with.

--
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]

On 09/05/2011 00:05, Roger Mills wrote:
On 08/05/2011 23:18, Old Codger wrote:


You said "How the hell can I - or anyone else - be expected to know
exactly what wording would appear on a ballot paper in 4 years time?!" I
submit that clearly says you do not know what the wording will be.


Absolutely right. But I know, that with the built-in safeguards, it
won't be misleading or biased.


You actually said: "just as the wording of the question posed by the
referendum was subjected to scrutiny by the independent Electoral
Commission, to ensure freedom from bias, so would be the instructions on
ballot papers used in any AV-based election."

You obviously believe that will ensure zero bias I, as I explained, am
not so sure.


Even if the wording were not independent of government - which it would
be - the Lib Dems are the junior partner in the coalition. Do you think
the Tories would allow wording which favoured the Lib Dems?

You are asserting - with no justification whatsoever - that they
*would* be biased.

You called it "conjecture" just now, make your mind up.

Pure imagination would have been a better description.

What I actually did was to postulate, with reasons, that the ballot
paper will try to ensure that voters believe they have to rank all
candidates. I think conjecture is the right word.


You have no valid reason for postulating that. The booklet produced for
the referendum described how it will work - making it clear that you
*don't* have to rate all candidates. Why should anything change between
now and the next election?



I suggested that the words you quoted from the leaflet would form the
small print on the ballot paper. You said: "The paragraph I quoted is in
the same sized font (looks like 14pt) as the rest of the leaflet -
hardly small print!" Since I was discussing the ballot paper your
response suggested that you were implying that the leaflet included a
facsimile of the ballot paper.


Only if you imply pretty twisted logic! I was merely pointing out that
this information was in largish print in the leaflet. Whilst having no
knowledge of what a future ballot paper may say, I have no reason to
believe that any such information would confined to the "small print".
And neither have you!


Not suggesting the question on the referendum voting paper was biased,
it certainly did not seem so to me, but:

I voted early morning, walked past the paper shop, voted and collected
my paper on the way home. Also means I have gone before the hangers on
arrive to guess who has voted and which way.

I don't trust politicians so I read the question and thought "yes". "Oh
hang on, is that right?" so I read the question again and came up with
"no". I then had to stop myself putting the cross in the first box.
When
I got home I said to my Wife: "No is the bottom box". My Wife voted
late
afternoon. When she came home she said "I nearly voted yes. I had to
read the question twice."

The actual wording was:
"At present, the UK uses the 'first past the post' system to elect MPs
to the House of Commons. Should the 'alternative vote' system be used
instead?"

What could be clearer than that?
YES = Let's change to AV
NO = Lets' stay as we are

As I said, I did not notice any bias.

Except that you implied that, when you first read the question, your
initial answer was YES even though you meant NO. Does this not imply
that you were suspicious that the question was designed to mislead you?

I'm as cynical as the next bloke, but I can't see any way in which a
sane person could be misled by the question posed.

I think we've done this one to death now - and this is my last post on
the subject. If you insist on having the last word, feel free to reply .
. .
It has got stupid so not worth replying.

--
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]

On 09/05/2011 09:36, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2011 19:34:29 +0100, Old
wrote:

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.

You're not the only one. We did not receive this either. However I
had already taken the time to research what the proposals were.

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.

Why on earth would they do that?

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?

Yes. The "No" campaign were spreading lies about AV and creating
straw men to scare people away from AV.

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.

I also did not change my mind. However, I would be prepared to change
it if I heard a convincing argument.

As I said, I was prepared to reconsider had I been given a convincing
argument for AV. This and other similar threads and blogs, are the only
places I saw any arguments either for or against.

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.

How anyone can consider FPTP to be a fair voting system, or even
fairer than AV is beyond me. I have read all the anti arguments
presented in this thread and elsewhere and they don't hang together.

Never said it was and never said AV was worse, just no fairer than FPTP.


--
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]

On Mon, 09 May 2011 20:55:54 +0100, Old Codger
wrote:

On 09/05/2011 09:22, Mark wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2011 21:02:16 +0100, Old
wrote:

On 04/05/2011 21:17, dennis@home wrote:


"Old wrote in message
...

But AV will not necessarily find the candidate most people are happy
with.

Neither will FPTP.

Indeed but it does find the candidate the least folk are unhappy with.

Not at all. FPTP purely gives the candidate that the largest group of
people voted for. For all we know all the other electors could really
hate that candidate.

Using that argument even more electors would hate *any* of the other
candidates therefore FPTP finds the candidate least electors are unhappy
with.

I don't agree with that at all. All we know from FPTP is people's
first choice. If the elected MP gets less than 50% (which most do)
then all we can be sure of that most people don't want him/her.

--
(\__/) 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 10/05/2011 09:06, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 09 May 2011 20:55:54 +0100, Old
wrote:

On 09/05/2011 09:22, Mark wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2011 21:02:16 +0100, Old
wrote:

On 04/05/2011 21:17, dennis@home wrote:


"Old wrote in message
...

But AV will not necessarily find the candidate most people are happy
with.

Neither will FPTP.

Indeed but it does find the candidate the least folk are unhappy with.

Not at all. FPTP purely gives the candidate that the largest group of
people voted for. For all we know all the other electors could really
hate that candidate.

Using that argument even more electors would hate *any* of the other
candidates therefore FPTP finds the candidate least electors are unhappy
with.

I don't agree with that at all. All we know from FPTP is people's
first choice. If the elected MP gets less than 50% (which most do)
then all we can be sure of that most people don't want him/her.

We can be equally sure that even more people don't want any of the other
candidates.

QED.

--
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]

On Tue, 10 May 2011 19:54:52 +0100 Old Codger wrote :
I don't agree with that at all. All we know from FPTP is people's
first choice. If the elected MP gets less than 50% (which most do)
then all we can be sure of that most people don't want him/her.

We can be equally sure that even more people don't want any of the
other candidates.

This all assumes that want/don't want is a binary state, whilst faced
with a slate of candidates most people would rate them at something
other than 0: Cannot abide them or 10: I worship the ground they walk
on. If I rate the three on offer as 8, 7 and 2 and my preference isn't
elected, I'm going to end up with someone I'm not unhappy with or
someone I really do not respect.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.eurobeam.co.uk www.greentram.com

On Tue, 10 May 2011 19:54:52 +0100, Old Codger
wrote:

On 10/05/2011 09:06, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 09 May 2011 20:55:54 +0100, Old
wrote:

On 09/05/2011 09:22, Mark wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2011 21:02:16 +0100, Old
wrote:

On 04/05/2011 21:17, dennis@home wrote:


"Old wrote in message
...

But AV will not necessarily find the candidate most people are happy
with.

Neither will FPTP.

Indeed but it does find the candidate the least folk are unhappy with.

Not at all. FPTP purely gives the candidate that the largest group of
people voted for. For all we know all the other electors could really
hate that candidate.

Using that argument even more electors would hate *any* of the other
candidates therefore FPTP finds the candidate least electors are unhappy
with.

I don't agree with that at all. All we know from FPTP is people's
first choice. If the elected MP gets less than 50% (which most do)
then all we can be sure of that most people don't want him/her.

We can be equally sure that even more people don't want any of the other
candidates.

QED.

To avoid this we need to ensure that the elected candidate gets at
least 50% of the votes.

Therefore we need a system that ensures this. Like AV.

QED.
--
(\__/) 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 11/05/11 09:09, Mark wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2011 19:54:52 +0100, Old Codger
wrote:

We can be equally sure that even more people don't want any of the other
candidates.

QED.

To avoid this we need to ensure that the elected candidate gets at
least 50% of the votes.

Therefore we need a system that ensures this. Like AV.

QED.


Are you two still here! The rest of us voted, turned the lights out, and
went home a week ago!

--
djc

On 11/05/2011 10:48, djc wrote:
On 11/05/11 09:09, Mark wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2011 19:54:52 +0100, Old
wrote:

We can be equally sure that even more people don't want any of the other
candidates.

QED.

To avoid this we need to ensure that the elected candidate gets at
least 50% of the votes.

Therefore we need a system that ensures this. Like AV.

QED.


Are you two still here! The rest of us voted, turned the lights out, and
went home a week ago!

Got to do something to relieve the boredom. :-)

--
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]

In message , Old Codger
writes
On 11/05/2011 10:48, djc wrote:
On 11/05/11 09:09, Mark wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2011 19:54:52 +0100, Old
wrote:

We can be equally sure that even more people don't want any of the other
candidates.

QED.

To avoid this we need to ensure that the elected candidate gets at
least 50% of the votes.

Therefore we need a system that ensures this. Like AV.

QED.


Are you two still here! The rest of us voted, turned the lights out, and
went home a week ago!

Got to do something to relieve the boredom. :-)

http://www.technorgasmic.com/archive...and-job-machin
e/
--
geoff

On 10/05/2011 19:42, John Rumm wrote:

Or to put it another way, more people want him than any other candidate,
and if you substitute any other candidate then you know that even fewer
still want them.


Suppose I want the Green to win. Unless I live in Brighton, that isn't
going to happen. So there's no point in voting for them, I'll vote Tory
(to keep Lab out) or Labour (to keep the Tory out). The two of them
thus get most of the votes between them.

How do you know that everyone doesn't feel the same way?

Andy
(Correspondence _not_ closed...)

In message , Andy Champ
writes
On 10/05/2011 19:42, John Rumm wrote:

Or to put it another way, more people want him than any other candidate,
and if you substitute any other candidate then you know that even fewer
still want them.


Suppose I want the Green to win. Unless I live in Brighton, that isn't
going to happen. So there's no point in voting for them, I'll vote
Tory (to keep Lab out) or Labour (to keep the Tory out). The two of
them thus get most of the votes between them.

How do you know that everyone doesn't feel the same way?

Andy
(Correspondence _not_ closed...)
If everyone thought like you it wouldn't have happened in Brighton
either.
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha