Roger Mills wrote:
On 03/05/2011 11:23, John Williamson wrote:


I don't see the need to change, myself. The FPTP system has generally
been delivering stable government here for a while now.


My general philosophy is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

But it IS broke! It might deliver 'stable' government but, in a
multi-party environment, it delivers MPs *and* governments for which
most of the people have NOT voted. That's why we need a change.

As far as I can see, all AV will do will replace the "More people voted
for me than anyone else" with "Less people really hate me than anyone else"

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 03/05/2011 15:11, John Williamson wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:
On 03/05/2011 11:23, John Williamson wrote:


I don't see the need to change, myself. The FPTP system has generally
been delivering stable government here for a while now.


My general philosophy is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

But it IS broke! It might deliver 'stable' government but, in a
multi-party environment, it delivers MPs *and* governments for which
most of the people have NOT voted. That's why we need a change.

As far as I can see, all AV will do will replace the "More people voted
for me than anyone else" with "Less people really hate me than anyone else"


But isn't that preferable?

See the whole thing illustrated rather cleverly in Dan Snow's video, to
be screened on TV this evening - and available he
http://www.yestofairervotes.org/page...03DanSnowEmail
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

Roger Mills wrote:
On 03/05/2011 15:11, John Williamson wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:
On 03/05/2011 11:23, John Williamson wrote:


I don't see the need to change, myself. The FPTP system has generally
been delivering stable government here for a while now.


My general philosophy is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

But it IS broke! It might deliver 'stable' government but, in a
multi-party environment, it delivers MPs *and* governments for which
most of the people have NOT voted. That's why we need a change.

As far as I can see, all AV will do will replace the "More people voted
for me than anyone else" with "Less people really hate me than anyone
else"


But isn't that preferable?

In most places, as far as I can tell, the result would be the same. In
marginal constituencies, the result might be the same or it might not.

In either case, the overall result is determined by the marginal
constituencies, so why change things? Australia uses AV, but everyone
*must* vote, and voters *must* rank all candidates or their vote is
wasted. Nobody uses the exact system proposed in the UK, which would
immediately make me suspicious of its benefits. If it's so good, why
does nobody use it?

See the whole thing illustrated rather cleverly in Dan Snow's video, to
be screened on TV this evening - and available he
http://www.yestofairervotes.org/page...03DanSnowEmail

Doesn't match my experience of such things. Beer or coffee? Okay, which
pub/ coffeshop? But that's not really relevant to Parliament.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 03/05/2011 21:08, John Williamson wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:


See the whole thing illustrated rather cleverly in Dan Snow's video,
to be screened on TV this evening - and available he
http://www.yestofairervotes.org/page...03DanSnowEmail

Doesn't match my experience of such things. Beer or coffee? Okay, which
pub/ coffeshop? But that's not really relevant to Parliament.


It was just an illustration of choosing between alternatives - and is
equally applicable to drinking venues and parliamentary candidates.

When there were just 2 venues/candidates - no problem, simple majority
sorts it.

But when there are multiple options/candidates, this doesn't work. In
the FPTP illustration, the coffee shop won even though more people
wanted to go *a* (though not the same) pub. When they applied some sort
of AV (I didn't quite understand the methodology) they ended up going to
a pub that everyone was happy with.

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.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2011 21:08, John Williamson wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:


See the whole thing illustrated rather cleverly in Dan Snow's video,
to be screened on TV this evening - and available he
http://www.yestofairervotes.org/page...03DanSnowEmail

Doesn't match my experience of such things. Beer or coffee? Okay, which
pub/ coffeshop? But that's not really relevant to Parliament.


It was just an illustration of choosing between alternatives - and is
equally applicable to drinking venues and parliamentary candidates.

When there were just 2 venues/candidates - no problem, simple majority
sorts it.

But when there are multiple options/candidates, this doesn't work. In the
FPTP illustration, the coffee shop won even though more people wanted to
go *a* (though not the same) pub. When they applied some sort of AV (I
didn't quite understand the methodology) they ended up going to a pub that
everyone was happy with.

But didn't they move the goalposts?
3 pubs were involved and only 1 coffee shop.
So, to defeat the coffee bods, the drinkers got together and decided that
ANY pub was better than coffee.
A really crap example, IMHO.
In any event, however the government is decided, Joe public will be crapped
upon, guaranteed.
Maybe a blindfold and a pin?

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.

On Tue, 03 May 2011 21:08:08 +0100 John Williamson wrote :
In either case, the overall result is determined by the marginal
constituencies, so why change things? Australia uses AV, but everyone
*must* vote, and voters *must* rank all candidates or their vote is
wasted.

This apparently (I was corrected in another place) is true for federal
(national) elections here and in several states (mine, Victoria,
included) but in Queensland and New South Wales you can preference as
many or as few as you choose as is proposed in the UK, though of course
we have compulsory voting.

The more general practice is to take the option of voting 'above the
line' - above the list of candidates, there are boxes for each party,
and by checking the one box you are signing up for that party's decided
preferences in your seat [which may not be the same as elsewhere].

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

"brass monkey" wrote in message
eb.com...

But when there are multiple options/candidates, this doesn't work. In the
FPTP illustration, the coffee shop won even though more people wanted to
go *a* (though not the same) pub. When they applied some sort of AV (I
didn't quite understand the methodology) they ended up going to a pub
that everyone was happy with.

But didn't they move the goalposts?
3 pubs were involved and only 1 coffee shop.
So, to defeat the coffee bods, the drinkers got together and decided that
ANY pub was better than coffee.
A really crap example, IMHO.


It is however exactly how FPTP works.
You don't get to vote on pub or coffee shop and then on which pub in our
elections.
You get to vote for the candidate (name of pub) and not the party (pub or
coffee shop).

Its the same as having a NuLabore and an independent Labour candidate up
against a liberal.
The liberal could win with 34% of the vote using FPTP (even less with more
candidates).
You don't get to choose between Labour or liberal using FPTP, with AV you
do.

Choosing pub and then which pub is two elections and we don't do that.

It would be possible(desirable?) for a party to stand several candidates and
let the electorate choose which one they want to represent them using AV,
something they can't do under FPTP.

On Tue, 3 May 2011 23:41:48 +0100, "brass monkey" wrote:


"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2011 21:08, John Williamson wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:


See the whole thing illustrated rather cleverly in Dan Snow's video,
to be screened on TV this evening - and available he
http://www.yestofairervotes.org/page...03DanSnowEmail

Doesn't match my experience of such things. Beer or coffee? Okay, which
pub/ coffeshop? But that's not really relevant to Parliament.


It was just an illustration of choosing between alternatives - and is
equally applicable to drinking venues and parliamentary candidates.

When there were just 2 venues/candidates - no problem, simple majority
sorts it.

But when there are multiple options/candidates, this doesn't work. In the
FPTP illustration, the coffee shop won even though more people wanted to
go *a* (though not the same) pub. When they applied some sort of AV (I
didn't quite understand the methodology) they ended up going to a pub that
everyone was happy with.

But didn't they move the goalposts?
3 pubs were involved and only 1 coffee shop.
So, to defeat the coffee bods, the drinkers got together and decided that
ANY pub was better than coffee.
A really crap example, IMHO.
In any event, however the government is decided, Joe public will be crapped
upon, guaranteed.
Maybe a blindfold and a pin?

To many people the general election could be 3 "pubs" and a "coffee
shop" if there are several popular candidates.
--
(\__/) 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 , Roger Mills
writes
On 03/05/2011 15:11, John Williamson wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:
On 03/05/2011 11:23, John Williamson wrote:


I don't see the need to change, myself. The FPTP system has generally
been delivering stable government here for a while now.


My general philosophy is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

But it IS broke! It might deliver 'stable' government but, in a
multi-party environment, it delivers MPs *and* governments for which
most of the people have NOT voted. That's why we need a change.

As far as I can see, all AV will do will replace the "More people voted
for me than anyone else" with "Less people really hate me than anyone else"


But isn't that preferable?

Personally I would say most definitely not because it represents a
whinging negative approach to the issue.

See the whole thing illustrated rather cleverly in Dan Snow's video, to
be screened on TV this evening - and available he
http://www.yestofairervotes.org/page...tion?utm_mediu
m=email&utm_source=yes&utm_campaign=20110503DanSn ow&source=20110503DanSn
owEmail

--
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

On 03/05/2011 23:24, Roger Mills wrote:
On 03/05/2011 21:08, John Williamson wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:


See the whole thing illustrated rather cleverly in Dan Snow's video,
to be screened on TV this evening - and available he
http://www.yestofairervotes.org/page...03DanSnowEmail


Doesn't match my experience of such things. Beer or coffee? Okay, which
pub/ coffeshop? But that's not really relevant to Parliament.


It was just an illustration of choosing between alternatives - and is
equally applicable to drinking venues and parliamentary candidates.

When there were just 2 venues/candidates - no problem, simple majority
sorts it.

But when there are multiple options/candidates, this doesn't work. In
the FPTP illustration, the coffee shop won even though more people
wanted to go *a* (though not the same) pub. When they applied some sort
of AV (I didn't quite understand the methodology) they ended up going to
a pub that everyone was happy with.

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.

--
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 04/05/2011 09:52, dennis@home wrote:


"brass monkey" wrote in message
eb.com...

But when there are multiple options/candidates, this doesn't work. In
the FPTP illustration, the coffee shop won even though more people
wanted to go *a* (though not the same) pub. When they applied some
sort of AV (I didn't quite understand the methodology) they ended up
going to a pub that everyone was happy with.

But didn't they move the goalposts?
3 pubs were involved and only 1 coffee shop.
So, to defeat the coffee bods, the drinkers got together and decided
that ANY pub was better than coffee.
A really crap example, IMHO.


It is however exactly how FPTP works.
You don't get to vote on pub or coffee shop and then on which pub in our
elections.
You get to vote for the candidate (name of pub) and not the party (pub
or coffee shop).

Whilst our present system is designed around the selection of candidates
it is possible to pick a candidate purely on party lines so it is
possible in FPTP to select "pub or coffee shop"

Its the same as having a NuLabore and an independent Labour candidate up
against a liberal.
The liberal could win with 34% of the vote using FPTP (even less with
more candidates).
You don't get to choose between Labour or liberal using FPTP, with AV
you do.

Independent labour is not labour, his views differ from the official
party line so your example effectively gives three candidates and three
parties.

Choosing pub and then which pub is two elections and we don't do that.

Indeed.

It would be possible(desirable?) for a party to stand several candidates
and let the electorate choose which one they want to represent them
using AV, something they can't do under FPTP.

Provided the alternatives all had to be the same party that could work
but our politicians would consider it too complicated.


--
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 04/05/2011 10:16, Mark wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2011 23:41:48 +0100, "brass wrote:


"Roger wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2011 21:08, John Williamson wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:


See the whole thing illustrated rather cleverly in Dan Snow's video,
to be screened on TV this evening - and available he
http://www.yestofairervotes.org/page...03DanSnowEmail

Doesn't match my experience of such things. Beer or coffee? Okay, which
pub/ coffeshop? But that's not really relevant to Parliament.


It was just an illustration of choosing between alternatives - and is
equally applicable to drinking venues and parliamentary candidates.

When there were just 2 venues/candidates - no problem, simple majority
sorts it.

But when there are multiple options/candidates, this doesn't work. In the
FPTP illustration, the coffee shop won even though more people wanted to
go *a* (though not the same) pub. When they applied some sort of AV (I
didn't quite understand the methodology) they ended up going to a pub that
everyone was happy with.

But didn't they move the goalposts?
3 pubs were involved and only 1 coffee shop.
So, to defeat the coffee bods, the drinkers got together and decided that
ANY pub was better than coffee.
A really crap example, IMHO.
In any event, however the government is decided, Joe public will be crapped
upon, guaranteed.
Maybe a blindfold and a pin?

To many people the general election could be 3 "pubs" and a "coffee
shop" if there are several popular candidates.

I cannot imagine many folk considering several candidates to be popular.
Occasionally an individual might find it difficult to choose between
two candidates but more than that I consider extremely unlikely.

--
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]

"Old Codger" wrote in message
...

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

Neither will FPTP.

"Old Codger" wrote in message
...


Whilst our present system is designed around the selection of candidates
it is possible to pick a candidate purely on party lines so it is possible
in FPTP to select "pub or coffee shop"

Which pub if there are two labour candidates, the party one or the
independent?

Oh dear coffee won again.

Its the same as having a NuLabore and an independent Labour candidate up
against a liberal.
The liberal could win with 34% of the vote using FPTP (even less with
more candidates).
You don't get to choose between Labour or liberal using FPTP, with AV
you do.

Independent labour is not labour, his views differ from the official party
line so your example effectively gives three candidates and three parties.

Maybe, maybe not.

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 - which doesn't
happen under FPTP unless they get over 50% anyway - which the vast
majority don't.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
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 - which doesn't happen under
FPTP unless they get over 50% anyway - which the vast majority don't.

So explain this again -
I might be a staunch tory and want the tory candidate to win, but I'm
expected to put labour maybe in 2nd place and maybe LD in 3rd?
Maybe I don't want even a sniff of labour or LD? So I just put a X in tory?
Where's the difference?
(I don't see a box marked 'coffee shop').

On 05/05/2011 01:20, brass monkey wrote:
"Roger wrote in message
...
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 - which doesn't happen under
FPTP unless they get over 50% anyway - which the vast majority don't.

So explain this again -
I might be a staunch tory and want the tory candidate to win, but I'm
expected to put labour maybe in 2nd place and maybe LD in 3rd?
Maybe I don't want even a sniff of labour or LD? So I just put a X in tory?
Where's the difference?

If you detest the labour and LD candidates equally, just putting an X in
tory is appropriate. No need to vote for anybody else.

However if there's a chance the tory candidate won't win, and you prefer
one of the other two to the other, you could express that preference by
putting them (LD or lab) in 2nd.

On Wed, 04 May 2011 20:55:17 +0100, Old Codger
wrote:

On 04/05/2011 10:16, Mark wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2011 23:41:48 +0100, "brass wrote:


"Roger wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2011 21:08, John Williamson wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:


See the whole thing illustrated rather cleverly in Dan Snow's video,
to be screened on TV this evening - and available he
http://www.yestofairervotes.org/page...03DanSnowEmail

Doesn't match my experience of such things. Beer or coffee? Okay, which
pub/ coffeshop? But that's not really relevant to Parliament.


It was just an illustration of choosing between alternatives - and is
equally applicable to drinking venues and parliamentary candidates.

When there were just 2 venues/candidates - no problem, simple majority
sorts it.

But when there are multiple options/candidates, this doesn't work. In the
FPTP illustration, the coffee shop won even though more people wanted to
go *a* (though not the same) pub. When they applied some sort of AV (I
didn't quite understand the methodology) they ended up going to a pub that
everyone was happy with.

But didn't they move the goalposts?
3 pubs were involved and only 1 coffee shop.
So, to defeat the coffee bods, the drinkers got together and decided that
ANY pub was better than coffee.
A really crap example, IMHO.
In any event, however the government is decided, Joe public will be crapped
upon, guaranteed.
Maybe a blindfold and a pin?

To many people the general election could be 3 "pubs" and a "coffee
shop" if there are several popular candidates.

I cannot imagine many folk considering several candidates to be popular.
Occasionally an individual might find it difficult to choose between
two candidates but more than that I consider extremely unlikely.

A lot of people, including myself, have a favoured candidate, one or
two candidates that they really don't want and a few they wouldn't
mind. Under FPTP if their preferred candidate has no chance of
winning what do they do? Either vote for them, knowing their vote
will be thrown out or vote tactically to block one of the others. This
is a very poor situation. With AV you can put your favoured candidate
first and the other "OK" candidate second etc.
--
(\__/) 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 05/05/2011 01:20, brass monkey wrote:
"Roger wrote in message
...


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 - which doesn't happen under
FPTP unless they get over 50% anyway - which the vast majority don't.

So explain this again -
I might be a staunch tory and want the tory candidate to win, but I'm
expected to put labour maybe in 2nd place and maybe LD in 3rd?
Maybe I don't want even a sniff of labour or LD? So I just put a X in tory?
Where's the difference?
(I don't see a box marked 'coffee shop').


I expect, in reality, that it would work more like this: If I were a
staunch Tory and the Tory candidate was one of the front runners, I
would vote *only* for him/her, and not express any other preferences.
However, if I were (say) a staunch Green but didn't expect the Greens to
win, I would vote for them first, and then consider which (if any) of
the other parties I could stomach if my Green was not successful.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

In message , Mark
writes
On Wed, 04 May 2011 20:55:17 +0100, Old Codger
wrote:

On 04/05/2011 10:16, Mark wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2011 23:41:48 +0100, "brass wrote:


"Roger wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2011 21:08, John Williamson wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:


See the whole thing illustrated rather cleverly in Dan Snow's video,
to be screened on TV this evening - and available he

http://www.yestofairervotes.org/page...e-solution?utm
_medium=email&utm_source=yes&utm_campaign=2 0110503DanSnow&source=2


Doesn't match my experience of such things. Beer or coffee? Okay, which
pub/ coffeshop? But that's not really relevant to Parliament.


It was just an illustration of choosing between alternatives - and is
equally applicable to drinking venues and parliamentary candidates.

When there were just 2 venues/candidates - no problem, simple majority
sorts it.

But when there are multiple options/candidates, this doesn't work. In the
FPTP illustration, the coffee shop won even though more people wanted to
go *a* (though not the same) pub. When they applied some sort of AV (I
didn't quite understand the methodology) they ended up going to a pub that
everyone was happy with.

But didn't they move the goalposts?
3 pubs were involved and only 1 coffee shop.
So, to defeat the coffee bods, the drinkers got together and decided that
ANY pub was better than coffee.
A really crap example, IMHO.
In any event, however the government is decided, Joe public will be crapped
upon, guaranteed.
Maybe a blindfold and a pin?

To many people the general election could be 3 "pubs" and a "coffee
shop" if there are several popular candidates.

I cannot imagine many folk considering several candidates to be popular.
Occasionally an individual might find it difficult to choose between
two candidates but more than that I consider extremely unlikely.

A lot of people, including myself, have a favoured candidate, one or
two candidates that they really don't want and a few they wouldn't
mind. Under FPTP if their preferred candidate has no chance of
winning what do they do? Either vote for them, knowing their vote
will be thrown out or vote tactically to block one of the others. This
is a very poor situation. With AV you can put your favoured candidate
first and the other "OK" candidate second etc.
I don't see the justification for having more than one shot at electing
your representative. Vote for the person you believe in - end of.
--
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

On 05/05/2011 15:21, hugh wrote:
In message , Mark
writes
On Wed, 04 May 2011 20:55:17 +0100, Old Codger
wrote:

On 04/05/2011 10:16, Mark wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2011 23:41:48 +0100, "brass wrote:


"Roger wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2011 21:08, John Williamson wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:


See the whole thing illustrated rather cleverly in Dan Snow's
video,
to be screened on TV this evening - and available he

http://www.yestofairervotes.org/page...e-solution?utm
_medium=email&utm_source=yes&utm_campaign=20110503 DanSnow&source=2


Doesn't match my experience of such things. Beer or coffee? Okay,
which
pub/ coffeshop? But that's not really relevant to Parliament.


It was just an illustration of choosing between alternatives - and is
equally applicable to drinking venues and parliamentary candidates.

When there were just 2 venues/candidates - no problem, simple
majority
sorts it.

But when there are multiple options/candidates, this doesn't work.
In the
FPTP illustration, the coffee shop won even though more people
wanted to
go *a* (though not the same) pub. When they applied some sort of
AV (I
didn't quite understand the methodology) they ended up going to a
pub that
everyone was happy with.

But didn't they move the goalposts?
3 pubs were involved and only 1 coffee shop.
So, to defeat the coffee bods, the drinkers got together and
decided that
ANY pub was better than coffee.
A really crap example, IMHO.
In any event, however the government is decided, Joe public will be
crapped
upon, guaranteed.
Maybe a blindfold and a pin?

To many people the general election could be 3 "pubs" and a "coffee
shop" if there are several popular candidates.

I cannot imagine many folk considering several candidates to be popular.
Occasionally an individual might find it difficult to choose between
two candidates but more than that I consider extremely unlikely.

A lot of people, including myself, have a favoured candidate, one or
two candidates that they really don't want and a few they wouldn't
mind. Under FPTP if their preferred candidate has no chance of
winning what do they do? Either vote for them, knowing their vote
will be thrown out or vote tactically to block one of the others. This
is a very poor situation. With AV you can put your favoured candidate
first and the other "OK" candidate second etc.
I don't see the justification for having more than one shot at electing
your representative. Vote for the person you believe in - end of.

Indeed. Folk who vote for someone other than the candidate they prefer
just distort the results to no good purpose. Indeed, they ensure their
preferred candidate will never win.

--
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 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.


--
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 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.

- which doesn't happen under FPTP unless they get over 50% anyway - which the vast
majority don't.


--
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 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.

[1] though, sadly, not savvy enough to see the merits of AV in
sufficient numbers! g
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

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?

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!!


[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.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

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]

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



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.

A few more thoughts . . .

1. What sickens me even more than a NO victory is the knowledge that we
would almost certainly *not* have got AV even if there had been a YES
victory.

The Tories had very cynically (in my view) tied AV into the proposed
boundary changes such that the implementation of AV was dependent not
only upon a YES majority in the referendum but also upon the acceptance
by Parliament of the proposed boundary changes. Since the majority of
current MPs didn't want AV, it's not rocket science to predict that
unholy alliances would have been formed, to vote down the boundary
changes in order to scupper AV. I have been trying to alert the YES
Campaign and the media to this for several weeks - but no-one (with the
exception of the BBC's Mark D'Arcy in one of his bloggs) wanted to know.

Clegg must be an absolute idiot not to have realised this!

2. I think that, under AV, there are probably better and fairer ways of
re-distributing votes than the system proposed. In the system as
described, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated first and
his/her votes re-distributed - giving rise to accusations that people
who vote for extremist parties have undue influence over the result.
However, I would like to propose a different way of doing it. Once the
first preference votes have been counted, it's usually fairly easy to
identify more than one candidate who can't possibly win because, if
*all* the votes of candidates below them were re-allocated to them, they
*still* couldn't overtake the leading candidate. So I would remove *all*
of these, and re-distribute their votes - starting with those of the
*highest* ranked loser - followed by the others if necessary until
someone either got over 50% or there was nothing left to re-distribute.

Under the proposed system, the votes of some of the higher ranked
candidates would never get re-distributed even though they had no chance
of winning.

I admit that I haven't rigorously thought of *all* of the implications
of my system. Can anyone see any flaws in it?
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

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]

On 07/05/2011 19:34, Old Codger wrote:
On 07/05/2011 18:30, Roger Mills wrote:


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.


Mine was brought by the postman - un-addressed. Maybe if you've opted
not to receive un-addressed mail. . . but things like that are supposed
to get delivered despite any such opt-out.

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).


The paragraph I quoted is in the same sized font (looks like 14pt)as the
rest of the leaflet - hardly small print!

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



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 do you explain the fact that, up to a few weeks before the
referendum, the opinion polls were showing a 10 point lead for the YES
camp? What changed in the meantime?
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 07/05/2011 19:15, Old Codger wrote:
On 07/05/2011 16:51, Roger Mills wrote:


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.


Yes, sorry - slip of the finger. I meant 50% of those who voted in that
constituency.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 07/05/2011 20:17, Roger Mills wrote:
On 07/05/2011 19:34, Old Codger wrote:
On 07/05/2011 18:30, Roger Mills wrote:


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.


Mine was brought by the postman - un-addressed. Maybe if you've opted
not to receive un-addressed mail. . . but things like that are supposed
to get delivered despite any such opt-out.

I haven't elected not to receive un-addressed mail. I get all the crap
but am happy to glance, to confirm that it is crap, and then deposit in
the paper recycling sack.

As I said, I had not even heard of the document which means that no one
I have spoken to on the subject has mentioned it which means they have
not received it and none of their contacts has mentioned it either.
Even the Royal Mail isn't that bad.

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).


The paragraph I quoted is in the same sized font (looks like 14pt)as the
rest of the leaflet - hardly small print!

Is that an exact facsimile of the polling card that would have been
issued? If not it is irrelevant and, even if it is, it could be changed
before AV came in and I suspect would be. The Liberals, for whom this
whole charade was enacted, would have wanted to ensure that as many folk
as possible ranked all the candidates. The wording on the eventual
polling card would be designed to make that likely. The words you have
quoted will be subsidiary to the greatest extent possible to a main
instruction that will give the impression that all candidates should be
ranked.

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



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 do you explain the fact that, up to a few weeks before the
referendum, the opinion polls were showing a 10 point lead for the YES
camp? What changed in the meantime?

Perhaps they all read this thread. :-)

I cannot believe the "No" campaign would have changed anyone from 'yes'
to 'no' so perhaps the abysmal 'yes' campaign showed that there really
was no valid argument for AV and that it was just a ploy to attempt to
increase the Liberal vote so voters decided to stay with the status quo.
As you said, voters are savvy, they can work these things out.


--
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 07/05/11 20:37, John Rumm wrote:
On 07/05/2011 18:30, Roger Mills wrote:
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.

A 70% answer is not one just made from recently convinced floating voters,
and party stalwarts though.

Indeed. Up to a few weeks ago I was quite indifferent to the referendum and
was inclined not to vote at all and be indifferent to the result. What
pesuaded me to vote no was the constant whinining of those in favour, so
evident here that not only was FPTP 'unfair' but that anyone voting no was
somehow 'brainwashed' etc. It just made it all the more obvious that it was
a scheme of no benefit to anyone but the lib-dems. In the LibDem view
people would vote for them but for fear of something worse. An alternative
interpretation is that people vote LibDem to signal dissatisfaction with
their preferred major party.

--
djc

Indeed. Up to a few weeks ago I was quite indifferent to the
referendum and was inclined not to vote at all and be indifferent to
the result. What pesuaded me to vote no was the constant whinining of
those in favour, so evident here that not only was FPTP 'unfair' but
that anyone voting no was somehow 'brainwashed' etc. It

I trust that will cheer up Roger. After all, he did start this thread
with "But please vote - whichever way you choose." So he got *a* result
he wanted after all

--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

On 07/05/2011 22:24, Old Codger wrote:
On 07/05/2011 20:17, Roger Mills wrote:


The paragraph I quoted is in the same sized font (looks like 14pt)as the
rest of the leaflet - hardly small print!

Is that an exact facsimile of the polling card that would have been
issued? If not it is irrelevant and, even if it is, it could be changed
before AV came in and I suspect would be. The Liberals, for whom this
whole charade was enacted, would have wanted to ensure that as many folk
as possible ranked all the candidates. The wording on the eventual
polling card would be designed to make that likely. The words you have
quoted will be subsidiary to the greatest extent possible to a main
instruction that will give the impression that all candidates should be
ranked.


During the course of this thread, I've developed a certain amount of
respect for your views even though I don't agree with you.

But your latest paragraph (above) has to take the prize for the most
unsubstantiated ******** I have ever read! What you wrote is total
conjecture. 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?!

HOWEVER, 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.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 07/05/2011 23:35, Robin wrote:
Indeed. Up to a few weeks ago I was quite indifferent to the
referendum and was inclined not to vote at all and be indifferent to
the result. What pesuaded me to vote no was the constant whinining of
those in favour, so evident here that not only was FPTP 'unfair' but
that anyone voting no was somehow 'brainwashed' etc. It

I trust that will cheer up Roger. After all, he did start this thread
with "But please vote - whichever way you choose." So he got *a* result
he wanted after all


Well partially! My reasons for starting the thread were to encourage
people to think about the issues, form a conclusion, and vote - and,
hopefully, conclude that YES was the right choice.

I obviously succeeded with the first of these but, sadly, not with the
second. Nevertheless, it's been a good healthy discussion - with people
presenting reasoned arguments, without too much flaming - and I thank
everyone who has participated for that.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 07/05/2011 23:40, Roger Mills wrote:
On 07/05/2011 22:24, Old Codger wrote:
On 07/05/2011 20:17, Roger Mills wrote:


The paragraph I quoted is in the same sized font (looks like 14pt)as the
rest of the leaflet - hardly small print!

Is that an exact facsimile of the polling card that would have been
issued? If not it is irrelevant and, even if it is, it could be changed
before AV came in and I suspect would be. The Liberals, for whom this
whole charade was enacted, would have wanted to ensure that as many folk
as possible ranked all the candidates. The wording on the eventual
polling card would be designed to make that likely. The words you have
quoted will be subsidiary to the greatest extent possible to a main
instruction that will give the impression that all candidates should be
ranked.


During the course of this thread, I've developed a certain amount of
respect for your views even though I don't agree with you.

But your latest paragraph (above) has to take the prize for the most
unsubstantiated ******** I have ever read! What you wrote is total
conjecture.

Unsubstantiated agreed! Conjecture agreed! It may, or may not, be
"********", I don't know and, as you acknowledge below, neither do you.

You wrote: "The paragraph I quoted is in the same sized font (looks
like 14pt) as the rest of the leaflet - hardly small print!

That was in response to my conjecture following your statement that this
leaflet, which I did not receive, said you did not have to rank all the
candidates. I responded with: "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 small print
would be their get out clause (see other post tonight)."

You appeared to be suggesting that the leaflet was presenting a
facsimile of the ballot paper statement.

As I said, this whole charade was enacted for the benefit of the
Liberals, it was a condition of them joining the coalition. Since all
the propoganda I have seen gave a very strong impression that all
candidates had to be ranked I don't consider it unreasonable to
conjecture that the Liberals would ensure, to the greatest possible
extent, that the ballot paper would guide voters to rank all candidates
with any indication that this was not necessary hidden as far as possible.

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?!

Nobody has suggested you would know what the wording would be but
equally you cannot support your claim that I posted "unsubstantiated
********".

HOWEVER, 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.

How successful they were would depend on how independent they actually
were from Westminster. After all parliament does reign supreme. I do
agree though that they should at least ensure that any bias is minimised

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."

Was there a bias? If so it was extremely subtle and very clever. Or
was it just that we are a couple of doddering old gits?


--
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 , Roger Mills
writes
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?

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!!


[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.
I would have thought that allowing oneself to be brainwashed is by
definition not possible.
--
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

On 08/05/2011 20:04, Old Codger wrote:
On 07/05/2011 23:40, Roger Mills wrote:


During the course of this thread, I've developed a certain amount of
respect for your views even though I don't agree with you.

But your latest paragraph (above) has to take the prize for the most
unsubstantiated ******** I have ever read! What you wrote is total
conjecture.

Unsubstantiated agreed! Conjecture agreed! It may, or may not, be
"********", I don't know and, as you acknowledge below, neither do you.


No I didn't. I asserted that great lengths are taken to ensure that
ballot papers are free from bias. You are asserting - with no
justification whatsoever - that they *would* be biased.

You wrote: "The paragraph I quoted is in the same sized font (looks like
14pt) as the rest of the leaflet - hardly small print!

That was in response to my conjecture following your statement that this
leaflet, which I did not receive, said you did not have to rank all the
candidates. I responded with: "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 small print would be
their get out clause (see other post tonight)."

You appeared to be suggesting that the leaflet was presenting a
facsimile of the ballot paper statement.


Rubbish. I was simply saying that the leaflet described how the system
would work in enough detail to enable people to make up their mind
whether they liked the idea or not. And I was pointing out that it
explicitly contradicted your assertion that you would *have* to rate all
candidates.

As I said, this whole charade was enacted for the benefit of the
Liberals, it was a condition of them joining the coalition. Since all
the propoganda I have seen gave a very strong impression that all
candidates had to be ranked I don't consider it unreasonable to
conjecture that the Liberals would ensure, to the greatest possible
extent, that the ballot paper would guide voters to rank all candidates
with any indication that this was not necessary hidden as far as possible.

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?!

Nobody has suggested you would know what the wording would be but
equally you cannot support your claim that I posted "unsubstantiated
********".

I just have!


HOWEVER, 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.

How successful they were would depend on how independent they actually
were from Westminster. After all parliament does reign supreme. I do
agree though that they should at least ensure that any bias is minimised

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


Was there a bias? If so it was extremely subtle and very clever. Or was
it just that we are a couple of doddering old gits?


I rather fear that you may be. g
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 08/05/2011 22:47, Roger Mills wrote:
On 08/05/2011 20:04, Old Codger wrote:
On 07/05/2011 23:40, Roger Mills wrote:


During the course of this thread, I've developed a certain amount of
respect for your views even though I don't agree with you.

But your latest paragraph (above) has to take the prize for the most
unsubstantiated ******** I have ever read! What you wrote is total
conjecture.

Unsubstantiated agreed! Conjecture agreed! It may, or may not, be
"********", I don't know and, as you acknowledge below, neither do you.


No I didn't.

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.

I asserted that great lengths are taken to ensure that ballot papers are free from bias.

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.

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

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

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 wrote: "The paragraph I quoted is in the same sized font (looks like
14pt) as the rest of the leaflet - hardly small print!

That was in response to my conjecture following your statement that this
leaflet, which I did not receive, said you did not have to rank all the
candidates. I responded with: "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 small print would be
their get out clause (see other post tonight)."

You appeared to be suggesting that the leaflet was presenting a
facsimile of the ballot paper statement.


Rubbish. I was simply saying that the leaflet described how the system
would work in enough detail to enable people to make up their mind
whether they liked the idea or not. And I was pointing out that it
explicitly contradicted your assertion that you would *have* to rate all
candidates.

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.

As I said, this whole charade was enacted for the benefit of the
Liberals, it was a condition of them joining the coalition. Since all
the propoganda I have seen gave a very strong impression that all
candidates had to be ranked I don't consider it unreasonable to
conjecture that the Liberals would ensure, to the greatest possible
extent, that the ballot paper would guide voters to rank all candidates
with any indication that this was not necessary hidden as far as
possible.

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?!

Nobody has suggested you would know what the wording would be but
equally you cannot support your claim that I posted "unsubstantiated
********".

I just have!

I don't think so, see above. (can't be bothered to reprint it all again
for the third time.)

HOWEVER, 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.

How successful they were would depend on how independent they actually
were from Westminster. After all parliament does reign supreme. I do
agree though that they should at least ensure that any bias is minimised

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.

Was there a bias? If so it was extremely subtle and very clever. Or was
it just that we are a couple of doddering old gits?


I rather fear that you may be. g

You could be right.

Wish I had considered it significant as I could have discussed it with
ex colleagues on Friday and seen if anyone else had had similar problems.


--
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 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 . . .
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.