On 02/05/2011 23:46, Roger Mills wrote:
On 02/05/2011 22:54, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/05/2011 19:37, Roger Mills wrote:
On 02/05/2011 17:32, Andy Cap wrote:


True, but what this means is that when you go to vote, you have no
idea which
policies are going to be pursued, so what's the point of voting ? To
get an
effective democracy which we seem keen to inflict on other countries,
the
electorate need control of the agenda and coalitions give you less
control not
more. We need firm manifesto promises OR the ability to put particular
issues
on to the agenda otherwise it is all a pretence just to keep the
people quiet!

But what we *don't* want is parties being able to carry through
unpopular manifesto commitments which only 30% of the electorate voted
for. That's what FPTP delivers!

That to an extent is a straw man... in that is (usually) includes non
voters, who (by definition) don't count in an election. So then you are
down a government formed by the party that more people voted for than
any other (assuming roughly equal populations per constituency).


But even if you count those who actually voted rather than those on the
Electoral Roll, governments are often elected on no more than 40% of the
vote - meaning that 60% *didn't* vote for them.

Any of the other parties had even more than 60% who didn't vote for them.

--
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 03/05/2011 20:37, Old Codger wrote:
On 02/05/2011 23:46, Roger Mills wrote:



But even if you count those who actually voted rather than those on the
Electoral Roll, governments are often elected on no more than 40% of the
vote - meaning that 60% *didn't* vote for them.

Any of the other parties had even more than 60% who didn't vote for them.


Indeed. So, in such a case, no single party deserves to have an overall
majority.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 03/05/2011 22:44, Roger Mills wrote:
On 03/05/2011 20:37, Old Codger wrote:
On 02/05/2011 23:46, Roger Mills wrote:



But even if you count those who actually voted rather than those on the
Electoral Roll, governments are often elected on no more than 40% of the
vote - meaning that 60% *didn't* vote for them.

Any of the other parties had even more than 60% who didn't vote for them.


Indeed. So, in such a case, no single party deserves to have an overall
majority.

Depends how many MPs they have elected.

--
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 03/05/2011 22:57, Old Codger wrote:
On 03/05/2011 22:44, Roger Mills wrote:
On 03/05/2011 20:37, Old Codger wrote:
On 02/05/2011 23:46, Roger Mills wrote:



But even if you count those who actually voted rather than those on the
Electoral Roll, governments are often elected on no more than 40% of
the
vote - meaning that 60% *didn't* vote for them.

Any of the other parties had even more than 60% who didn't vote for
them.


Indeed. So, in such a case, no single party deserves to have an overall
majority.

Depends how many MPs they have elected.


That only determines whether they *have* a majority - not whether they
*deserve* it!

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

On 03/05/2011 23:41, Roger Mills wrote:
On 03/05/2011 22:57, Old Codger wrote:
On 03/05/2011 22:44, Roger Mills wrote:
On 03/05/2011 20:37, Old Codger wrote:
On 02/05/2011 23:46, Roger Mills wrote:



But even if you count those who actually voted rather than those on
the
Electoral Roll, governments are often elected on no more than 40% of
the
vote - meaning that 60% *didn't* vote for them.

Any of the other parties had even more than 60% who didn't vote for
them.


Indeed. So, in such a case, no single party deserves to have an overall
majority.

Depends how many MPs they have elected.


That only determines whether they *have* a majority - not whether they
*deserve* it!

Since having more MPs elected means that the party is the favourite in
the most constituencies IMHO it means they deserve to have an overall
majority.

--
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 20:10, Old Codger wrote:
On 03/05/2011 23:41, Roger Mills wrote:

That only determines whether they *have* a majority - not whether they
*deserve* it!

Since having more MPs elected means that the party is the favourite in
the most constituencies IMHO it means they deserve to have an overall
majority.

No, it just means an eminently unfair system has:
a) returned a lot of individual MPs even though they have received less
than 50% of the vote, and
b) returned an overall number of MPs which grossly exceeds that party's
share of the popular vote

In my book, they do *not* deserve that!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

Roger Mills gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

No, it just means an eminently unfair system has: a) returned a lot of
individual MPs even though they have received less than 50% of the vote,

AV will likely return the same result in most of those constituencies.

b) returned an overall number of MPs which grossly exceeds that party's
share of the popular vote

AV will not do anything to change that, since only PR will do anything
about that - and that's not on the table. In addition, PR will break the
link between constituency and MP.

On 04/05/2011 22:30, Roger Mills wrote:
On 04/05/2011 20:10, Old Codger wrote:
On 03/05/2011 23:41, Roger Mills wrote:

That only determines whether they *have* a majority - not whether they
*deserve* it!

Since having more MPs elected means that the party is the favourite in
the most constituencies IMHO it means they deserve to have an overall
majority.

No, it just means an eminently unfair system has:
a) returned a lot of individual MPs even though they have received less
than 50% of the vote, and
b) returned an overall number of MPs which grossly exceeds that party's
share of the popular vote

In my book, they do *not* deserve that!

Matter of opinion but AV certainly will not change that.

--
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 05/05/2011 19:58, Old Codger wrote:
On 04/05/2011 22:30, Roger Mills wrote:
On 04/05/2011 20:10, Old Codger wrote:
On 03/05/2011 23:41, Roger Mills wrote:

That only determines whether they *have* a majority - not whether they
*deserve* it!

Since having more MPs elected means that the party is the favourite in
the most constituencies IMHO it means they deserve to have an overall
majority.

No, it just means an eminently unfair system has:
a) returned a lot of individual MPs even though they have received less
than 50% of the vote, and
b) returned an overall number of MPs which grossly exceeds that party's
share of the popular vote

In my book, they do *not* deserve that!

Matter of opinion but AV certainly will not change that.


If people use AV properly, over 50% of voters will have shown *some*
preference for the winning MP - which doesn't currently happen in most
constituencies.

Whilst it is not a proportional system, I am optimistic that it would
result in a slightly fairer allocation of seats vs popular vote - over
time, at any rate, as people work out how to use it to best advantage.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

In message , Roger Mills
writes
On 05/05/2011 19:58, Old Codger wrote:
On 04/05/2011 22:30, Roger Mills wrote:
On 04/05/2011 20:10, Old Codger wrote:
On 03/05/2011 23:41, Roger Mills wrote:

That only determines whether they *have* a majority - not whether they
*deserve* it!

Since having more MPs elected means that the party is the favourite in
the most constituencies IMHO it means they deserve to have an overall
majority.

No, it just means an eminently unfair system has:
a) returned a lot of individual MPs even though they have received less
than 50% of the vote, and
b) returned an overall number of MPs which grossly exceeds that party's
share of the popular vote

In my book, they do *not* deserve that!

Matter of opinion but AV certainly will not change that.


If people use AV properly, over 50% of voters will have shown *some*
preference for the winning MP - which doesn't currently happen in most
constituencies.

Whilst it is not a proportional system, I am optimistic that it would
result in a slightly fairer allocation of seats vs popular vote - over
time, at any rate, as people work out how to use it to best advantage.
What's this "popular" vote - or rather what is an unpopular vote? Do you
mean votes counted on a national basis as opposed to constituency votes?
--
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 20:39, Roger Mills wrote:
On 05/05/2011 19:58, Old Codger wrote:
On 04/05/2011 22:30, Roger Mills wrote:
On 04/05/2011 20:10, Old Codger wrote:
On 03/05/2011 23:41, Roger Mills wrote:

That only determines whether they *have* a majority - not whether they
*deserve* it!

Since having more MPs elected means that the party is the favourite in
the most constituencies IMHO it means they deserve to have an overall
majority.

No, it just means an eminently unfair system has:
a) returned a lot of individual MPs even though they have received less
than 50% of the vote, and
b) returned an overall number of MPs which grossly exceeds that party's
share of the popular vote

In my book, they do *not* deserve that!

Matter of opinion but AV certainly will not change that.


If people use AV properly, over 50% of voters will have shown *some*
preference for the winning MP - which doesn't currently happen in most
constituencies.

*Only* if folk give a preference vote to candidates who they are happy
to have elected. IMHO many folk will rank all candidates because that
is what they believe they have to do. If that is the case MPs will
succeed in getting elected because they have taken advantage of
preference votes from folk who did not want them elected.

Whilst it is not a proportional system, I am optimistic that it would
result in a slightly fairer allocation of seats vs popular vote - over
time, at any rate, as people work out how to use it to best advantage.


--
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 05/05/2011 20:39, Roger Mills wrote:




If people use AV properly, over 50% of voters will have shown *some*
preference for the winning MP - which doesn't currently happen in most
constituencies.

*Only* if folk give a preference vote to candidates who they are happy
to have elected. IMHO many folk will rank all candidates because that
is what they believe they have to do. If that is the case MPs will
succeed in getting elected because they have taken advantage of
preference votes from folk who did not want them elected.

But strangely, the "Yes" propaganda consistently seemed rather reluctant
to make it absolutely crystal clear that you weren't being asked for
anyone you didn't want elected. At best, it was mentioned briefly but,
to me, it was probably of greater importance than all the explanation of
how the votes get shuffled and re-assigned. I can't help but feel that
this important omission probably cost them a lot of votes.
--
Ian