On 03/05/2011 14:19, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 20:35:05 +0100, Old
wrote:

On 02/05/2011 16:27, Roger Mills wrote:
On 02/05/2011 15:58, dennis@home wrote:


wrote in message
...


But I might want to change my mind about my first preference having seen
the results of the first round. With AV, as with FPTP I have to guess
how everyone else may vote before voting if I want to have maximum
influence on the eventual result.

Guess what, the same is true now.
With FPTP I might well want to vote for someone and change my mind if he
can't get enough votes.
As it is I have to guess what everyone else will vote and take the
chance that I might split the vote and let the NF/labore in.

With AV I can vote for someone else and know that my vote will still
count against the people I don't like.



That's absolutely right! My perception is that, under FPTP, a very large
number of people who vote for one of the two large parties do so in
order to keep the other large party out rather than positively endorsing
their choice. Given a free choice, they would probably prefer to vote
for one of the smaller parties - but they know that that would help to
let an 'undesirable' party in, so they vote tactically.

Under AV, they can give their first preference to the candidate they
*really* want, and use their second preference to block the undesirable
one. I truly believe that voting patterns would change dramatically if
we had an AV system, with the smaller parties getting many more first
preference votes than at present. I also believe that turnout would be
higher because more people would feel that they could influence the
outcome.

The relatively invisibility and the extremely poor quality of the
campaigns so far suggest to me that the politicians are not too
concerned at the outcome. I consider they believe that in practice AV
will make little difference.

The Tories and a lot of Labour seem to be putting a fair bit of effort
into the "No" campaign. They are obviously worried that AV /will/
make a difference.

Where is all this effort visible?

I have seen the odd report in the papers in which Cameron or Clegg
claims to be campaigning hard, usually followed by some fatuous
statement that is virtually meaningless or obviously wrong. There have
been four broadcasts, two totally anonymous and two using known
politicians. All have been extremely poor, even BBC adverts have more
clout. I have seen nothing that even makes me think about the subject,
let alone persuades me to vote either way.

--
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, 03 May 2011 20:57:16 +0100, Old Codger
wrote:

On 03/05/2011 14:19, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 20:35:05 +0100, Old
wrote:

On 02/05/2011 16:27, Roger Mills wrote:
On 02/05/2011 15:58, dennis@home wrote:


wrote in message
...


But I might want to change my mind about my first preference having seen
the results of the first round. With AV, as with FPTP I have to guess
how everyone else may vote before voting if I want to have maximum
influence on the eventual result.

Guess what, the same is true now.
With FPTP I might well want to vote for someone and change my mind if he
can't get enough votes.
As it is I have to guess what everyone else will vote and take the
chance that I might split the vote and let the NF/labore in.

With AV I can vote for someone else and know that my vote will still
count against the people I don't like.



That's absolutely right! My perception is that, under FPTP, a very large
number of people who vote for one of the two large parties do so in
order to keep the other large party out rather than positively endorsing
their choice. Given a free choice, they would probably prefer to vote
for one of the smaller parties - but they know that that would help to
let an 'undesirable' party in, so they vote tactically.

Under AV, they can give their first preference to the candidate they
*really* want, and use their second preference to block the undesirable
one. I truly believe that voting patterns would change dramatically if
we had an AV system, with the smaller parties getting many more first
preference votes than at present. I also believe that turnout would be
higher because more people would feel that they could influence the
outcome.

The relatively invisibility and the extremely poor quality of the
campaigns so far suggest to me that the politicians are not too
concerned at the outcome. I consider they believe that in practice AV
will make little difference.

The Tories and a lot of Labour seem to be putting a fair bit of effort
into the "No" campaign. They are obviously worried that AV /will/
make a difference.

Where is all this effort visible?

I have seen the odd report in the papers in which Cameron or Clegg
claims to be campaigning hard, usually followed by some fatuous
statement that is virtually meaningless or obviously wrong. There have
been four broadcasts, two totally anonymous and two using known
politicians. All have been extremely poor, even BBC adverts have more
clout. I have seen nothing that even makes me think about the subject,
let alone persuades me to vote either way.

You haven't received the "No" campaign leaflets through the post then?
The blatent lies printed on them suggest a high degree of desperation.
--
(\__/) 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 , Mark
writes
On Tue, 03 May 2011 20:57:16 +0100, Old Codger
wrote:

On 03/05/2011 14:19, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 20:35:05 +0100, Old
wrote:

On 02/05/2011 16:27, Roger Mills wrote:
On 02/05/2011 15:58, dennis@home wrote:


wrote in message
...


But I might want to change my mind about my first preference having seen
the results of the first round. With AV, as with FPTP I have to guess
how everyone else may vote before voting if I want to have maximum
influence on the eventual result.

Guess what, the same is true now.
With FPTP I might well want to vote for someone and change my mind if he
can't get enough votes.
As it is I have to guess what everyone else will vote and take the
chance that I might split the vote and let the NF/labore in.

With AV I can vote for someone else and know that my vote will still
count against the people I don't like.



That's absolutely right! My perception is that, under FPTP, a very large
number of people who vote for one of the two large parties do so in
order to keep the other large party out rather than positively endorsing
their choice. Given a free choice, they would probably prefer to vote
for one of the smaller parties - but they know that that would help to
let an 'undesirable' party in, so they vote tactically.

Under AV, they can give their first preference to the candidate they
*really* want, and use their second preference to block the undesirable
one. I truly believe that voting patterns would change dramatically if
we had an AV system, with the smaller parties getting many more first
preference votes than at present. I also believe that turnout would be
higher because more people would feel that they could influence the
outcome.

The relatively invisibility and the extremely poor quality of the
campaigns so far suggest to me that the politicians are not too
concerned at the outcome. I consider they believe that in practice AV
will make little difference.

The Tories and a lot of Labour seem to be putting a fair bit of effort
into the "No" campaign. They are obviously worried that AV /will/
make a difference.

Where is all this effort visible?

I have seen the odd report in the papers in which Cameron or Clegg
claims to be campaigning hard, usually followed by some fatuous
statement that is virtually meaningless or obviously wrong. There have
been four broadcasts, two totally anonymous and two using known
politicians. All have been extremely poor, even BBC adverts have more
clout. I have seen nothing that even makes me think about the subject,
let alone persuades me to vote either way.

You haven't received the "No" campaign leaflets through the post then?
The blatent lies printed on them suggest a high degree of desperation.
First rule of sales I was ever taught - don't knock the competition.
--
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 04/05/2011 10:09, Mark wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2011 20:57:16 +0100, Old
wrote:

On 03/05/2011 14:19, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 20:35:05 +0100, Old
wrote:

On 02/05/2011 16:27, Roger Mills wrote:
On 02/05/2011 15:58, dennis@home wrote:


wrote in message
...


But I might want to change my mind about my first preference having seen
the results of the first round. With AV, as with FPTP I have to guess
how everyone else may vote before voting if I want to have maximum
influence on the eventual result.

Guess what, the same is true now.
With FPTP I might well want to vote for someone and change my mind if he
can't get enough votes.
As it is I have to guess what everyone else will vote and take the
chance that I might split the vote and let the NF/labore in.

With AV I can vote for someone else and know that my vote will still
count against the people I don't like.



That's absolutely right! My perception is that, under FPTP, a very large
number of people who vote for one of the two large parties do so in
order to keep the other large party out rather than positively endorsing
their choice. Given a free choice, they would probably prefer to vote
for one of the smaller parties - but they know that that would help to
let an 'undesirable' party in, so they vote tactically.

Under AV, they can give their first preference to the candidate they
*really* want, and use their second preference to block the undesirable
one. I truly believe that voting patterns would change dramatically if
we had an AV system, with the smaller parties getting many more first
preference votes than at present. I also believe that turnout would be
higher because more people would feel that they could influence the
outcome.

The relatively invisibility and the extremely poor quality of the
campaigns so far suggest to me that the politicians are not too
concerned at the outcome. I consider they believe that in practice AV
will make little difference.

The Tories and a lot of Labour seem to be putting a fair bit of effort
into the "No" campaign. They are obviously worried that AV /will/
make a difference.

Where is all this effort visible?

I have seen the odd report in the papers in which Cameron or Clegg
claims to be campaigning hard, usually followed by some fatuous
statement that is virtually meaningless or obviously wrong. There have
been four broadcasts, two totally anonymous and two using known
politicians. All have been extremely poor, even BBC adverts have more
clout. I have seen nothing that even makes me think about the subject,
let alone persuades me to vote either way.

You haven't received the "No" campaign leaflets through the post then?
The blatent lies printed on them suggest a high degree of desperation.

I have received one leaflet. It stated that FPTP was fair, which one
either agrees with or doesn't and then proceeded to knock Clegg. Didn't
see any actual lies but I don't consider a statement without any attempt
at evidence or knocking the opposition, no matter how true, to be a
reasonable argument for or against any position.

As I said, I have seen nothing that makes me think about the subject or
persuades me to vote one way or the other.

--
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 Wed, 04 May 2011 20:33:39 +0100, Old Codger
wrote:

On 04/05/2011 10:09, Mark wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2011 20:57:16 +0100, Old
wrote:

On 03/05/2011 14:19, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 20:35:05 +0100, Old
wrote:

On 02/05/2011 16:27, Roger Mills wrote:
On 02/05/2011 15:58, dennis@home wrote:


wrote in message
...


But I might want to change my mind about my first preference having seen
the results of the first round. With AV, as with FPTP I have to guess
how everyone else may vote before voting if I want to have maximum
influence on the eventual result.

Guess what, the same is true now.
With FPTP I might well want to vote for someone and change my mind if he
can't get enough votes.
As it is I have to guess what everyone else will vote and take the
chance that I might split the vote and let the NF/labore in.

With AV I can vote for someone else and know that my vote will still
count against the people I don't like.



That's absolutely right! My perception is that, under FPTP, a very large
number of people who vote for one of the two large parties do so in
order to keep the other large party out rather than positively endorsing
their choice. Given a free choice, they would probably prefer to vote
for one of the smaller parties - but they know that that would help to
let an 'undesirable' party in, so they vote tactically.

Under AV, they can give their first preference to the candidate they
*really* want, and use their second preference to block the undesirable
one. I truly believe that voting patterns would change dramatically if
we had an AV system, with the smaller parties getting many more first
preference votes than at present. I also believe that turnout would be
higher because more people would feel that they could influence the
outcome.

The relatively invisibility and the extremely poor quality of the
campaigns so far suggest to me that the politicians are not too
concerned at the outcome. I consider they believe that in practice AV
will make little difference.

The Tories and a lot of Labour seem to be putting a fair bit of effort
into the "No" campaign. They are obviously worried that AV /will/
make a difference.

Where is all this effort visible?

I have seen the odd report in the papers in which Cameron or Clegg
claims to be campaigning hard, usually followed by some fatuous
statement that is virtually meaningless or obviously wrong. There have
been four broadcasts, two totally anonymous and two using known
politicians. All have been extremely poor, even BBC adverts have more
clout. I have seen nothing that even makes me think about the subject,
let alone persuades me to vote either way.

You haven't received the "No" campaign leaflets through the post then?
The blatent lies printed on them suggest a high degree of desperation.

I have received one leaflet. It stated that FPTP was fair, which one
either agrees with or doesn't and then proceeded to knock Clegg. Didn't
see any actual lies but I don't consider a statement without any attempt
at evidence or knocking the opposition, no matter how true, to be a
reasonable argument for or against any position.

As I said, I have seen nothing that makes me think about the subject or
persuades me to vote one way or the other.

I got a "No" leaflet explaining how expensive AV would be to implement
and included a large amount of money for voting machines. There won't
be any voting machines. Either this is a blantant lie or their
research is extremely poor.

The "No" leaftlets were also full of misleading rubbish intended to
instill FUD -- like claims that BNP supporters will change the overall
result. Their explanation of how AV works was extremely misleading
too.
--
(\__/) 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 05/05/11 09:49, Mark wrote:


I have received one leaflet. It stated that FPTP was fair, which one
either agrees with or doesn't and then proceeded to knock Clegg. Didn't
see any actual lies but I don't consider a statement without any attempt
at evidence or knocking the opposition, no matter how true, to be a
reasonable argument for or against any position.

As I said, I have seen nothing that makes me think about the subject or
persuades me to vote one way or the other.

I got a "No" leaflet explaining how expensive AV would be to implement
and included a large amount of money for voting machines. There won't
be any voting machines. Either this is a blantant lie or their
research is extremely poor.

Th cost is an invention. It's used as the basis for one of the TV ads.
People are responding to the question "Do you think it's worth 250
million to implement AV?" when there's no evidence that the cost will be
remotely near that.


The "No" leaftlets were also full of misleading rubbish intended to
instill FUD -- like claims that BNP supporters will change the overall
result. Their explanation of how AV works was extremely misleading
too.

I'm sure that there must be some real arguments against AV but I haven't
seen any fact-based arguments against it. I've watched the TV ads and
read stuff in the papers.



--
Bernard Peek

I'm sure that there must be some real arguments against AV but I
haven't seen any fact-based arguments against it. I've watched the TV
ads and read stuff in the papers.

1. AV encourages candidates to do even more to avoid upsetting
*anyone* since they want their 2nd, 3rd etc preferences.
2. Many electors believe (to take just one example) that no price is
too high to save the life of a child - such as the child killed when
unqualified people left a plug with bare wires.
3. So candidates will be that bit more likely to support a total ban
on electrical work by, and on sales of electrical cable and fittings to,
anyone not registered with an approved body.

This thought was brought back from Australia where they have AV and, ooo
look, very tight restrictions - aka closed shops
--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

On 05/05/2011 10:23, Bernard Peek wrote:
On 05/05/11 09:49, Mark wrote:


I have received one leaflet. It stated that FPTP was fair, which one
either agrees with or doesn't and then proceeded to knock Clegg. Didn't
see any actual lies but I don't consider a statement without any attempt
at evidence or knocking the opposition, no matter how true, to be a
reasonable argument for or against any position.

As I said, I have seen nothing that makes me think about the subject or
persuades me to vote one way or the other.

I got a "No" leaflet explaining how expensive AV would be to implement
and included a large amount of money for voting machines. There won't
be any voting machines. Either this is a blantant lie or their
research is extremely poor.

Th cost is an invention. It's used as the basis for one of the TV ads.
People are responding to the question "Do you think it's worth 250
million to implement AV?" when there's no evidence that the cost will be
remotely near that.


The "No" leaftlets were also full of misleading rubbish intended to
instill FUD -- like claims that BNP supporters will change the overall
result. Their explanation of how AV works was extremely misleading
too.

I'm sure that there must be some real arguments against AV but I haven't
seen any fact-based arguments against it. I've watched the TV ads and
read stuff in the papers.

Likewise and I haven't seen any convincing arguments from either side.
The political broadcasts had less clout that a BBC advert.



--
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 09:49, Mark wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2011 20:33:39 +0100, Old
wrote:

On 04/05/2011 10:09, Mark wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2011 20:57:16 +0100, Old
wrote:

On 03/05/2011 14:19, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 20:35:05 +0100, Old
wrote:

On 02/05/2011 16:27, Roger Mills wrote:
On 02/05/2011 15:58, dennis@home wrote:


wrote in message
...


But I might want to change my mind about my first preference having seen
the results of the first round. With AV, as with FPTP I have to guess
how everyone else may vote before voting if I want to have maximum
influence on the eventual result.

Guess what, the same is true now.
With FPTP I might well want to vote for someone and change my mind if he
can't get enough votes.
As it is I have to guess what everyone else will vote and take the
chance that I might split the vote and let the NF/labore in.

With AV I can vote for someone else and know that my vote will still
count against the people I don't like.



That's absolutely right! My perception is that, under FPTP, a very large
number of people who vote for one of the two large parties do so in
order to keep the other large party out rather than positively endorsing
their choice. Given a free choice, they would probably prefer to vote
for one of the smaller parties - but they know that that would help to
let an 'undesirable' party in, so they vote tactically.

Under AV, they can give their first preference to the candidate they
*really* want, and use their second preference to block the undesirable
one. I truly believe that voting patterns would change dramatically if
we had an AV system, with the smaller parties getting many more first
preference votes than at present. I also believe that turnout would be
higher because more people would feel that they could influence the
outcome.

The relatively invisibility and the extremely poor quality of the
campaigns so far suggest to me that the politicians are not too
concerned at the outcome. I consider they believe that in practice AV
will make little difference.

The Tories and a lot of Labour seem to be putting a fair bit of effort
into the "No" campaign. They are obviously worried that AV /will/
make a difference.

Where is all this effort visible?

I have seen the odd report in the papers in which Cameron or Clegg
claims to be campaigning hard, usually followed by some fatuous
statement that is virtually meaningless or obviously wrong. There have
been four broadcasts, two totally anonymous and two using known
politicians. All have been extremely poor, even BBC adverts have more
clout. I have seen nothing that even makes me think about the subject,
let alone persuades me to vote either way.

You haven't received the "No" campaign leaflets through the post then?
The blatent lies printed on them suggest a high degree of desperation.

I have received one leaflet. It stated that FPTP was fair, which one
either agrees with or doesn't and then proceeded to knock Clegg. Didn't
see any actual lies but I don't consider a statement without any attempt
at evidence or knocking the opposition, no matter how true, to be a
reasonable argument for or against any position.

As I said, I have seen nothing that makes me think about the subject or
persuades me to vote one way or the other.

I got a "No" leaflet explaining how expensive AV would be to implement
and included a large amount of money for voting machines. There won't
be any voting machines. Either this is a blantant lie or their
research is extremely poor.

The "No" leaftlets were also full of misleading rubbish intended to
instill FUD -- like claims that BNP supporters will change the overall
result. Their explanation of how AV works was extremely misleading
too.

As was the "yes" campaign claiming that AV would make MPs work harder
and stop expenses scandals.

--
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 Fri, 06 May 2011 20:44:43 +0100, Old Codger
wrote:

On 05/05/2011 09:49, Mark wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2011 20:33:39 +0100, Old
wrote:

On 04/05/2011 10:09, Mark wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2011 20:57:16 +0100, Old
wrote:

On 03/05/2011 14:19, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 20:35:05 +0100, Old
wrote:

On 02/05/2011 16:27, Roger Mills wrote:
On 02/05/2011 15:58, dennis@home wrote:


wrote in message
...


But I might want to change my mind about my first preference having seen
the results of the first round. With AV, as with FPTP I have to guess
how everyone else may vote before voting if I want to have maximum
influence on the eventual result.

Guess what, the same is true now.
With FPTP I might well want to vote for someone and change my mind if he
can't get enough votes.
As it is I have to guess what everyone else will vote and take the
chance that I might split the vote and let the NF/labore in.

With AV I can vote for someone else and know that my vote will still
count against the people I don't like.



That's absolutely right! My perception is that, under FPTP, a very large
number of people who vote for one of the two large parties do so in
order to keep the other large party out rather than positively endorsing
their choice. Given a free choice, they would probably prefer to vote
for one of the smaller parties - but they know that that would help to
let an 'undesirable' party in, so they vote tactically.

Under AV, they can give their first preference to the candidate they
*really* want, and use their second preference to block the undesirable
one. I truly believe that voting patterns would change dramatically if
we had an AV system, with the smaller parties getting many more first
preference votes than at present. I also believe that turnout would be
higher because more people would feel that they could influence the
outcome.

The relatively invisibility and the extremely poor quality of the
campaigns so far suggest to me that the politicians are not too
concerned at the outcome. I consider they believe that in practice AV
will make little difference.

The Tories and a lot of Labour seem to be putting a fair bit of effort
into the "No" campaign. They are obviously worried that AV /will/
make a difference.

Where is all this effort visible?

I have seen the odd report in the papers in which Cameron or Clegg
claims to be campaigning hard, usually followed by some fatuous
statement that is virtually meaningless or obviously wrong. There have
been four broadcasts, two totally anonymous and two using known
politicians. All have been extremely poor, even BBC adverts have more
clout. I have seen nothing that even makes me think about the subject,
let alone persuades me to vote either way.

You haven't received the "No" campaign leaflets through the post then?
The blatent lies printed on them suggest a high degree of desperation.

I have received one leaflet. It stated that FPTP was fair, which one
either agrees with or doesn't and then proceeded to knock Clegg. Didn't
see any actual lies but I don't consider a statement without any attempt
at evidence or knocking the opposition, no matter how true, to be a
reasonable argument for or against any position.

As I said, I have seen nothing that makes me think about the subject or
persuades me to vote one way or the other.

I got a "No" leaflet explaining how expensive AV would be to implement
and included a large amount of money for voting machines. There won't
be any voting machines. Either this is a blantant lie or their
research is extremely poor.

The "No" leaftlets were also full of misleading rubbish intended to
instill FUD -- like claims that BNP supporters will change the overall
result. Their explanation of how AV works was extremely misleading
too.

As was the "yes" campaign claiming that AV would make MPs work harder
and stop expenses scandals.

AV could have made MPs work harder since it would have made many seats
less safe.
--
(\__/) 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.