On 03/05/2011 10:43, Roger Mills wrote:
On 03/05/2011 00:19, Thumper wrote:

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...


There is a world of difference between a vote being *counted* more
than once and *counting* more than once. Any vote transferred from an
eliminated candidate still only counts as one vote in the final scheme
of things. Otherwise, the total votes cast for the non-eliminated
candidates would exceed the number of voters - which it clearly doesn't!

I'll explain what I mean, because maybe you misread it. Say after the
first round of counting all the first choices the leading candidate
hasn't got the required 50% of the vote. The last placed candidate is
knocked out of the election. It is more than likely that candidate would
be from a single issue or extremist party like BNP. Then those voters
would have their 2nd choice votes redistributed among the remaining
candidates. That means that voters for the least backed candidate will
have their vote counted twice. Voters for the leading candidate, usually
Labour or Tory, will only have their vote counted once.

Yes, but as I said, being counted twice isn't the same as counting twice
because the previous vote is discarded. The person's vote is only used
ONCE in the final result even though it's his/her second preference
rather than first.

Each vote is used, it just doesn't always get someone 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 21:07, Old Codger wrote:


Each vote is used, it just doesn't always get someone elected.


Indeed. And that is true for both FPTP and AV. The *difference* is that
under AV, it goes on being used until someone has got over 50%.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 03/05/2011 23:09, Roger Mills wrote:
On 03/05/2011 21:07, Old Codger wrote:


Each vote is used, it just doesn't always get someone elected.


Indeed. And that is true for both FPTP and AV. The *difference* is that
under AV, it goes on being used until someone has got over 50%.

No it doesn't, that is just a construct used by AV to try to convince
folk that those who vote for unsuccessful candidates don't have more
than one vote. In the language of AV it is a wasted vote because it was
cast for someone who did not get 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]

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2011 21:07, Old Codger wrote:


Each vote is used, it just doesn't always get someone elected.


Indeed. And that is true for both FPTP and AV. The *difference* is that
under AV, it goes on being used until someone has got over 50%.

Like I said before, everyone gets what nobody wants.

The longer this thread gets suggests that the NO's have it.

On 03/05/2011 23:24, Old Codger wrote:
On 03/05/2011 23:09, Roger Mills wrote:
On 03/05/2011 21:07, Old Codger wrote:


Each vote is used, it just doesn't always get someone elected.


Indeed. And that is true for both FPTP and AV. The *difference* is that
under AV, it goes on being used until someone has got over 50%.

No it doesn't, that is just a construct used by AV to try to convince
folk that those who vote for unsuccessful candidates don't have more
than one vote. In the language of AV it is a wasted vote because it was
cast for someone who did not get elected.


You've lost me!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

In message om, brass
monkey writes

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2011 21:07, Old Codger wrote:


Each vote is used, it just doesn't always get someone elected.


Indeed. And that is true for both FPTP and AV. The *difference* is that
under AV, it goes on being used until someone has got over 50%.

Like I said before, everyone gets what nobody wants.

No matter how many times you say it, it just is not true.

With AV, you get someone whom more than 50% of the voters have
definitely said they would at least be reasonably happy to have as an
MP. Even when the winner is not someone's first choice, they are
nevertheless acceptable to the majority of voters.

With FPTP, when the winner has less (sometimes far less) than a 50%
majority, you get an MP whom the 'non-winning majority' of voters didn't
prefer. No one knows if they are still at least reasonably happy with
the choice of winner. In fact, the majority of the 'non-winning' voters
could be very dissatisfied with the election result.

The longer this thread gets suggests that the NO's have it.

Here (and in uk.legal), I get that impression the majority of posts are
from 'AV-Yes' men or 'neutrals'. However, there is a handful of die-hard
'AV-NO' men who don't see any virtue in the AV system. Unfortunately, I
fear that the referendum will indeed return a 'NO' verdict.
--
Ian

On 03/05/2011 23:47, Roger Mills wrote:
On 03/05/2011 23:24, Old Codger wrote:
On 03/05/2011 23:09, Roger Mills wrote:
On 03/05/2011 21:07, Old Codger wrote:


Each vote is used, it just doesn't always get someone elected.


Indeed. And that is true for both FPTP and AV. The *difference* is that
under AV, it goes on being used until someone has got over 50%.

No it doesn't, that is just a construct used by AV to try to convince
folk that those who vote for unsuccessful candidates don't have more
than one vote. In the language of AV it is a wasted vote because it was
cast for someone who did not get elected.


You've lost me!

Oh dear!

One of the arguments used for AV is that in FPTP voters who vote for
losing candidates are wasting their vote but when it comes to AV the
vote is not lost it is transferred. That is just a construct, as I have
said before each "preference" is actually a separate vote which is used
as each earlier preference loses.

--
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 09:46, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message om, brass
monkey writes

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2011 21:07, Old Codger wrote:


Each vote is used, it just doesn't always get someone elected.


Indeed. And that is true for both FPTP and AV. The *difference* is that
under AV, it goes on being used until someone has got over 50%.

Like I said before, everyone gets what nobody wants.

No matter how many times you say it, it just is not true.

With AV, you get someone whom more than 50% of the voters have
definitely said they would at least be reasonably happy to have as an
MP. Even when the winner is not someone's first choice, they are
nevertheless acceptable to the majority of voters.

That I do not believe. Most folk want just a single candidate or party.
Some might consider a second acceptable occasionally. I doubt there
are more than the odd one who would find a third candidate acceptable.
AV appears to encourage folk to rank all the candidates, or at least
that is the impression given by the campaigning, so MPs will get elected
by votes given by folk who really did not want that individual to win.

With FPTP, when the winner has less (sometimes far less) than a 50%
majority, you get an MP whom the 'non-winning majority' of voters didn't
prefer. No one knows if they are still at least reasonably happy with
the choice of winner. In fact, the majority of the 'non-winning' voters
could be very dissatisfied with the election result.

That is surely better than having an MP who even more of the voters
didn't prefer which is what AV gives. The moment a second preference
vote, or lower, is used that voter did not prefer that candidate.

The longer this thread gets suggests that the NO's have it.

Here (and in uk.legal), I get that impression the majority of posts are
from 'AV-Yes' men or 'neutrals'. However, there is a handful of die-hard
'AV-NO' men who don't see any virtue in the AV system. Unfortunately, I
fear that the referendum will indeed return a 'NO' verdict.

We will find out tomorrow. Looking at various on line polls, and also
considering my contacts, I will be very surprised if the proposal is not
rejected by a significant majority of the voters.


--
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]

Ian Jackson wrote:

With AV, you get someone whom more than 50% of the voters have
definitely said they would at least be reasonably happy to have as an
MP.

What if e.g. the voters' first preferences are split equally between
three candidates with no voters marking any second or lower preferences?

On 04/05/2011 21:23, Andy Burns wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote:

With AV, you get someone whom more than 50% of the voters have
definitely said they would at least be reasonably happy to have as an
MP.

What if e.g. the voters' first preferences are split equally between
three candidates with no voters marking any second or lower preferences?

In that particular case, you'd get the same as you would with FPTP.

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

On Wed, 04 May 2011 21:15:21 +0100 Old Codger wrote :
We will find out tomorrow. Looking at various on line polls, and
also considering my contacts, I will be very surprised if the
proposal is not rejected by a significant majority of the voters.

I suspect it will be rejected, but from reading lots of the comments
on the Daily Mail website it's obvious that lots of people haven't got
a clue about the real arguments, largely because interested parties
have worked hard to mislead the electorate. I've seen it argued that
AV will

* deliver loads of fringe party MPs and make stable government
impossible.

* lead to endless coalitions

* make it impossible to remove failing governments

and so on, most of these arguments applying to PR but not to AV.

The fantastic claims that people who should know better (from David
Cameron downwards) make are completely at odds with what has happened
in Australia since WW2 and probably before.

The referendum will make the decision, but it won't be an informed
decision.

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

Tony Bryer wrote:

I suspect it will be rejected, but from reading lots of the comments
on the Daily Mail website it's obvious that lots of people haven't got
a clue about the real arguments, largely because interested parties
have worked hard to mislead the electorate.

Sadly, the electorate will get what it deserves.

It doesn't really matter in the 21st century in the west, how much ********
politicians spout. Anyone who could be bothered to educate themselves about
some particular issue has all the resources of the Internet - just as we are
having this debate.

So ultimately, if people fail to take responsibility for their own
information, it is no one's fault but their own.

It's just a pity the lazy and gullible will take society down with them, but
that in a sense is "fair".

I do have some hope for the future - primary education is better (at least
from my personal exprience) so perhaps in a couple of generations, people
will be capable of actually thinking for themselves... Can only hope.

--
Tim Watts

In message , Tim Watts
writes
Tony Bryer wrote:

I suspect it will be rejected, but from reading lots of the comments
on the Daily Mail website it's obvious that lots of people haven't got
a clue about the real arguments, largely because interested parties
have worked hard to mislead the electorate.

Sadly, the electorate will get what it deserves.

It doesn't really matter in the 21st century in the west, how much ********
politicians spout. Anyone who could be bothered to educate themselves about
some particular issue has all the resources of the Internet - just as we are
having this debate.

So ultimately, if people fail to take responsibility for their own
information, it is no one's fault but their own.

It's just a pity the lazy and gullible will take society down with them, but
that in a sense is "fair".

I do have some hope for the future - primary education is better (at least
from my personal exprience) so perhaps in a couple of generations, people
will be capable of actually thinking for themselves... Can only hope.

If I lose it's because the people are too thick to understand my
arguments, and really they're not fit to be allowed to vote?
--
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 08:18, Tim Watts wrote:
Tony Bryer wrote:

I suspect it will be rejected, but from reading lots of the comments
on the Daily Mail website it's obvious that lots of people haven't got
a clue about the real arguments, largely because interested parties
have worked hard to mislead the electorate.

Sadly, the electorate will get what it deserves.

It doesn't really matter in the 21st century in the west, how much ********
politicians spout. Anyone who could be bothered to educate themselves about
some particular issue has all the resources of the Internet - just as we are
having this debate.

So ultimately, if people fail to take responsibility for their own
information, it is no one's fault but their own.

It's just a pity the lazy and gullible will take society down with them, but
that in a sense is "fair".

I do have some hope for the future - primary education is better (at least
from my personal exprience) so perhaps in a couple of generations, people
will be capable of actually thinking for themselves... Can only hope.

Did you go to a private school? Primary education has been going
downhill since the 60s.

It is now so bad that the Bishop of Oxford is suggesting that Church
Schools should reserve only 10% of their places for church members. One
presumes he considers that the church schools should revert to their
original ethos and educate the population to compensate for the failures
of the state education system.

--
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:

On 05/05/2011 08:18, Tim Watts wrote:
Tony Bryer wrote:

I suspect it will be rejected, but from reading lots of the comments
on the Daily Mail website it's obvious that lots of people haven't got
a clue about the real arguments, largely because interested parties
have worked hard to mislead the electorate.

Sadly, the electorate will get what it deserves.

It doesn't really matter in the 21st century in the west, how much
******** politicians spout. Anyone who could be bothered to educate
themselves about some particular issue has all the resources of the
Internet - just as we are having this debate.

So ultimately, if people fail to take responsibility for their own
information, it is no one's fault but their own.

It's just a pity the lazy and gullible will take society down with them,
but that in a sense is "fair".

I do have some hope for the future - primary education is better (at
least from my personal exprience) so perhaps in a couple of generations,
people will be capable of actually thinking for themselves... Can only
hope.

Did you go to a private school? Primary education has been going
downhill since the 60s.

IME the *current* state primary education is going uphill. My kids are doing
maths at least one year in advance of what I did 35 years ago.

Maybe our school is good - but they still follow the national curriculum...

--
Tim Watts

On 06/05/2011 22:17, Tim Watts wrote:
Old Codger wrote:

On 05/05/2011 08:18, Tim Watts wrote:

I do have some hope for the future - primary education is better (at
least from my personal exprience) so perhaps in a couple of generations,
people will be capable of actually thinking for themselves... Can only
hope.

Did you go to a private school? Primary education has been going
downhill since the 60s.

IME the *current* state primary education is going uphill. My kids are doing
maths at least one year in advance of what I did 35 years ago.

Maybe our school is good - but they still follow the national curriculum...

You are lucky.

To be fair there are still some excellent schools around but also some
awful ones.

My Grandchildren lived near, and attended, an excellent primary school.
I believe the local comp was also considered good. In the event they
went to the local Grammar and High schools which were also excellent.
Mind, my son in law picked the area for that very reason. His job has
taken him to the continent and his company are funding the two youngest
at a European School, so they are getting an even better education.

Having been retired for some years now I am out of the loop and have to
rely on media reports and what others still working or with young
children tell me. It seems to me that state education below university
level is still poor but may be improving. The best universities are
still excellent and even some of the old Techs are quite good but there
are, and always have been, some not so good universities. If the
government insists on the best universities "broadening" their intake,
i.e.taking students who do not meet their entry requirements, they will
bugger the universities just as they have buggered the schools.


--
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 22:17:25 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

Old Codger wrote:

On 05/05/2011 08:18, Tim Watts wrote:
Tony Bryer wrote:

I suspect it will be rejected, but from reading lots of the comments
on the Daily Mail website it's obvious that lots of people haven't got
a clue about the real arguments, largely because interested parties
have worked hard to mislead the electorate.

Sadly, the electorate will get what it deserves.

It doesn't really matter in the 21st century in the west, how much
******** politicians spout. Anyone who could be bothered to educate
themselves about some particular issue has all the resources of the
Internet - just as we are having this debate.

So ultimately, if people fail to take responsibility for their own
information, it is no one's fault but their own.

It's just a pity the lazy and gullible will take society down with them,
but that in a sense is "fair".

I do have some hope for the future - primary education is better (at
least from my personal exprience) so perhaps in a couple of generations,
people will be capable of actually thinking for themselves... Can only
hope.

Did you go to a private school? Primary education has been going
downhill since the 60s.

IME the *current* state primary education is going uphill. My kids are doing
maths at least one year in advance of what I did 35 years ago.

I can tell you my kids' primary education is many orders of magnitude
better than mine, part of which was in the 60s. However there are
still too many bad schools in this country, which is an outrage. We
need to change the funding arrangements to sort this out IMHO.
Hopefully the pupil premium may help but, if the rumours are true,
this scheme is likely to be watered down.

Maybe our school is good - but they still follow the national curriculum...

For a good school the National Curriculum can be a bit of a straight
jacket IMHO. Thankfully this is being relaxed nowadays.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

"Mark" wrote in message
...


For a good school the National Curriculum can be a bit of a straight
jacket IMHO. Thankfully this is being relaxed nowadays.

That's because people fail to understand its the minimum standard not the
target.
Until there are decent teachers in the schools it will remain the target
rather than the minimum.

On Mon, 9 May 2011 11:04:56 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Mark" wrote in message
.. .


For a good school the National Curriculum can be a bit of a straight
jacket IMHO. Thankfully this is being relaxed nowadays.

That's because people fail to understand its the minimum standard not the
target.

No. The NC certainly used to prescribe in detail exactly what some of
the lessons were to be, how they would be taught and for how long. In
addition the NC keeps changing forcing good schools to change the
curriculum without any benefit.

However, as I said, the NC is being relaxed.

Until there are decent teachers in the schools it will remain the target
rather than the minimum.

There are decent teachers.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

Mark wrote:
On Mon, 9 May 2011 11:04:56 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:


"Mark" wrote in message
...


For a good school the National Curriculum can be a bit of a straight
jacket IMHO. Thankfully this is being relaxed nowadays.
That's because people fail to understand its the minimum standard not the
target.

No. The NC certainly used to prescribe in detail exactly what some of
the lessons were to be, how they would be taught and for how long. In
addition the NC keeps changing forcing good schools to change the
curriculum without any benefit.

However, as I said, the NC is being relaxed.

Until there are decent teachers in the schools it will remain the target
rather than the minimum.

There are decent teachers.

They're easy to spot, IME. They're the ones who are frothing at the
mouth about the NC, but have classes which are well behaved and know
stuff. They also have less trouble in the classroom.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.