On 03/05/2011 12:26, 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"

A good philosophy.

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.

Which is surely better than MPs and governments for which even more
people haven't voted.


--
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 21:09, Old Codger wrote:
On 03/05/2011 12:26, Roger Mills wrote:


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.

Which is surely better than MPs and governments for which even more
people haven't voted.


Except that that's not true! Under AV, more people *would* have voted
for each MP - because[1] they would have to have got more than 50% of
the votes.

Also, the overall result - whilst not being truly proportional - is more
likely to reflect the popular vote.

[1] Except under extreme circumstances where everyone expressed only a
first preference
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 03/05/2011 23:32, Roger Mills wrote:
On 03/05/2011 21:09, Old Codger wrote:
On 03/05/2011 12:26, Roger Mills wrote:


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.

Which is surely better than MPs and governments for which even more
people haven't voted.


Except that that's not true! Under AV, more people *would* have voted
for each MP - because[1] they would have to have got more than 50% of
the votes.

Likely to have been achieved by second, third, fourth and even fifth
preference vote, i.e. voted in by folk who really didn't want them.

Also, the overall result - whilst not being truly proportional - is more
likely to reflect the popular vote.

I rather doubt that.

[1] Except under extreme circumstances where everyone expressed only a
first preference

What a good idea. :-)


--
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
...
On 03/05/2011 23:32, Roger Mills wrote:
On 03/05/2011 21:09, Old Codger wrote:
On 03/05/2011 12:26, Roger Mills wrote:


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.

Which is surely better than MPs and governments for which even more
people haven't voted.


Except that that's not true! Under AV, more people *would* have voted
for each MP - because[1] they would have to have got more than 50% of
the votes.

Likely to have been achieved by second, third, fourth and even fifth
preference vote, i.e. voted in by folk who really didn't want them.

Why did they vote for them then?

On 04/05/2011 21:22, dennis@home wrote:

Except that that's not true! Under AV, more people *would* have voted
for each MP - because[1] they would have to have got more than 50% of
the votes.

Likely to have been achieved by second, third, fourth and even fifth
preference vote, i.e. voted in by folk who really didn't want them.

Why did they vote for them then?

Does that even matter?

Under AV you are asked to rank the candidates in order of preference.
First the one you would most like to see as your MP and last the one you
would least like to see as your MP.

If it comes down to your least favoured candidate then hard cheese but
at least you have done all you could to prevent your most despised
candidate from being elected and the chances are that the election was
concluded before your last preference was counted.

--
Roger Chapman

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

On 04/05/2011 21:22, dennis@home wrote:

Except that that's not true! Under AV, more people *would* have voted
for each MP - because[1] they would have to have got more than 50% of
the votes.

Likely to have been achieved by second, third, fourth and even fifth
preference vote, i.e. voted in by folk who really didn't want them.

Why did they vote for them then?

Does that even matter?

Under AV you are asked to rank the candidates in order of preference.
First the one you would most like to see as your MP and last the one you
would least like to see as your MP.

No, you aren't.

You're asked to list the candidates YOU WISH TO VOTE FOR in order of
preference.

So - there's five candidates in your constituency.

You want to vote (say) LD, but wouldn't object to Tory. There's also an
independent who you want to show your support to. Then there's Labour,
who you don't want, and the BNP, who you wouldn't **** on if they were on
fire.

So you might vote for the Indie first (since they're likely to be
eliminated early), then LD, then Tory. You don't put any mark against
Labour or BNP. If all the candidates you vote for get knocked out, your
ballot is discarded, and the 50% threshold shrinks slightly, since it's
50% of the votes left in play.

The first round, the BNP get eliminated. Your vote is still for the Indie.
The second round, the Indie gets eliminated. Your vote is now LD.
The third round, the Tory gets more than 50%.

On Thu, 05 May 2011 08:01:26 +0100, Roger Chapman
wrote:

On 04/05/2011 21:22, dennis@home wrote:

Except that that's not true! Under AV, more people *would* have voted
for each MP - because[1] they would have to have got more than 50% of
the votes.

Likely to have been achieved by second, third, fourth and even fifth
preference vote, i.e. voted in by folk who really didn't want them.

Why did they vote for them then?

Does that even matter?

Under AV you are asked to rank the candidates in order of preference.
First the one you would most like to see as your MP and last the one you
would least like to see as your MP.

If it comes down to your least favoured candidate then hard cheese but
at least you have done all you could to prevent your most despised
candidate from being elected and the chances are that the election was
concluded before your last preference was counted.

No. It doesn't work like this. You don't have to rank all the
candidates. If you don't want them then don't vote for them.
--
(\__/) 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.

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
On 04/05/2011 21:22, dennis@home wrote:

Except that that's not true! Under AV, more people *would* have voted
for each MP - because[1] they would have to have got more than 50% of
the votes.

Likely to have been achieved by second, third, fourth and even fifth
preference vote, i.e. voted in by folk who really didn't want them.

Why did they vote for them then?

Does that even matter?

Under AV you are asked to rank the candidates in order of preference.
First the one you would most like to see as your MP and last the one you
would least like to see as your MP.

You are asked to rank your preference, that doesn't mean ranking all of
them.

Incidentally that is what Australia want to change, the federal election
requires you to rank all the candidates.
They don't want to get rid of PR just the way its done.

If it comes down to your least favoured candidate then hard cheese but at
least you have done all you could to prevent your most despised candidate
from being elected and the chances are that the election was concluded
before your last preference was counted.

--
Roger Chapman

On 05/05/2011 10:00, Mark wrote:
Why did they vote for them then?

Does that even matter?

Under AV you are asked to rank the candidates in order of preference.
First the one you would most like to see as your MP and last the one you
would least like to see as your MP.

If it comes down to your least favoured candidate then hard cheese but
at least you have done all you could to prevent your most despised
candidate from being elected and the chances are that the election was
concluded before your last preference was counted.

No. It doesn't work like this. You don't have to rank all the
candidates. If you don't want them then don't vote for them.

Up thread several contributors suggested that most voters would rank
them all and it is not a matter of who you really want as your MP but
which you would prefer if the choice was narrowed down to two candidates
who you might well detest but can still differentiate between. In most
of the elections I have voted in I would have happily voted for 'None of
the Above' if that had been an available choice.

--
Roger Chapman

On 05/05/2011 16:46, John Rumm wrote:

Under AV you are asked to rank the candidates in order of preference.
First the one you would most like to see as your MP and last the one you
would least like to see as your MP.

Why would you do that though? If you rank any after the first, then you
are just potentially voting for a candidate that you don't want to
elect. Better to leave off any ranked candidates at all IMO. That way AV
degenerates to FPTP, and you don't lend any legitimacy to a candidate to
claim that 50% or more of the electorate voted for them when its
probably not true, and the realiy may be that 35% voted *for* them and
another 20% disliked them but slightly less than the others.

It is not a matter of lending legitimacy to a candidate but of
expressing a preference for which candidates get the chance to be your
MP. In the last election I put my cross in what I thought was the
'anyone but Gordon' box. Come the next election (if we don't have AV
which is looking increasingly likely) I will be looking for the 'anyone
but Cameron' box.

About the only time there would be some logic in ranking any candidates
after your primary choice would be if there were two representing the
same party/ideals etc but one was standing as an independent.

That is logical only to the committed party supporter.

--
Roger Chapman

On 05/05/2011 21:53, John Rumm wrote:
On 05/05/2011 17:12, Roger Chapman wrote:


It is not a matter of lending legitimacy to a candidate but of
expressing a preference for which candidates get the chance to be your
MP. In the last election I put my cross in what I thought was the
'anyone but Gordon' box. Come the next election (if we don't have AV
which is looking increasingly likely) I will be looking for the 'anyone
but Cameron' box.

But even with AV you would in effect be doing the same. Sure you might
put your first choice as someone else - but it would be in the knowledge
that you have also voted for the plausible "anyone but" candidate as an
alternative. So when push comes to shove your vote gets counted for the
"anyone but" candidate just as it would have under FPTP.


In a lot of cases the result would be the same. But the overall
arithmetic is likely to be different because people who really prefer
the traditionally less popular parties would actually vote for them
rather than (or maybe as well as) 'against' someone else. In some cases
the 'less popular' parties might even find that they are popular enough
to win. Under FPTP, it comes down to voter confidence - "does my
preferred party have any chance, or do I need to vote for someone else
in order to keep someone even less desirable out?". AV removes that
dilemma, and gives a truer picture of voters' real wishes.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

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

It is not a matter of lending legitimacy to a candidate but of
expressing a preference for which candidates get the chance to be your
MP. In the last election I put my cross in what I thought was the
'anyone but Gordon' box. Come the next election (if we don't have AV
which is looking increasingly likely) I will be looking for the 'anyone
but Cameron' box.

There can't be many people who'll move from Kirkcaldy to Witney during
the duration of this parliament.

[slight deviation]

I was explaining AV to my 7 year old daughter using the cafe vs pub example
of AV that's on that video that's been going around...

She seemed to follow the argument - but came out with quite a good one at
the end:

"Daddy: everyone should have voted for the pubs as pubs sell coffee"...

Sounded like an endorsment of the last Labour governemnt to me :-o

--
Tim Watts

On Thu, 05 May 2011 16:54:28 +0100, Roger Chapman
wrote:

On 05/05/2011 10:00, Mark wrote:
Why did they vote for them then?

Does that even matter?

Under AV you are asked to rank the candidates in order of preference.
First the one you would most like to see as your MP and last the one you
would least like to see as your MP.

If it comes down to your least favoured candidate then hard cheese but
at least you have done all you could to prevent your most despised
candidate from being elected and the chances are that the election was
concluded before your last preference was counted.

No. It doesn't work like this. You don't have to rank all the
candidates. If you don't want them then don't vote for them.

Up thread several contributors suggested that most voters would rank
them all

Iff they are told to do so. If voters are properly educated then they
would realise that they have the choice.

and it is not a matter of who you really want as your MP but
which you would prefer if the choice was narrowed down to two candidates
who you might well detest but can still differentiate between. In most
of the elections I have voted in I would have happily voted for 'None of
the Above' if that had been an available choice.

With AV one of the options could be "No candidate". I have voted in
AV elections with this option.
--
(\__/) 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 Fri, 06 May 2011 01:02:19 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 05/05/2011 22:33, Roger Mills wrote:
On 05/05/2011 21:53, John Rumm wrote:
On 05/05/2011 17:12, Roger Chapman wrote:


It is not a matter of lending legitimacy to a candidate but of
expressing a preference for which candidates get the chance to be your
MP. In the last election I put my cross in what I thought was the
'anyone but Gordon' box. Come the next election (if we don't have AV
which is looking increasingly likely) I will be looking for the 'anyone
but Cameron' box.

But even with AV you would in effect be doing the same. Sure you might
put your first choice as someone else - but it would be in the knowledge
that you have also voted for the plausible "anyone but" candidate as an
alternative. So when push comes to shove your vote gets counted for the
"anyone but" candidate just as it would have under FPTP.


In a lot of cases the result would be the same. But the overall
arithmetic is likely to be different because people who really prefer
the traditionally less popular parties would actually vote for them
rather than (or maybe as well as) 'against' someone else. In some cases
the 'less popular' parties might even find that they are popular enough
to win. Under FPTP, it comes down to voter confidence - "does my
preferred party have any chance, or do I need to vote for someone else
in order to keep someone even less desirable out?". AV removes that
dilemma, and gives a truer picture of voters' real wishes.

Well let's say it does... the minority parties get a few more votes
before being eliminated from the competition and the traditional FPTP
strategic vote (now framed as a second choice) kicks in and achieves the
previous result. Is that actually of much benefit?

It would enable us to see who people really want to elect by counting
the first preferences. The result would be very interesting IMHO.

Do you really see the BNP or Greens who normally poll in the early 1 and
2 k votes suddenly overturning a Con or Lab poll of 20K just because of
AV? Personally I don't. It seems to me that it will only make a
difference where you have multiple candidates of one political hue, or
where there is a tie going on for second place between (usually) Lab and
LD or Con and LD.

You're right that the second preference votes of minority parties
would not make any difference. The real difference could happen in
seats where there is more than one popular candidate.

For LD supporters I can see the attraction, but whether it will get them
more seats is a different matter.

It could equally benefit other parties where Tory or Labour is
normally second or third place.
--
(\__/) 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 06/05/2011 01:02, John Rumm wrote:
On 05/05/2011 22:33, Roger Mills wrote:

AV removes that
dilemma, and gives a truer picture of voters' real wishes.



Well let's say it does... the minority parties get a few more votes
before being eliminated from the competition and the traditional FPTP
strategic vote (now framed as a second choice) kicks in and achieves the
previous result. Is that actually of much benefit?


Well yes, in that it demonstrates that the 'winner' has support from a
wider audience than just first choice voters. There's no way of knowing
that under FPTP. And it may *not* achieve the previous result. If it's
neck and neck between two main contenders, the second choice votes may
well tip the balance.

Do you really see the BNP or Greens who normally poll in the early 1 and
2 k votes suddenly overturning a Con or Lab poll of 20K just because of
AV? Personally I don't. It seems to me that it will only make a
difference where you have multiple candidates of one political hue, or
where there is a tie going on for second place between (usually) Lab and
LD or Con and LD.

As I've said before, it comes down to voter confidence, and the wish not
to waste their vote. Since you mention the Greens, we should remember
that they already have *one* MP despite the FPTP system, and may do
considerably better under AV. I can't see the BNP getting any more seats
under AV than they do under FPTP - but would it be a total disaster if
they did? However distasteful their views, they have *some* support -
albeit too scattered to win seats. [They'd probably get some under a PR
system].

For LD supporters I can see the attraction, but whether it will get them
more seats is a different matter.


I think that, under normal circumstances[1], it would. I also think that
UKIP - whom few people have mentioned - would also pick up some seats,
which would probably be a good thing because none of the other parties
are prepared to engage in a debate about Europe.


[1] when they're not being the whipping boy for the 'evils' of the
coalition
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 06/05/2011 15:18, John Rumm wrote:
On 06/05/2011 14:56, Roger Mills wrote:


As I've said before, it comes down to voter confidence, and the wish not
to waste their vote. Since you mention the Greens, we should remember
that they already have *one* MP despite the FPTP system, and may do
considerably better under AV.

Which is another downside to AV IMO ;-)


Are you saying that, in effect, all the seats should be whacked up
between the two main parties, with nobody else getting a look in,
despite the significant - albeit scattered - support for other parties?

If so, and if you are a loyal supporter of one of the big parties, and
believe that being in opposition for 50% of the time is necessary in
order to ensure that one or other party always has a working majority,
then FPTP obviously suits you down to the ground - because that's what
it delivers.

If, on the other hand, you believe that other shades of opinion deserve
to be heard, and that the country should be governed on a more
consensual basis, you would probably favour a different electoral
system, more likely to deliver that. I'm not sure that AV would be my
first choice as an alternative to FPTP, but it's all we were offered -
and is likely to go *some* way towards electing a broader range of
candidates.

Sadly, if the opinion polls are be believed, we won't get the
opportunity to put AV to the test!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 04/05/2011 21:22, dennis@home wrote:


"Old Codger" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2011 23:32, Roger Mills wrote:
On 03/05/2011 21:09, Old Codger wrote:
On 03/05/2011 12:26, Roger Mills wrote:


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.

Which is surely better than MPs and governments for which even more
people haven't voted.


Except that that's not true! Under AV, more people *would* have voted
for each MP - because[1] they would have to have got more than 50% of
the votes.

Likely to have been achieved by second, third, fourth and even fifth
preference vote, i.e. voted in by folk who really didn't want them.

Why did they vote for them then?

All the propaganda has emphasised ranking *all* the candidates so there
will be many folk who will believe that is what they have to do even for
those they do not want 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 05/05/2011 10:00, Mark wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 08:01:26 +0100, Roger Chapman
wrote:

On 04/05/2011 21:22, dennis@home wrote:

Except that that's not true! Under AV, more people *would* have voted
for each MP - because[1] they would have to have got more than 50% of
the votes.

Likely to have been achieved by second, third, fourth and even fifth
preference vote, i.e. voted in by folk who really didn't want them.

Why did they vote for them then?

Does that even matter?

Under AV you are asked to rank the candidates in order of preference.
First the one you would most like to see as your MP and last the one you
would least like to see as your MP.

If it comes down to your least favoured candidate then hard cheese but
at least you have done all you could to prevent your most despised
candidate from being elected and the chances are that the election was
concluded before your last preference was counted.

No. It doesn't work like this. You don't have to rank all the
candidates. If you don't want them then don't vote for them.

But all the propaganda has emphasised ranking *all* candidates.

*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 any of these
additional candidates elected" then you would be right. 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.

Fortunately it looks as though we will not be lumbered with AV after all.

--
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 08:59, Mark wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 16:54:28 +0100, Roger Chapman
wrote:

On 05/05/2011 10:00, Mark wrote:
Why did they vote for them then?

Does that even matter?

Under AV you are asked to rank the candidates in order of preference.
First the one you would most like to see as your MP and last the one you
would least like to see as your MP.

If it comes down to your least favoured candidate then hard cheese but
at least you have done all you could to prevent your most despised
candidate from being elected and the chances are that the election was
concluded before your last preference was counted.

No. It doesn't work like this. You don't have to rank all the
candidates. If you don't want them then don't vote for them.

Up thread several contributors suggested that most voters would rank
them all

Iff they are told to do so. If voters are properly educated then they
would realise that they have the choice.

Agreed, but as I have said earlier that is most unlikely to happen.

and it is not a matter of who you really want as your MP but
which you would prefer if the choice was narrowed down to two candidates
who you might well detest but can still differentiate between. In most
of the elections I have voted in I would have happily voted for 'None of
the Above' if that had been an available choice.

With AV one of the options could be "No candidate". I have voted in
AV elections with this option.

Won't get that choice here I doubt.


--
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 17:12, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 05/05/2011 16:46, John Rumm wrote:

Under AV you are asked to rank the candidates in order of preference.
First the one you would most like to see as your MP and last the one you
would least like to see as your MP.

Why would you do that though? If you rank any after the first, then you
are just potentially voting for a candidate that you don't want to
elect. Better to leave off any ranked candidates at all IMO. That way AV
degenerates to FPTP, and you don't lend any legitimacy to a candidate to
claim that 50% or more of the electorate voted for them when its
probably not true, and the realiy may be that 35% voted *for* them and
another 20% disliked them but slightly less than the others.

It is not a matter of lending legitimacy to a candidate but of
expressing a preference for which candidates get the chance to be your
MP. In the last election I put my cross in what I thought was the
'anyone but Gordon' box. Come the next election (if we don't have AV
which is looking increasingly likely) I will be looking for the 'anyone
but Cameron' box.

I don't think you will be the only one.

About the only time there would be some logic in ranking any candidates
after your primary choice would be if there were two representing the
same party/ideals etc but one was standing as an independent.

That is logical only to the committed party supporter.



--
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 06/05/2011 08:59, Mark wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 16:54:28 +0100, Roger Chapman
wrote:

On 05/05/2011 10:00, Mark wrote:
Why did they vote for them then?

Does that even matter?

Under AV you are asked to rank the candidates in order of preference.
First the one you would most like to see as your MP and last the one you
would least like to see as your MP.

If it comes down to your least favoured candidate then hard cheese but
at least you have done all you could to prevent your most despised
candidate from being elected and the chances are that the election was
concluded before your last preference was counted.

No. It doesn't work like this. You don't have to rank all the
candidates. If you don't want them then don't vote for them.

Up thread several contributors suggested that most voters would rank
them all

Iff they are told to do so. If voters are properly educated then they
would realise that they have the choice.

Agreed, but as I have said earlier that is most unlikely to happen.

and it is not a matter of who you really want as your MP but
which you would prefer if the choice was narrowed down to two candidates
who you might well detest but can still differentiate between. In most
of the elections I have voted in I would have happily voted for 'None of
the Above' if that had been an available choice.

With AV one of the options could be "No candidate". I have voted in
AV elections with this option.

Won't get that choice here I doubt.


Well what would happen if that choice was the winner by over 50%?
--
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 06/05/2011 22:46, hugh wrote:
In message , Old Codger
writes
On 06/05/2011 08:59, Mark wrote:


With AV one of the options could be "No candidate". I have voted in
AV elections with this option.

Won't get that choice here I doubt.


Well what would happen if that choice was the winner by over 50%?


Hopefully, we'd save the cost of an MP!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 06/05/2011 22:46, hugh wrote:
In message , Old Codger
writes
On 06/05/2011 08:59, Mark wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 16:54:28 +0100, Roger Chapman
wrote:

On 05/05/2011 10:00, Mark wrote:
Why did they vote for them then?

Does that even matter?

Under AV you are asked to rank the candidates in order of
preference.
First the one you would most like to see as your MP and last the
one you
would least like to see as your MP.

If it comes down to your least favoured candidate then hard
cheese but
at least you have done all you could to prevent your most despised
candidate from being elected and the chances are that the
election was
concluded before your last preference was counted.

No. It doesn't work like this. You don't have to rank all the
candidates. If you don't want them then don't vote for them.

Up thread several contributors suggested that most voters would rank
them all

Iff they are told to do so. If voters are properly educated then they
would realise that they have the choice.

Agreed, but as I have said earlier that is most unlikely to happen.

and it is not a matter of who you really want as your MP but
which you would prefer if the choice was narrowed down to two
candidates
who you might well detest but can still differentiate between. In most
of the elections I have voted in I would have happily voted for
'None of
the Above' if that had been an available choice.

With AV one of the options could be "No candidate". I have voted in
AV elections with this option.

Won't get that choice here I doubt.


Well what would happen if that choice was the winner by over 50%?

A new election with different candidates?

We can all live in cloud cuckoo land. :-)

--
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 21:16:06 +0100, Old Codger
wrote:

On 05/05/2011 10:00, Mark wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 08:01:26 +0100, Roger Chapman
wrote:

On 04/05/2011 21:22, dennis@home wrote:

Except that that's not true! Under AV, more people *would* have voted
for each MP - because[1] they would have to have got more than 50% of
the votes.

Likely to have been achieved by second, third, fourth and even fifth
preference vote, i.e. voted in by folk who really didn't want them.

Why did they vote for them then?

Does that even matter?

Under AV you are asked to rank the candidates in order of preference.
First the one you would most like to see as your MP and last the one you
would least like to see as your MP.

If it comes down to your least favoured candidate then hard cheese but
at least you have done all you could to prevent your most despised
candidate from being elected and the chances are that the election was
concluded before your last preference was counted.

No. It doesn't work like this. You don't have to rank all the
candidates. If you don't want them then don't vote for them.

But all the propaganda has emphasised ranking *all* candidates.

Only the "No" campaign propaganda implied this and that was a
calculated strawman to put people off AV.

Fortunately it looks as though we will not be lumbered with AV after all.

Unfortunately we will be lumbered with FPTP still.
--
(\__/) 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 Fri, 06 May 2011 21:19:04 +0100, Old Codger
wrote:

On 05/05/2011 17:12, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 05/05/2011 16:46, John Rumm wrote:

Under AV you are asked to rank the candidates in order of preference.
First the one you would most like to see as your MP and last the one you
would least like to see as your MP.

Why would you do that though? If you rank any after the first, then you
are just potentially voting for a candidate that you don't want to
elect. Better to leave off any ranked candidates at all IMO. That way AV
degenerates to FPTP, and you don't lend any legitimacy to a candidate to
claim that 50% or more of the electorate voted for them when its
probably not true, and the realiy may be that 35% voted *for* them and
another 20% disliked them but slightly less than the others.

It is not a matter of lending legitimacy to a candidate but of
expressing a preference for which candidates get the chance to be your
MP. In the last election I put my cross in what I thought was the
'anyone but Gordon' box. Come the next election (if we don't have AV
which is looking increasingly likely) I will be looking for the 'anyone
but Cameron' box.

I don't think you will be the only one.

And we will get another disastrous Labour government as a result.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On 09/05/2011 09:48, Mark wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2011 21:16:06 +0100, Old
wrote:

On 05/05/2011 10:00, Mark wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 08:01:26 +0100, Roger Chapman
wrote:

On 04/05/2011 21:22, dennis@home wrote:

Except that that's not true! Under AV, more people *would* have voted
for each MP - because[1] they would have to have got more than 50% of
the votes.

Likely to have been achieved by second, third, fourth and even fifth
preference vote, i.e. voted in by folk who really didn't want them.

Why did they vote for them then?

Does that even matter?

Under AV you are asked to rank the candidates in order of preference.
First the one you would most like to see as your MP and last the one you
would least like to see as your MP.

If it comes down to your least favoured candidate then hard cheese but
at least you have done all you could to prevent your most despised
candidate from being elected and the chances are that the election was
concluded before your last preference was counted.

No. It doesn't work like this. You don't have to rank all the
candidates. If you don't want them then don't vote for them.

But all the propaganda has emphasised ranking *all* candidates.

Only the "No" campaign propaganda implied this

Really? I could have sworn that both campaigns implied it.

and that was a calculated strawman to put people off AV.

Fortunately it looks as though we will not be lumbered with AV after all.

Unfortunately we will be lumbered with FPTP still.

Good.


--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

On 09/05/2011 09:50, Mark wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2011 21:19:04 +0100, Old
wrote:

On 05/05/2011 17:12, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 05/05/2011 16:46, John Rumm wrote:

Under AV you are asked to rank the candidates in order of preference.
First the one you would most like to see as your MP and last the one you
would least like to see as your MP.

Why would you do that though? If you rank any after the first, then you
are just potentially voting for a candidate that you don't want to
elect. Better to leave off any ranked candidates at all IMO. That way AV
degenerates to FPTP, and you don't lend any legitimacy to a candidate to
claim that 50% or more of the electorate voted for them when its
probably not true, and the realiy may be that 35% voted *for* them and
another 20% disliked them but slightly less than the others.

It is not a matter of lending legitimacy to a candidate but of
expressing a preference for which candidates get the chance to be your
MP. In the last election I put my cross in what I thought was the
'anyone but Gordon' box. Come the next election (if we don't have AV
which is looking increasingly likely) I will be looking for the 'anyone
but Cameron' box.

I don't think you will be the only one.

And we will get another disastrous Labour government as a result.

Oh dear, what a shame, never mind.

--
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]