Referendum
 

On Tue, 03 May 2011 11:23:24 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

Robin wrote:
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.


Except it may not be the second preference. One of the drawbacks with
AV is that voters' first preference candidate may not be eliminated
until after their 2nd preference candidate has been eliminated which, as
you will no doubt appreciate having spent so much time on the subject,
means their votes end up being given to 3rd (or 4th ...) choices and
*never* to their 2nd choice.

Hence of course the benefits of a Condorcet system - which I would have
liked to have seen Nick Clegg & co explain.

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

Dictatorships also deliver stable governments but I would not want
one.
--
(\__/) 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.

Referendum
 

On Wed, 04 May 2011 10:34:47 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2011 11:23:24 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

Robin wrote:

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

Dictatorships also deliver stable governments but I would not want
one.

They are stable until they cease to be stable. *That* is why you don't
want a dictatorship; there is no stable transition mechanism.

No. It isn't why I don't want a dictatorship. I would not want a
dictatorship even (especially) if it was stable forever.

I want a democracy where the government represents what the people
want. I realise that is never going to happen 100% but it does not
mean that improvements cannot be made.
--
(\__/) 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.

Referendum
 

On 04/05/2011 11:14, Mark wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2011 10:34:47 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In ,
wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2011 11:23:24 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

Robin wrote:

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

Dictatorships also deliver stable governments but I would not want
one.

They are stable until they cease to be stable. *That* is why you don't
want a dictatorship; there is no stable transition mechanism.

No. It isn't why I don't want a dictatorship. I would not want a
dictatorship even (especially) if it was stable forever.

I want a democracy where the government represents what the people want.

Don't we all.

I realise that is never going to happen 100% but it does not
mean that improvements cannot be made.

Indeed but AV is not an improvement in that respect.


--
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]

Referendum
 

On Wed, 04 May 2011 21:00:39 +0100, Old Codger
wrote:

On 04/05/2011 11:14, Mark wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2011 10:34:47 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In ,
wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2011 11:23:24 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

Robin wrote:

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

Dictatorships also deliver stable governments but I would not want
one.

They are stable until they cease to be stable. *That* is why you don't
want a dictatorship; there is no stable transition mechanism.

No. It isn't why I don't want a dictatorship. I would not want a
dictatorship even (especially) if it was stable forever.

I want a democracy where the government represents what the people want.

Don't we all.

I realise that is never going to happen 100% but it does not
mean that improvements cannot be made.

Indeed but AV is not an improvement in that respect.

Then we disagree.
--
(\__/) 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.

Referendum
 

On 05/05/2011 10:00, Mark wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2011 21:00:39 +0100, Old
wrote:

On 04/05/2011 11:14, Mark wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2011 10:34:47 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In ,
wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2011 11:23:24 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

Robin wrote:

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

Dictatorships also deliver stable governments but I would not want
one.

They are stable until they cease to be stable. *That* is why you don't
want a dictatorship; there is no stable transition mechanism.

No. It isn't why I don't want a dictatorship. I would not want a
dictatorship even (especially) if it was stable forever.

I want a democracy where the government represents what the people want.

Don't we all.

I realise that is never going to happen 100% but it does not
mean that improvements cannot be made.

Indeed but AV is not an improvement in that respect.

Then we disagree.

Agreed. :-)

--
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]