In message , Roger Mills
writes
On 02/05/2011 22:41, Old Codger wrote:
On 02/05/2011 21:27, Roger Mills wrote:
On 02/05/2011 20:43, Old Codger wrote:

How would you
interpret the results if someone indicated their true feelings by
ranking the candidates 1, 1002, 1003, 2004? The candidates have been
ranked but the voter is indicating that he really only wants number 1


Since 1004th out of (say) 6 is clearly a nonsense, I would ignore
anything other than the '1' - which is what the voter wanted anyway

Precisely and I suspect that is the desire of many voters even if they
do rank the candidates.

- or maybe treat it as a spoilt vote.

Why? They have indicated their preferences, just emphasised that they
don't really want anyone other than number 1.


It would depend on what rules were given to those doing the counting.


But, as others have said, you don't *have* to vote for more than one
candidate.

Indeed.

However, I think that most people would

Precisely, because that is according to the instructions


Do we know exactly what the instructions would be? I would prefer to
see something like "You may vote for as many candidates as you wish -
but at least ONE - ranking those you DO vote for in order of preference
1, 2, 3 etc."

- and that the system would be a lot fairer as a result.

Not unless folk really are prepared to accept alternative candidates.
Ranking as per the instructions does not indicate the strength of
acceptability of any of the alternative candidates.

I cannot believe that most folk would normally find any of the
alternatives acceptable and certainly not below a second choice.


I believe that, under the current system, many people vote for the
candidate who is most likely to defeat the one the *don't* want -
rather than for the one they really want. So, if they favour the Greens
or the Lib Dems but conclude that they don't have a cat in hell's
chance, they'll vote for Labour to keep the Tories out - or vice versa.
So they're *already* voting for the least *unacceptable* candidate
rather than for their true choice. AV would change all that.
I believe the vast majority of people vote for the candidate they do
want. Why should we change the system just for the minority who haven't
the courage to vote for what they believe in?
--
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 Wed, 4 May 2011 22:34:07 +0100, hugh ] wrote:

In message , Roger Mills
writes
On 02/05/2011 22:41, Old Codger wrote:
On 02/05/2011 21:27, Roger Mills wrote:
On 02/05/2011 20:43, Old Codger wrote:

How would you
interpret the results if someone indicated their true feelings by
ranking the candidates 1, 1002, 1003, 2004? The candidates have been
ranked but the voter is indicating that he really only wants number 1


Since 1004th out of (say) 6 is clearly a nonsense, I would ignore
anything other than the '1' - which is what the voter wanted anyway

Precisely and I suspect that is the desire of many voters even if they
do rank the candidates.

- or maybe treat it as a spoilt vote.

Why? They have indicated their preferences, just emphasised that they
don't really want anyone other than number 1.


It would depend on what rules were given to those doing the counting.


But, as others have said, you don't *have* to vote for more than one
candidate.

Indeed.

However, I think that most people would

Precisely, because that is according to the instructions


Do we know exactly what the instructions would be? I would prefer to
see something like "You may vote for as many candidates as you wish -
but at least ONE - ranking those you DO vote for in order of preference
1, 2, 3 etc."

- and that the system would be a lot fairer as a result.

Not unless folk really are prepared to accept alternative candidates.
Ranking as per the instructions does not indicate the strength of
acceptability of any of the alternative candidates.

I cannot believe that most folk would normally find any of the
alternatives acceptable and certainly not below a second choice.


I believe that, under the current system, many people vote for the
candidate who is most likely to defeat the one the *don't* want -
rather than for the one they really want. So, if they favour the Greens
or the Lib Dems but conclude that they don't have a cat in hell's
chance, they'll vote for Labour to keep the Tories out - or vice versa.
So they're *already* voting for the least *unacceptable* candidate
rather than for their true choice. AV would change all that.
I believe the vast majority of people vote for the candidate they do
want. Why should we change the system just for the minority who haven't
the courage to vote for what they believe in?

It's nothing to do with courage. For many people life (and politics)
is not black and white. I suspect that loyal party voters are the
minority and the majority are undecided or are liable to change their
mind. The latter could benefit from AV.
--
(\__/) 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 Wed, 4 May 2011 22:34:07 +0100, hugh ] wrote:

In message , Roger Mills
writes
On 02/05/2011 22:41, Old Codger wrote:
On 02/05/2011 21:27, Roger Mills wrote:
On 02/05/2011 20:43, Old Codger wrote:

How would you
interpret the results if someone indicated their true feelings by
ranking the candidates 1, 1002, 1003, 2004? The candidates have been
ranked but the voter is indicating that he really only wants number 1


Since 1004th out of (say) 6 is clearly a nonsense, I would ignore
anything other than the '1' - which is what the voter wanted anyway

Precisely and I suspect that is the desire of many voters even if they
do rank the candidates.

- or maybe treat it as a spoilt vote.

Why? They have indicated their preferences, just emphasised that they
don't really want anyone other than number 1.


It would depend on what rules were given to those doing the counting.


But, as others have said, you don't *have* to vote for more than one
candidate.

Indeed.

However, I think that most people would

Precisely, because that is according to the instructions


Do we know exactly what the instructions would be? I would prefer to
see something like "You may vote for as many candidates as you wish -
but at least ONE - ranking those you DO vote for in order of preference
1, 2, 3 etc."

- and that the system would be a lot fairer as a result.

Not unless folk really are prepared to accept alternative candidates.
Ranking as per the instructions does not indicate the strength of
acceptability of any of the alternative candidates.

I cannot believe that most folk would normally find any of the
alternatives acceptable and certainly not below a second choice.


I believe that, under the current system, many people vote for the
candidate who is most likely to defeat the one the *don't* want -
rather than for the one they really want. So, if they favour the Greens
or the Lib Dems but conclude that they don't have a cat in hell's
chance, they'll vote for Labour to keep the Tories out - or vice versa.
So they're *already* voting for the least *unacceptable* candidate
rather than for their true choice. AV would change all that.
I believe the vast majority of people vote for the candidate they do
want. Why should we change the system just for the minority who haven't
the courage to vote for what they believe in?

It's nothing to do with courage. For many people life (and politics)
is not black and white. I suspect that loyal party voters are the
minority and the majority are undecided or are liable to change their
mind. The latter could benefit from AV.
I think the majority do actually stick with one party. This is
especially true of the elderly who although they form a substantial part
of the voting electorate attract very little attention from politicians.
--
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 22:34, hugh wrote:
In message , Roger Mills
writes
On 02/05/2011 22:41, Old Codger wrote:
On 02/05/2011 21:27, Roger Mills wrote:
On 02/05/2011 20:43, Old Codger wrote:

How would you
interpret the results if someone indicated their true feelings by
ranking the candidates 1, 1002, 1003, 2004? The candidates have been
ranked but the voter is indicating that he really only wants number 1


Since 1004th out of (say) 6 is clearly a nonsense, I would ignore
anything other than the '1' - which is what the voter wanted anyway

Precisely and I suspect that is the desire of many voters even if they
do rank the candidates.

- or maybe treat it as a spoilt vote.

Why? They have indicated their preferences, just emphasised that they
don't really want anyone other than number 1.


It would depend on what rules were given to those doing the counting.


But, as others have said, you don't *have* to vote for more than one
candidate.

Indeed.

However, I think that most people would

Precisely, because that is according to the instructions


Do we know exactly what the instructions would be? I would prefer to
see something like "You may vote for as many candidates as you wish -
but at least ONE - ranking those you DO vote for in order of
preference 1, 2, 3 etc."

- and that the system would be a lot fairer as a result.

Not unless folk really are prepared to accept alternative candidates.
Ranking as per the instructions does not indicate the strength of
acceptability of any of the alternative candidates.

I cannot believe that most folk would normally find any of the
alternatives acceptable and certainly not below a second choice.


I believe that, under the current system, many people vote for the
candidate who is most likely to defeat the one the *don't* want -
rather than for the one they really want. So, if they favour the
Greens or the Lib Dems but conclude that they don't have a cat in
hell's chance, they'll vote for Labour to keep the Tories out - or
vice versa. So they're *already* voting for the least *unacceptable*
candidate rather than for their true choice. AV would change all that.
I believe the vast majority of people vote for the candidate they do
want. Why should we change the system just for the minority who haven't
the courage to vote for what they believe in?

AOL

--
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]