Richard Hawley
http://richardhawleyforum.co.uk/

AV
http://richardhawleyforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=26804
Page 5 of 9

Author:  Poppy Dog [ Wed Apr 27, 2011 1:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

Longpigsdad wrote:
Probably the 30%. Otherwise the serious risk is that in some areas of the UK some nob who can't even manage their own weekly alcohol/cigarette/gambling budget ends up making decisions in Parliament.


You know I'm on a short list for the next election don't you?

Author:  Longpigsdad [ Wed Apr 27, 2011 1:50 pm ]
Post subject: 

Poppy Dog wrote:
Longpigsdad wrote:
Probably the 30%. Otherwise the serious risk is that in some areas of the UK some nob who can't even manage their own weekly alcohol/cigarette/gambling budget ends up making decisions in Parliament.


You know I'm on a short list for the next election don't you?


HaHa! :D

Author:  Craig [ Wed Apr 27, 2011 2:03 pm ]
Post subject: 

Longpigsdad wrote:
Craig wrote:
What's better? Someone who 70% can agree on as a 'second best' choice, or to put it another way, the candidate who closest reflects the combined choices of 70% of the people?

Or someone that 30% choose as first choice, but 70% don't want?


Probably the 30%. Otherwise the serious risk is that in some areas of the UK some nob who can't even manage their own weekly alcohol/cigarette/gambling budget ends up making decisions in Parliament.


And that's worse than having some nob with a moat round his mock Tudor mansion who's never done a day's work at a proper job in their life?

Author:  Longpigsdad [ Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:58 pm ]
Post subject: 

Craig wrote:
Longpigsdad wrote:
Craig wrote:
What's better? Someone who 70% can agree on as a 'second best' choice, or to put it another way, the candidate who closest reflects the combined choices of 70% of the people?

Or someone that 30% choose as first choice, but 70% don't want?


Probably the 30%. Otherwise the serious risk is that in some areas of the UK some nob who can't even manage their own weekly alcohol/cigarette/gambling budget ends up making decisions in Parliament.


And that's worse than having some nob with a moat round his mock Tudor mansion who's never done a day's work at a proper job in their life?


Absolutely. Have you forgotten "Donnygate" already?

Author:  Little Dickie [ Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

Longpigsdad wrote:
Otherwise the serious risk is that in some areas of the UK some nob who can't even manage their own weekly alcohol/cigarette/gambling budget ends up making decisions in Parliament.


AV makes the election of extremists less likely. Under FPTP, a low turnout and lots of candidates could potentially allow an extremist candidate to win a seat on a 20 or 25% share of the vote.
Under AV, the second preferences of mainstream voters would be redistributed to other mainstream parties, making an extremist victory much less likely.

Author:  DisneyTime [ Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:45 pm ]
Post subject: 

Little Dickie wrote:
AV makes the election of extremists less likely. Under FPTP, a low turnout and lots of candidates could potentially allow an extremist candidate to win a seat on a 20 or 25% share of the vote.
Under AV, the second preferences of mainstream voters would be redistributed to other mainstream parties, making an extremist victory much less likely.


Exactly this. It's the 'second preference' votes that are redistributed - the kind of idiots who vote for extremist parties don't vote for them as their second or third preference.

Author:  beaux nidle [ Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

i've been canvassing many opinions of late and i'm now moving towards the position that anything the tories hate so much is probably a good thing.

doesn't mean i have any less disdain for the liberals in all their forms and shades, but i have at least that much disdain for the tories.


hmmmm, could be humble pie round at my house. . . . . . . . . . not quite sure yet.

Author:  Craig [ Thu Apr 28, 2011 2:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

Longpigsdad wrote:
Craig wrote:
Longpigsdad wrote:
Craig wrote:
What's better? Someone who 70% can agree on as a 'second best' choice, or to put it another way, the candidate who closest reflects the combined choices of 70% of the people?

Or someone that 30% choose as first choice, but 70% don't want?


Probably the 30%. Otherwise the serious risk is that in some areas of the UK some nob who can't even manage their own weekly alcohol/cigarette/gambling budget ends up making decisions in Parliament.


And that's worse than having some nob with a moat round his mock Tudor mansion who's never done a day's work at a proper job in their life?


Absolutely. Have you forgotten "Donnygate" already?


People in seats they'd held forever and would never lose so long as people blindly voted for one party taking bribes and ripping off tax payers? And fptp would have combated that how exactly? The very system that kept them in all the time!?

Author:  Bradford Lass [ Sun May 01, 2011 11:05 am ]
Post subject: 

This has made more sense to me than anything else I have read/written

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT9rEZqv ... e=youtu.be


so no-one gets what they really want and they could end up with a lot worse than their original choice. It'll be a no from me too then.

Author:  Hot Charity [ Sun May 01, 2011 12:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

Bradford Lass wrote:
This has made more sense to me than anything else I have read/written

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT9rEZqv ... e=youtu.be


so no-one gets what they really want and they could end up with a lot worse than their original choice. It'll be a no from me too then.


It's a funny clip, but they system they use isn't AV...

Under the current system 60-65% of voters get a government they didn't vote for, which means that most people end up with a government that is more worse than their original choice.

Case in point; Thatcher. More people voted against her than for her. AV would have provided the opportunity for anti-Thatcher voters to unite around providing support to candidates who were against her.

With people voting for more and more parties today, we have to have a system that reflects it. The Tories are the main financial backers behind the NO campaign for the simple reason that they will do better under FPTP, as they are the party with the most consistently large vote. A vote for No is a vote for making it easy for Tory governments in the future.

Author:  Longpigsdad [ Mon May 02, 2011 9:03 am ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
Or someone that 30% choose as first choice, but 70% don't want?


Quote:
Probably the 30%. Otherwise the serious risk is that in some areas of the UK some nob who can't even manage their own weekly alcohol/cigarette/gambling budget ends up making decisions in Parliament.


Quote:
And that's worse than having some nob with a moat round his mock Tudor mansion who's never done a day's work at a proper job in their life?


Quote:
Absolutely. Have you forgotten "Donnygate" already?


Quote:
People in seats they'd held forever and would never lose so long as people blindly voted for one party taking bribes and ripping off tax payers? And fptp would have combated that how exactly? The very system that kept them in all the time!?




My point was that even with FPTP the cultured and highly intellectual people of Donny still voted crooks (All Labour incidently, incl. a TU Regional Organiser) into office! Imagine what their 2nd, 3rd etc choices would be like?

Author:  DisneyTime [ Mon May 02, 2011 9:23 am ]
Post subject: 

Longpigsdad wrote:
My point was that even with FPTP the cultured and highly intellectual people of Donny still voted crooks (All Labour incidently, incl. a TU Regional Organiser) into office! Imagine what their 2nd, 3rd etc choices would be like?


Yeah, but with AV, other people's choices would finally have a hope of balancing these out. They didn't have a 50% majority, so they would't have got in straight off, and it's unlikely they were going to be enough people's second and third choices to push them over the threshold.

Author:  Craig [ Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm ]
Post subject: 

Longpigsdad wrote:
My point was that even with FPTP the cultured and highly intellectual people of Donny still voted crooks (All Labour incidently, incl. a TU Regional Organiser) into office! Imagine what their 2nd, 3rd etc choices would be like?


It's the 2nd, 3rd, choices etc. of those who didn't vote Labour that would come into play though.

There are parts of Donny and i'm sure plenty of other similar ex coal towns where people have blindly voted Labour for generations (be it right or wrong at the time) and will continue to do so. FPTP isn't ever going to challenge that, AV at least offers a chance.

Author:  Egg [ Tue May 03, 2011 8:22 am ]
Post subject: 

I haven't commented yet, but I think now the time has come.......

5 Feckin' pages about AV..........ENOUGH!! :P

Author:  exapno mapcase [ Tue May 03, 2011 9:24 am ]
Post subject: 

It's a good thread and lots of interesting comment and debate MORE !!!

Page 5 of 9 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/