It is a really stupid example using coffee and beer (not aimed at you, rather the campaign). You can buy coffee in pubs now. I even think some pubs have "Costa" machines.
Poll: F.P.T.P or A.V.. This Thursday
- Thread starter Fuzz
- Start date
It is a really stupid example using coffee and beer (not aimed at you, rather the campaign). You can buy coffee in pubs now. I even think some pubs have "Costa" machines.
Seeing as how that parliamentary system has been the bedrock of a free and fair society for 100s of years, you're probably right...
No, it isn't. It's a multi-round system. Having your first preference eliminated doesn't get you more votes, it changes where your vote goes. Otherwise you'd end up with more than 100% of votes in the final round. You don't.
If some people want to rate all remaining candidates as equally preferable the system lets them do so; I don't see the problem.
The BNP will be less likely not more likely to get in, according to all serious analysis. Under AV you need to get majority support; under FPTP you only need the largest minority. Extremist parties such as the BNP will stand much less chance of getting in.
Minority parties, which still have mainstream supports, will get more support and maybe even some more seats but extremist parties won't.
There's a reason the BNP oppose AV.
Legend.
I think you've missed the point.
Although you've also arguably proved it in a roundabout way, as the coffee voters can find some solace in the pubs even though it wasn't their first choice.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
I am a coffee snob, and i can safety tell you that every coffee i have ever had from a pub has been dirty dish water. Getting a barrista served coffee is a leauge difference to straining some boiling water through mushed up coffee beans, served with a flash of cleavage from some painted trollop
Sums it up perfectly. They should stick that on their poster campaigns, put a picture of a muslim women next to the word minority and print it in the Daily Fail
Last edited:
Fair? When MPs end up in power with fewer people voting for them than against them? See the coffee vs pub picture - how is 'coffee' the fair destination for a group of 10 people?
If people wanted "x" in power, they should vote "x" in the first place. Not "I think X, but because other people around me dont want that I will go with what someone else says in order to stop someone else getting in". It is just the same as tactical voting, it wont eliminate it, in fact it would more likely make it worse, because people will vote for minority parties like BNP, National Front, "Radical Islamist Party X" above the likes of the Tories or Labour just to stop them from getting in.....not becuase they agree with thier politics, but because they want someone else out. Hardly democratic.....
Remember my first post - I am totally undecided and see the pros and cons of BOTH systems, but I fundamentally disagree with what IS giving someone multiple votes. It doesnt matter how you dress is up, that is what it is. IMO.
Remember my first post - I am totally undecided and see the pros and cons of BOTH systems, but I fundamentally disagree with what IS giving someone multiple votes. It doesnt matter how you dress is up, that is what it is. IMO.
The fundamental difference is FPTP treats each candidate as an individual. If I want to win I need to get more votes than A or B or C.
With AV I need to get more votes than A and B and C combined. Do you treat each individual candidate separately or all as one.
I can't disagree, those are certainly potential problems with AV but they're not guaranteed to happen, unlike the inevitable and (imo) far more significant problems with FPTP.
With regard to people having more than one vote under AV, i think some people need to spend a bit longer understanding it.
It is not more than one vote, it just seems like it. Do I want a kitkat? They are all sold out. How about a Mars bar? Sold out. Time out? In the end you still only get one chocolate bar, but you could choose again and again.
If it is not the candidate you want, then it is another go, then another then another. Just because you missed the first time, why should you get another attempt?
Last edited:
" With regard to people having more than one vote under AV, i think some people need to spend a bit longer understanding it."
That is a bit of a facetious comment. Just because your viewpoint of something differs, you should not dismiss someone elses in a way that insinuates they are thick and do not understand it. People will view things differently, its not a case of not understanding the system, its a case of opinion on what it means.
That is a bit of a facetious comment. Just because your viewpoint of something differs, you should not dismiss someone elses in a way that insinuates they are thick and do not understand it. People will view things differently, its not a case of not understanding the system, its a case of opinion on what it means.
Exactly - FPTP only works well with two candidates. With more than two we need a better system, AV is that system.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
Indeed
FPTP: Can i have a kitkat? No heres a snickers
(slap in the face)
AV: Can i have a kitkat? No. can i have a mars? No. Ok then i will have the snickers, thanks
(polite discourse)
No you dont. To take the pub anology, the Starbucks crew get eliminated, and are given the option to reassign their vote to one of the other options, and so on and so on.
You can think of it like lots of little broken down FPTP style binary decisions:
Where should we go for a drink, pub or coffee house
----Pub wins
Which pub should we go to
----The Hob Goblin wins
Last edited:
That's RIDICULOUS! You don't vote against people, you vote for them. Just because people might abuse this and vote tactically is not an attack on FPTP, it's an indictment that the tactical voters are annoyed because their preferred party has less support.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
Actually, FPTP is most definitely zero sum. A vote for a candidate is a vote against another candidate. For one candidate to win necessarily means the other candidates loss.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Of course it is. Tactical voting is just a symptom of not being able to vote in a manner that successfully expresses your opinions.
It's not ridiculous, you know what I mean. When someone becomes an MP with only 35% of the vote (as happens with FPTP) whilst 65% of people voted for other people it's simply not fair. The candidate with 35% doesn't have a mandate to represent the constituency, most people voted for someone else!