Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
Do you have a source? I would be interested to see it.
Poll: F.P.T.P or A.V.. This Thursday
- Thread starter Fuzz
- Start date
Do you have a source? I would be interested to see it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
We are talking about where you wrote
I have given you an example that shows how voting for something directly translates to voting against something else. If i give everybody an ice cream, but don't give you one, i am clearly in opposition against you.
Why is it the Yes to AV camp have such a problem accepting the fact that some people just have a different opinion on AV rather than don't understand AV?
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 3,833
- Location
- London
There are three left-wing parties, and only one right-wing party in Canadian politics. The left-wing votes are split between those parties, while all the conservatives only have one choice.
It's pretty much the textbook example of what FPTP does not represent people's desires.
It also produces highly polarised politics, which means more dogmatic nonsense which serves neither the electorate nor the country.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
I am struggling to find the 60% he mentioned on that page
Well that's why I used the plural form "we", because as a body "we", the electorate, vote for representatives. Now rather than picking on that how about addressing my point?
Sorry but that's not fact, it's a matter of interpretation. Have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
But if it was PR then left wing could form a coalition. Just because they maybe left wing. Most parties are centre or as near as damn it doesn't mean they still represent voters and major policies can still be massively different. Again that's is not an argument for av, just an argument against ftpt. Av does not and never will solve the real issues and has many downsides of it's own.
Is there any analysis that would suggest the result would have been any different under AV? Looking at the results per riding an awful lot of Conservative seats seem to have been won with over 50% of the vote already. I do not know enough of Canadian politics to know what sort of second preferences the Liberals and NDP would be likely to have.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 3,833
- Location
- London
The left-wing can form a coalition now but why should politics be polarised into two camps? As you say, policies can be massively different between two relatively similar parties.
With AV the Canadian result (assuming all left-wing voters stayed voting for other left-wing parties), would result in the Green, then Bloc Québécois, then Liberal votes all being rolled into the New Democrats, who would win the election.
Yet instead they have a majority Conservative government with less than 40% of the popular vote?!
This is a perfect example of FPTP's failings.
Because a majority of people opposing AV make arguments that clearly fail to understand the system.
There are good arguments against AV, and arguments for FPTP over AV that while I don't agree with are valid, I just haven't seen them made very often.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
It doesn't have anything to do with opinions. The entrenched few have yet to give a response to the pub/coffee question that doesn't consist of 'its a stupid analogy'
Given a simple question they are, like politicians so often before them, completely unable to give simple Yes No answers, choosing instead to attack the question or worm there way out of answering.
So come on, give us a straight answer, is it fair to trot everybody to Starbacks when only three people out of ten voted for it?
Last edited:
But that isn't the way it works. It may have changed some of the Conservative seats but without knowing second preferences you have no idea if it would. The Conservatives certianly had quite a few safe seats where AV would have made no difference and an awful lot of clear win seats where AV may not have changed the results.
As I said earlier, that is not to do with FPTP, rather voter distribution. If you look at the seats it is obviously easier to elect a new democrat than a conservative (14 seats per % point increase vs 8). It should be more about levelling constituency sizes so ON AVERAGE it takes the same number of people to elect an MP.
The thing is that one of them is the "different voters have a differing number of votes" which is purely an opinion thing so it is neither right nor wrong. At best with the issue of monotonicity you get "Well it won't happen very often".
Actually your analogy is rubbish because you didn't mention where people would prefer to go if their chosen pub is knocked out, you just assumed they would prefer to go for a beer. I may well hate the other pubs and prefer to have a coffee if I can't go to the Rake.
I would go for a coffee during the day then the pub in the evening? Surely there are more factors using that analogy than just preference. Time of day, temperature, weather etc. They could be changed for the state of the economy or NHS spending or something. It might not be popular but it is what might be needed. We needed a labour government in 1997 due to the state of the NHS, on the flip we needed a Conservative influence now due the economy.
I would take it even further. On a sunny day I might have a beer, be a bit liberal, a refreshing dose of alcohol. On a rainy morning I would have a bitter coffee, be a bit conservative.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
Actually your analogy is rubbish because you didn't mention where people would prefer to go if their chosen pub is knocked out, you just assumed they would prefer to go for a beer. I may well hate the other pubs and prefer to have a coffee if I can't go to the Rake.
I agree, but then the analogy isnt applying AV to the vote, its pointing out how absurd FPTP is.