Poll: F.P.T.P or A.V.. This Thursday

[nero120]

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

1)its a stupid analogy
2)coffee won, why should we vote again?

Clearly, clearly failing to grasp to point.

So we can only assume such thinkers would happily trot all 10 people down to Starbucks, when only 3 people wanted to go there.

So, people who are against AV, answer the question to the pub coffee question. Yes No answers.

Because the example is skewed to present an obvious connection between the pub choices, inferring that everyone else would rather just go for a pint. In reality no two candidate share such connection. Or are you referring to "left" and "right", or maybe "tory" and "not tory"...

 

[BunnyKillBot]

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.

Because the example is skewed to present an obvious connection between the pub choices, inferring that everyone else would rather just go for a pint. In reality no two candidate share such connection. Or are you referring to "left" and "right", or maybe "tory" and "not tory"...

Its a simple question, yes or no. Forget AV, forget FPTP, forget the referendum, in the example thats given, is it fair to go to Starbucks?

 

[Glaucus]

I agree, but then the analogy isnt applying AV to the vote, its pointing out how absurd FPTP is.

And as said ftpt is rubbish, but av is no better. I don't think anyone has said they like fptp. But that doesn't automatically mean avid better or great.

It also does show how av would be better, or that the beer is totally different in each pub( you may only like ale and so a larger won't do so you would prefer coffee). As I said policies even with in similar parties are dramatically different and most parties are more or less central. So it's a rubbish analogy for several reasons, but keep the fingers in your ears if you want.

 

[nero120]

Its a simple question, yes or no. Forget AV, forget FPTP, forget the referendum, in the example thats given, is it fair to go to Starbucks?

I would say no. But you're not going to say that that has any bearing on the AV vs FPTP issue are you? Because, well, that would be idiotic.

 

[RDM]

Its a simple question, yes or no. Forget AV, forget FPTP, forget the referendum, in the example thats given, is it fair to go to Starbucks?

The answer is "Yes it is fair, if you had wanted to choose between the pub and starbucks you should have asked that first and then what pub, contemplate this over coffee."

 

[Mr Jack]

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.

No, it's wrong. Different voters do not get different number of votes (excepting those who choose not to rank all candidates).

At best with the issue of monotonicity you get "Well it won't happen very often".

Lack of monotonicity is a genuine problem with AV. I just consider it less serious than the problems with FPTP.

 

[Glaucus]

The answer is "Yes it is fair, if you had wanted to choose between the pub and starbucks you should have asked that first and then what pub, contemplate this over coffee."

See that would be a much better system, same as America. Each area votes and best two parties are picked then you go back. So called av voting in advance is not the same at all before someone points that out.

 

[Mr Jack]

It also does show how av would be better, or that the beer is totally different in each pub( you may only like ale and so a larger won't do so you would prefer coffee).

All of which would be taken into account by AV - because you can rank the choices. AV would give you an option that a majority would prefer; which FPTP fails to do.

 

[nero120]

The answer is "Yes it is fair, if you had wanted to choose between the pub and starbucks you should have asked that first and then what pub, contemplate this over coffee."

So to help Bunny extend this example, we need to change the voting system to first ask the entire country if they want a left govenment (non tory) or right government (tory), and if they vote left, then allow people to vote for left candidates!

 

[BunnyKillBot]

Finally, we get to some opinions, because the truth of the matter is the answer to the question IS subjective and there is no absolute right answer.

But sidestepping of a question, the sleazy politician tactic of refusing to give definite answers, is not opinion, it is hyperbole

 

[Glaucus]

No, it's wrong. Different voters do not get different number of votes (excepting those who choose not to rank all candidates).P.

yes they do statistical analysis, or how many they havechoosen. Some people may only be able to pick one party, others maybe able to pick 5 and others somewhere inbetween. That is not a problem like many think with stupid voters, it's a major problem with the av system. Then back to saguaro al when parties adapt on the basis of the previuse elections and so yes, people who put more choices down influence politics far more than a one voter.

 

[RDM]

No, it's wrong. Different voters do not get different number of votes (excepting those who choose not to rank all candidates).

Here we go again...

That is only the case when voters choose not to rank other candidates. However different people get to make a different number of choices depending on what order candidates are eliminated in. It is the difference between the perception that they get one vote in each round or if they only get one vote while someone else can get several.

You see it as they get one vote in each round, I see it as they only get one vote and their other preferences are ignored. This is purely a difference in perception and how fair or unfair you think it is.

Lack of monotonicity is a genuine problem with AV. I just consider it less serious than the problems with FPTP.

I don't. I do not think we should have any voting system where voting for your chosen candidate can actually harm their chances.

 

[RDM]

Finally, we get to some opinions, because the truth of the matter is the answer to the question IS subjective and there is no absolute right answer.

But sidestepping of a question, the sleazy politician tactic of refusing to give definite answers, is not opinion, it is hyperbole

Or is it possibly because the question itself was ******** and doesn't really translate well to the political arena. In effect you were asking a question deliberately designed to get people to agree with your position. Really, don't accuse people of using sleazy politician tactics when you are doing it yourself.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

Or is it possibly because the question itself was ******** and doesn't really translate well to the political arena. In effect you were asking a question deliberately designed to get people to agree with your position. Really, don't accuse people of using sleazy politician tactics when you are doing it yourself.

All it requires is a

'In that example, yes its fair' or 'no its unfair' (as the answer is not definite) with a 'but i don't think thats really a suitable representation of the complexities of political allegiance.'

Instead, they go immediately for the 'What a ridiculous, absurd analogy! Its so stupid i wont bother answering it'.

No, the analogy itself is quite reasonable, your opinion matters, but jumping down the throats of the ones asking it is not a reasonable response. Indeed, we have both a yes and a no from two people who are both on the FPTP side, which means the response isnt quite so leading as you claim it to be.

However, if somebody internally resolves the answer to the question as 'Yes its unfair' and can factor in a semblance of sense and logic to the way the question was asked, but supports FPTP, that suggests there is a conflict between there internal beliefs and external actions.

By refusing to answer the question and deflecting it with bluster, you are merely pandering to your fear that your response may go against your entrenched position

 

[Tunney]

I am struggling to find the 60% he mentioned on that page

NDP, Liberal Party, Bloc Québécois and (surprisingly) the Green Party are all center-left parties in Canada. They collected 60% of the vote between them.

The only mainstream ring-wing party in Canada is the Conservative party.

The majority of voters in Canada are extremely displeased with the outcome of the election.

 

[RDM]

All it requires is a

'In that example, yes its fair' or 'no its unfair' (as the answer is not definite) with a 'but i don't think thats really a suitable representation of the complexities of political allegiance.'

Instead, they go immediately for the 'What a ridiculous, absurd analogy! Its so stupid i wont bother answering it'.

No, the analogy itself is quite reasonable, your opinion matters, but jumping down the throats of the ones asking it is not a reasonable response. Indeed, we have both a yes and a no from two people who are both on the FPTP side, which means the response isnt quite so leading as you claim it to be.

However, if somebody internally resolves the answer to the question as 'Yes its unfair' and can factor in a semblance of sense and logic to the way the question was asked, but supports FPTP, that suggests there is a conflict between there internal beliefs and external actions.

By refusing to answer the question and deflecting it with bluster, you are merely pandering to your fear that your response may go against your entrenched position

You are now using the additional sleazy politician position of overexplaining something rather than just going "Sorry, you were right."

 

[BunnyKillBot]

You are now using the additional sleazy politician position of overexplaining something rather than just going "Sorry, you were right."

That is, indeed, your opinion

 

[nero120]

All it requires is a

'In that example, yes its fair' or 'no its unfair' (as the answer is not definite) with a 'but i don't think thats really a suitable representation of the complexities of political allegiance.'

Instead, they go immediately for the 'What a ridiculous, absurd analogy! Its so stupid i wont bother answering it'.

No, the analogy itself is quite reasonable, your opinion matters, but jumping down the throats of the ones asking it is not a reasonable response. Indeed, we have both a yes and a no from two people who are both on the FPTP side, which means the response isnt quite so leading as you claim it to be.

However, if somebody internally resolves the answer to the question as 'Yes its unfair' and can factor in a semblance of sense and logic to the way the question was asked, but supports FPTP, that suggests there is a conflict between there internal beliefs and external actions.

By refusing to answer the question and deflecting it with bluster, you are merely pandering to your fear that your response may go against your entrenched position

Didn't I explain why the example is not representative of the AV debate?

 

[nero120]

NDP, Liberal Party, Bloc Québécois and (surprisingly) the Green Party are all center-left parties in Canada. They collected 60% of the vote between them.

The only mainstream ring-wing party in Canada is the Conservative party.

The majority of voters in Canada are extremely displeased with the outcome of the election.

So you're saying that they will only be happy when they have a (any) center-left party in national power? Isn;t this more about the party system than the voting system?

 

[Lopéz]

FPTP