But if the current voter turn-out, FPTP system and safe-seats keep you in power, why bother, eh?
Poll: F.P.T.P or A.V.. This Thursday
- Thread starter Fuzz
- Start date
But if the current voter turn-out, FPTP system and safe-seats keep you in power, why bother, eh?
Indeed, I am sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that one supports AV and the other doesn't...
Personally I think rubbish analogies are rubbish regardless of which side they support. The coffee vs beer one was retarded too,
Except the race one literally doesn't make sense as he's discussing a race being lost by someone because the criteria for winning the race were not purely the performance in the race alone. There is no parallel to AV there.
And the coffee one didn't make sense because no one would ask "Do you fancy coffee or one of these distinct pubs?" It would be "Do you fancy coffee or beer?" There is no parallel to FPTP there either. Rubbish analogy is rubbish.
The (really poor) point of the race analogy is that the winner of the race didn't win. That was it. Rubbish analogy is rubbish.
However because you support AV for some reason the first rubbish analogy is good but the second rubbish analogy remains rubbish...
I dont think you can really compare this can you?
Correct me if I am wrong, but thier votes are not counted based on numbers of voters per ward, but rather the voters as a whole and therfore there is no direct comparison to be made here.
This thread has really helped me to decided that I am going to go with my original 51% influence and vote NO to AV tomorrow. Mainly because some of the stupid arguments (like the coffee one - which assumes there is one party with one set of policies and all the others think the same, which of course is NOT the case) in the YES camp are totally ridiculous and for the TINY benefit that it would bring the costs are not justified and it will bring its own, worse problems than FPTP.
The coffee example doesn't do what you say, it's just a simple example of the spoiler effect and how it applies to voting. If you have several centre-right candidates but only one left wing candidate the right leaning vote will be split amongst them and under FPTP means that the left wing candidate would be more likely to win, even though a majority of the voters may be right leaning and would rather have one of the other right leaning candidates than the left wing one.
On the costs issue, what costs, there aren't going to be counting machines, the referendum is paid for, anything else is a piddlingly small amount.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 3,833
- Location
- London
What other and worse problems will it bring?
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
So rubbish analogies about coffee are fine (because they support AV) but rubbish analogies about running are bad (because they do not support AV)?
No Rubbish race analogies are bad because they have nothing to do with AV what so ever. You dont run a race, see who comes in first then dish out the medal to some one else. You have completely ignored the eliminate the loser, redistribute votes, eliminate the loser, redistribute votes etc etc step. Also, a runner runs for himself by himself. A candidate runs by himself for the people. Again for the analogy to make any sense requires the crowd (the people) to have a direct influence on who wins.
The only things that can be determined from the coffee example:
1) Under FPTP, they would definitely go to Starbacks
2) Under AV, they would definately not go to the outlet with the least votes (unless there was a clear 50% majority)
The only things that can be determined from the race example:
1) Under FPTP, the first person to cross the line wins
2) Under AV, the last person to cross the line definately doesn't win (unless there was a clear 50% majority, how that is measured in this fail example is anybodys guess)
Everything else is pure conjecture
Yes you can, its the exact same principle on a smaller scale. Just because you can't wrap your brain cells around it doesn't make it not true
Last edited:
Yes you can, its the exact same principle on a smaller scale. Just because you can't wrap your brain cells around it doesn't make it not true
Can you please explain to me then the voting process of leadership elections and how they are a direct comparison of votes cast in wards and then wards won totalled up? It is like comparing a 100m race with a marathon. They are the same concept, but the way they are run are totally different.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
Nope, because where you talk about 'wards and then wards won totalled up' I have absolutely no idea what you mean, and thusly can't see how its applicable.
Last edited:
Do we need to go over it all again? Read the last 11 pages.....
But it does. They key word you use is "IF". "IF" you have one right wing party. "IF" you have x number of x. Lets face it....that is not the reality of the situation. The coffee example does not wash because the 7 people all wanted the same thing (BEER) and the 3 wanted coffee, yet the BEER people all had DIFFERENT views. In reality the number of wards that would have parties plugging for election that compare to this example, is probably less than 10% (I have nothing to back this up, but I think it is safe to say it is not likely).
If you believe there will not be costs then you must have had your head in the sand!
ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFL.
In that case how can you possibly comment on the voting processes being the same for general elections and party leaderships.........you obviously have NO CLUE about how a general election works!
This has actually made me LOL.
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 1,807
- Location
- State of Volatile Apathy
Never seen such a short post riddled with such fallacy, so I said I'd do this just once:
Irony 1 - quotes an article where the interviewee says the public should be given some credit for making their own decisions. Responds that the interviewee is elitist?
Irony 2 - warns against the fallacy of assuming you speak for all, however then follows it up with...
Irony 3 - stating that anyone who disagrees with him is automatically an "idiot", kind of running against the fraternalistic ideals you were holding up a minute ago there...
Irony 4 - accuses those disagreeing with his stance of lacking "understanding", in spite of not providing any actual evidence or even summary of how a voting system influenced the development of Great Britain in a way another voting system would not, and of course having not demonstrated the greatest ability to 'understand' things himself in the few sentences prior to this statement anyway.
Irony 5... oh forget it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
Alternatively, you could grow up and try to explain your point to me.
Afaik we are talking about electing candidates in our constitutes.
The point that he was trying to make was that in a General Election you vote for your representative only, the party with the most representatives then makes up the government. So in reality your vote is ONLY for your representative and has no bearing on who forms the government. With a party leader election or mayoral election you are directly voting for the person that will take office. Therefore to compare the two is pretty pointless as you are using different voting methods to acheive different aims.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
So, as I said, both rubbish analogies... glad we agree.
NO. The race example explicitly states somebody wins under AV. The coffee example doesn't state a clear winner.
LOL - My point is you are saying that voting in a general election and parties voting for thier leader are the same thing and work the same way.
THEY ARE NOT. They do NOT work the same way, one is not just a smaller scale of the other.
I would suggest before posting anything else that you learn how a general election works, because to be perfectly honest I dont see how you can possibly argue any point when you have no understanding of the process.
I don't agree. I don't believe FPTP is bad, its gotten us to where we are and there is nothing wrong with our democracy (other than our inability as a society to produce good leaders, which AV won't fix). Where is the need for change? I just don't see it.
And? They are still both rubbish analogies. Or do they now have to be rubbish analogies in exactly the same way?