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

[BunnyKillBot]

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.

Erm, we are not talking about voting for who forms a government, so the direct correlation is there. Electing a MP for a constituency == Electing a leader for a party.

And once again, the anti AV have failed to give a straight answer.

 

[meghatronic]

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.

The only thing that is wrong (IMHO) with our democracy is to do with constituency sizes, absolutely nothing to do with FPTP/AV. E.g., compare the GE results from the last three elections.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

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 think you are quite frankly confused as to what your vote in a general election actually does. You arent voting for which party you want to form a government, you are voting for which candidate you want as your local MP, which directly relates to electing a leader for a party.

Once again BDEE, you just don't want to answer the question because you can see the disjunction and you know it weakens your position, so you attack the question and throw your toys out the pram.

Before attacking somebodies understanding of a process i suggest you reevaluate your own position

 

[krooton]

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.

Do you happen to live in a constituency where your preferred party has safe seats?

 

[bam0]

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).

So you agree that the coffee/beer example is a good example of the spoiler effect that you can get under FPTP? As for pulling numbers out of your backside.....

If you believe there will not be costs then you must have had your head in the sand!

Strawman, I didn't say there wouldn't be costs, I was pointing out that the costs the No campaign are putting forward are false, and what's left once you take away what's wrong isn't really a lot and we don't even know that as much as that would be spent.

 

[=VTA=MANFACE]

FPTP

 

[RDM]

Erm, we are not talking about voting for who forms a government, so the direct correlation is there. Electing a MP for a constituency == Electing a leader for a party.

No, it is a competely different situation. If you cannot see that then I am not sure if it is worth bothering with especially with this:

And once again, the anti AV have failed to give a straight answer.

I gave a straight answer. Once againn in your arrogance you dismissed it.

It seems to be quite common amongst the more vociferous Yes to AV voters that they are incredibly dimissive of anyone voting No. I can see the Yes argument, I just disagree with it, I have a different opinion and believe that AV is no fairer and in some ways worse than FPTP. I do not think anyone is an idiot for voting for AV, I just disagree with them.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

No, it is a competely different situation. If you cannot see that then I am not sure if it is worth bothering with especially with this:

Please, explain why it is completely different. Since it appears to be exactly the same to me, i must be missing something. Inform me. Or are you all words and bluster?

 

[RDM]

Please, explain why it is completely different. Since it appears to be exactly the same to me, i must be missing something. Inform me.

I think the rest of the post you cut adequately explains why that would be a complete and utter waste of my time.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

I think the rest of the post you cut adequately explains why that would be a complete and utter waste of my time.

Well lets pretend for a moment its not me, somebody else came into this thread and is confused on the difference between electing an MP for a constituency and electing a leader for a party. How would you explain the difference to them?

I am quite prepared to be wrong on this. Not stating your argument is hardly conducive to your case.

 

[nero120]

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?

Interviewee's language is superior and implies anyone against the for vote is supporting a "broken political system".

Irony 2 - warns against the fallacy of assuming you speak for all, however then follows it up with...

It's a reasonable assumption I think, it most large groups you rarely get 100% agreement on any one issue. My problem was with his accusation against the no people, when there are many that are with the no vote.

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.

Well good luck arguing that FPTP is as awful as this guy seems to be making out...

Irony 5... oh forget it.

You seem to be pretty defensive. I think the main problem with the yes people is that they can't accept that when it comes down to it, FPTP is perfectly adequate. It seems you just want change for changes sake. If you could just admit that rather than arguing to high heaven it's "better" or even accusing the no people that they are luddites who are backing a broken system then I wouldn't have an issue.

 

[nero120]

Do you happen to live in a constituency where your preferred party has safe seats?

Yeah, islington is a pretty safe labour seat. But that's not a problem for me. The majority of people in this constituency want a labour mp so that's what they get. Why is that undemocratic? Just because my chosen candidate doesn't get a go is completely irrelevant. The people have spoken.

 

[nero120]

It seems to be quite common amongst the more vociferous Yes to AV voters that they are incredibly dimissive of anyone voting No. I can see the Yes argument, I just disagree with it, I have a different opinion and believe that AV is no fairer and in some ways worse than FPTP. I do not think anyone is an idiot for voting for AV, I just disagree with them.

And 13 pages later they still can't accept that that AV is unnecessary and no "better" than fptp.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

Yeah, islington is a pretty safe labour seat. But that's not a problem for me. The majority of people in this constituency want a labour mp so that's what they get. Why is that undemocratic? Just because my chosen candidate doesn't get a go is completely irrelevant. The people have spoken.

The islington north results are pretty clear cut with a winning majority but the south is more ambiguous. The winning party there does not have majority support.

 

[RDM]

Well lets pretend for a moment its not me,

Waste my time and play "Let's pretend!" Nah, think what you like I am done with the antipathy from the Yes side, lets see what tomorrow's vote brings.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

Waste my time and play "Let's pretend!" Nah, think what you like I am done with the antipathy from the Yes side, lets see what tomorrow's vote brings.

You know what i think? I think you don't actually have a counter argument, you know full well what your saying doesn't make any sense. All the main parties use AV to elect their leaders. Electing a leader for a party directly correlates to electing an MP for a constituency. Your have not shown a) how this correlation does not exist or b) why its ok to use AV for one system and FPTP the other.

Anybody else wants to jump in and provide his response for him thats fine by me.

 

[krooton]

Yeah, islington is a pretty safe labour seat. But that's not a problem for me. The majority of people in this constituency want a labour mp so that's what they get. Why is that undemocratic? Just because my chosen candidate doesn't get a go is completely irrelevant. The people have spoken.

Well that answers that question, I don't see why anyone who was in a constituency where their preferred party is a guaranteed win with FPTP would want to change.

Sort of like people who complain about water meters. With a water meter, people pay for what they use, a couple in a small flat pays less than a family in a big house. But those still on estimated water bills and currently paying less than their actual usage would obviously not want to switch, even though a meter is more fair.

 

[guyfawkes5]

Nero, using 'superior language', or 'big words' as I get the feeling you really mean, does not imply any kind of elitism if it's used for expression and not belittling. Especially when if you read what he actually says, which would then render the accusation of elitism ironic.

And his accusation wasn't "against the no people", it was against political figures using certain tactics to undermine a potential yes vote through undue cynicism.

It would help if you actually mentally digested what someone is saying rather than making two simplistic distinctions - this person favours a yes vote, and his tone is of an educated man - and working from there.

 

[krooton]

You know what i think? I think you don't actually have a counter argument, you know full well what your saying doesn't make any sense. All the main parties use AV to elect their leaders. Electing a leader for a party directly correlates to electing an MP for a constituency. Your have not shown a) how this correlation does not exist or b) why its ok to use AV for one system and FPTP the other.

Anybody else wants to jump in and provide his response for him thats fine by me.

I can see the slight link, a leader is a representative/spokesperson for their team/group, not unlike what an MP is for their constituency.

 

[nero120]

Well that answers that question, I don't see why anyone who was in a constituency where their preferred party is a guaranteed win with FPTP would want to change.

Sort of like people who complain about water meters. With a water meter, people pay for what they use, to a couple in a small flat pay less than a family in a big house. But those still on estimated water bills and currently pay less than their actual usage would obviously not want to switch, even though a meter is more fair.

Er, I'm not a labour supporter...