No, your maths is still wrong because you are not accounting for eliminated ballots that have no further preferences.
Poll: F.P.T.P or A.V.. This Thursday
- Thread starter Fuzz
- Start date
No, your maths is still wrong because you are not accounting for eliminated ballots that have no further preferences.
No, under av you do not need 51%, due to not having to rank all candidates you can still get an election with well under 50% depending how people vote. It's either over 50% or when all votes are allocated.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
Indeed, i am assuming an absolute best case scenario, and even in a best case scenario the greens probably won't win. Your point?
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
Oh my God you trolls, i am using real world data. AV requires a majority, thats the entire point of AV. Either fault my maths, complain about the lack of accounting for tactical voting, or DONT POST
You are saying you need over 50% you don't, depending how people vote. It's not trolling. It's a correction.
My point is that your maths is wrong. That is all. Not to mention that the real issue is not minority parties getting more seats but minority parties getting more power without actually having representation.
To be clear I have no problem with minority parties getting more power, I just feel that it should be with representation.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
To Win An Election Under AV You Need Over 50% Of The Vote In Any Given Round
That Is What A Majority Is
Can I Explain Any Simpler?
He just needs to change it to "over 50% of the votes for that round"
It still doesn't make much sense;
The percentages you give as higher are those of the excluded pool, not the total vote and has no bearing on the "loyalty" of people who express a 1st preference for the greens.BunnyKillBot said:
Given that in your example Lib Dem voters are likely on their 3rd or lower preference and the same for the Labour/Conservative voters (depending who is excluded) it's not unreasonable to suppose the Greens could still win.
And as others have said all this is assuming that the excluded voters have given sufficient preferences to still be counted.
That's also not a best case scenario for the Greens either, the more people whose preferences are exhausted the larger the proportion of the remaining total votes their preferences are.
Yep that would make more sense, but still no fairer than ftpt as it is not 50% of voters. If enough people don't put 2, 3 or 4 votes down you can still end up with a mp on well under 50%.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
You are now talking about how if lots of people treat it just like fptp and dont put down preferences there wont be enough redistributed votes to make a majority, thus suggesting the majority of the electorate don't understand the point of AV? Tangent that has NOTHING WHAT SO EVER TO DO WITH MY POINT.
I have used a real world example to show that it is extremely unlikely for the Greens to get into power under AV, which they did under FPTP. Stop trolling with your nonsense, its pathetic. If the maths is wrong, prove it.
No you can still have 2 or 3rd votes and still be eliminated and with no further choices then you get no vote carried on. So no it's not treating it like fptp. It's just the outcome is similar.
Maths will always be wrong, as we don't know how people will vote and how many parties they will vote for. I would guess most people will vote only for two parties and will still be tactical. A fringe party as their first to stick it to the man, then their sensible choice second for on of the large parties.
There is still tactical voting, the candidate still does not need 50% of total votes. Which are the two biggest yes campaign lies.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
I like how any view that differs from Bunny is a troll.
Amusing.
I have put my "winning" vote in just before lunch
He doesn't have a different view to me, he isnt making a counter argument, you and he are TROLLING. Your post has nothing what so ever to do with the title of this thread.
I have produced a mathematical model using real world data, what have you done? Apart from throw insults?
The problem is that your real world example isn't very real world as you have to have two pretty major assumptions for it to work.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
What are those assumptions?
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
The two bits in bold right at the top of your post?
Which i took the liberty to point out at the top of my post, thus informing the reader. I showed the flaw, not you, and you still want to troll me on it?
