Lol, that would be the flaw that needed to be pointed out to you? By me? Twice? I am not "trolling" you on it, just saying that, as a real world example, it really isn't a very good example. It also made me start to wonder if you actually knew how AV works as it isn't the first time that you have suggested that you need over 50% of the vote to get a seat.
Poll: F.P.T.P or A.V.. This Thursday
- Thread starter Fuzz
- Start date
Lol, that would be the flaw that needed to be pointed out to you? By me? Twice? I am not "trolling" you on it, just saying that, as a real world example, it really isn't a very good example. It also made me start to wonder if you actually knew how AV works as it isn't the first time that you have suggested that you need over 50% of the vote to get a seat.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
Thats almost as good as BDEEs 3 out of 10 is a majority.
I have not given you an example that can be mathematically wrong, or altered by how people would express a preferential vote.
It is certain the first 5 eliminations would happen in that order.
It is a requirement that to have won the Greens would need significant number of reallocated votes from all other voters.
This isn't yeah but we don't know how people might have voted, i have used real world data from the last election
The only thing i cannot account for is the effect of tactical voting under FPTP
RDM - Save your efforts, there is no point in trying to debate with this person, if you do not agree with him you just get called a troll. Its not a debate, its just talking at someone who will fail to take your points on board. You are better off waiting for someone else from the yes camp to post and debate with them instead.
True, but that would be down to the voters themselves rather than just the system, as it is with FPTP.
So whilst that plurality winning is an outcome that can occur in both voting methods, it is slightly less likely to with AV provided people vote correctly. People that will only vote for a single party do so out of blind loyalty more often than out of their policies being agreeable, and I am certain even they could find another party they would rather have as a second choice than not.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
I would help Bunny but I can't afford anymore time on this, I've got the Scottish election today.
But, VOTE AV!!
I am genuinely appalled that they are being allowed to continue to blatantly troll on this forum.
All we get is
and
They don't make any points of their own, they just attack, attack, attack. How can people get so delluded?
Compared to your they're trolling me, why are you posting. The fact is you don't seem to understand that in av you can win with under 50% and that people don't have to and probably will not rank ALL candidates, then you say such people don't know how av works. Yes they do you don't seem to understand that people won't rank all candidates. It's not treating it like ftpt at all.
And as I said making such assumptions makes all "real world"" examples, utterly and totally pointless.
It's not a requirement people rank all 8 candidates, making the maths pointless.
Depending on runners and votes 3/10 is a majority a relative majority and IMO is the likely outcome for av anyway. I doubt most people will rank all 8 candidates and as such the winner is unlikely to get 50% of votes.
And as I said making such assumptions makes all "real world"" examples, utterly and totally pointless.
It's not a requirement people rank all 8 candidates, making the maths pointless.
Depending on runners and votes 3/10 is a majority a relative majority and IMO is the likely outcome for av anyway. I doubt most people will rank all 8 candidates and as such the winner is unlikely to get 50% of votes.
Last edited:
I don't know, if you are a BNP voter after UKIP and the English Democrats you are going to rapidly run out of options.
You never answered me a number of pages back when I asked if you were dvdbunny. Are you?
I don't know, if you are a BNP voter after UKIP and the English Democrats you are going to rapidly run out of options.
A vote of the above would out of play pretty quickly in AV, and one of the No Camps arguments is that AV will give extremist minorities more power. The above will have the extremist numpty essentially have no say, just like they currently would with FPTP.
Extremist minorities still get shafted with AV, and the more convetionally "agreeable" voters will have a better way to express their feelings and preferences.
Yep because the probablem isn't fptp, its that we elect in boundaries, rather than national. Only a nationally combined vote would make any real difference.
However av will still give minority groups a glimmer of hope. As people can tactically vote a minority party as a stuff you and as such Is recorded on the stats. However if enough people do this there is a small chance they could nock out one of the bigger parties and when that happens all bets are off as if you select a big party as a first choice then your second or third choices are going to be pretty random.
I don't think they are, I also disagreed with your example if you look up, and gave other reasons why.
That is only part of the debate though.
My initial concern and my biggest reason for voting no, is what I consider people getting multiple votes. There is no need to got back over the "AV is ONE vote" argument becauase it has been done, but I do not see it as one vote - IN MY OPINION It is people getting another go because thier candidate didnt win, which I see as fundamentaly wrong in democracy.
Agree it's not one vote, if it was one coyote, the stats would reflect that. But they won't, what they really mean is one vote per round, which is Tyne point and not one vote.
Only way to get what most people want is national voting, where you can really just pick who you want and they will get the seats.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
source: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/RM-AVarticle.PDF
Note that – contrary to the arguments of some opponents of AV, this system
does not involve some people getting more votes than others. Every
voter gets just one vote, which is counted several times. Your second
preference is not a second vote, it is an instruction about how you want your
(only) vote to be used if it would be wasted because your first choice
candidate can’t win
It actually doesn't matter if you 'dont see it as'. Its a fact. That you are incapable of comprehending a fact does not make it false.
Or are you going to try and tell me the source of this document are biased in favour of av?
It's not fact at all.
How will the stats look at the end, some votes are counted multiple times. That is fact and those stats will have influence on future policies and parties as a whole.
Now you may not see that as a problem, but you can not deny some people will get multiple votes. The thing is av is not need, national vote and as such it would be some sort of PR system. Then you don't need all this rubbish.
How will the stats look at the end, some votes are counted multiple times. That is fact and those stats will have influence on future policies and parties as a whole.
Now you may not see that as a problem, but you can not deny some people will get multiple votes. The thing is av is not need, national vote and as such it would be some sort of PR system. Then you don't need all this rubbish.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
No dude, its fact. It is 1 + 1 = 2. You can argue out your backside all you like. You can tell me there is a tea pot on the otherside of the moon. It doesn't change what is, and what is not.
Are you claiming the author of the source i quoted, Roger Mortimore from ipsos mori is a liar? Yes or No answer
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 3,833
- Location
- London
If 100,000 people vote, there will only be 100,000 votes at the end of the counting.
So how will the stats look? People get more votes and more influence.
This is why you are impossible to debate with, you FAIL to take on board other peoples views. It is NOT fact, it is OPINION, something which you FAIL to understand.
Third time of asking: Are you also dvdbunny please?
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
Do you believe the author of the source i quoted, Roger Mortimore from ipsos mori is a liar? Yes or No answer
As stated above:
Last edited: