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

FPTP or AV

  • FPTP

    Votes: 319 37.1%

  • AV

    Votes: 359 41.8%

  • Pfft, Will Still End Up Run By Crooks

    Votes: 181 21.1%
  • Total voters
    859
RDM said:
Not a fan to be honest, I see voting as expressing my support for a party so there is no way I would like to have to show any sort of support for parties such as the Greens, Socialist Worker Party, BNP or English Democrats.
Click to expand...

But you're not trying to 'show support', you're trying to find the candidate who most accurately reflects your views. If your preferred candidate is not available, you might as well express you preferences all the way down?

Not aimed at anyone in particular, but I don't know how anyone can honestly argue that FPTP is a better system than AV. Unless they believe they have the most to gain in the short term by maintaining the status quo, in which case, you're being incredibly short sighted.

edit: It's been too long since I've voted and I've totally got this around the wrong way, so the below doesn't apply at ALL to the UK AV. It's just for electing the upper house. Link kept for fun!
It could be worth noting that in Australia, your voting slip for the upper house looks a bit like this (from memory):

http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/3616/samplevotingcard.png

So you can number all the candidates if you want, or optionally stick a '1' in the box for the party you most want to win and then your preferences are allocated as they prefer.
 
Last edited:
Sorry yes 90 and 110.

Again you are doing it again by round, I am not talking about per round, I am talking about over all.

Overall we have had
55 votes for lib
35 votes for Tories
20 votes for lab

That does not equal 90 and is exactly what the stats will show.
 
RDM said:
And there is pretty much your problem right there. This isn't really about sides and many different people will have many different reasons for voting one way or another. I am not on AcidHell2's "side" I just happen to agree with him in this instance that I should (and did) vote "No" to AV. The reasons we have for voting "No" are more likely different.

So the next time you call someone deluded, do it for the right reasons eh?
Click to expand...

You have stated you believe AV gives some voters multiple effective votes.

You have not provided a scrap of EVIDENCE to prove it.

I can provide EVIDENCE in the case against you

You are as culpable as he is.
 
You can't provide evidence, the only evidence you have given is per round. Something non of us disagree on. What you have totally ignored is the statistics based on ALL rounds.


AcidHell2 said:
Sorry yes 90 and 110.

Again you are doing it again by round, I am not talking about per round, I am talking about over all.

Overall we have had
55 votes for lib
35 votes for Tories
20 votes for lab

That does not equal 90 and is exactly what the stats will show.
Click to expand...
 
BunnyKillBot said:
You have stated you believe AV gives some voters multiple effective votes.

You have not provided a scrap of EVIDENCE to prove it.

I can provide EVIDENCE in the case against you

You are as culpable as he is.
Click to expand...

I did. You ignored it because you wanted stats. Remember you started going on about the bible?
 
BunnyKillBot said:
You have stated you believe AV gives some voters multiple effective votes.

You have not provided a scrap of EVIDENCE to prove it.
Click to expand...

I don't think RDM ever said it as explicitly as that. He alluded to a level of understanding that he has for voters who think you 'don't get one vote' with AV.

I also have that same understanding (to a degree). While "more than one vote" is wrong (everyone gets one vote at the start and one vote per person counts at the end), some people get multiple 'tries' (if you like), and therein is the confusion.

Whether or not it is a valid confusion or interpretation is another matter. I don't see where RDM said it was valid.
 
AcidHell2 said:
Sorry yes 90 and 110.

Again you are doing it again by round, I am not talking about per round, I am talking about over all.

Overall we have had
55 votes for lib
35 votes for Tories
20 votes for lab

That does not equal 90 and is exactly what the stats will show.
Click to expand...

Is this round 2 of your example? Where have the 20 votes for lab come from? They moved in round 1. In round 2 in your example there are 0 votes for lab

RDM said:
I did. You ignored it because you wanted stats. Remember you started going on about the bible?
Click to expand...

Did you? I am afraid i can't see your 'proof' anywhere. You might need to restate it more clearly.

Circles in circles, deluded logic, you don't have a scrap of evidence so you just default back to the same old attack the opposition routine. Next up, you restate 'the fact of the matter is....' all the while unable to provide a scrap of proof.
 
drizzy said:
But you're not trying to 'show support', you're trying to find the candidate who most accurately reflects your views. If your preferred candidate is not available, you might as well express you preferences all the way down?
Click to expand...

Not really, I am not sure who I find worse between the Greens, BNP, English Democrats or Socialist Workers to be honest. Putting one above any of the others would be showing a preference to them. It is a personal view with regards to voting and why I could not support a system similar to the one used in Australia.

drizzy said:
Not aimed at anyone in particular, but I don't know how anyone can honestly argue that FPTP is a better system than AV. Unless they believe they have the most to gain in the short term by maintaining the status quo, in which case, you're being incredibly short sighted.
Click to expand...

Because AV has it's own problems which for some people are worse than the problems that FPTP has. It really is that simple. For me it has nothing to do with maintaining the status quo.

drizzy said:
So you can number all the candidates if you want, or optionally stick a '1' in the box for the party you most want to win and then your preferences are allocated as they prefer.
Click to expand...

So effectively passing your preferences to be allocated by someone else? I am not really a huge fan of that either sorry!
 
Energize said:
Well I voted yes, one can only hope that it will pass and finally end tactical voting.
Click to expand...

The result will be no.

However, if by some miracle the result it a yes, that doesnt mean it will come in. A refferendum is only to get public opinion, its result doesnt make it law.
 
Energize said:
Well I voted yes, one can only hope that it will pass and finally end tactical voting.
Click to expand...

It changes tactical voting, it does not stop it.

I can vote ukip or another minority party as first preference as a tactical vote against main stream. I can then put my proper main stream preference as 2nd vote. My 1st choice vote will be recorded in the stats and parties can poor over this data and analyse and may wish to change certain policies to try and gain votes. So tactical voting won't of gone any where its just changed from one system to another.
 
AcidHell2 said:
Why are you still not getting it, that is the statistics for ALL rounds. Not 90 is it.
Click to expand...

I AM talking about all rounds. In the first round, there are 90 votes, in the last round, there are 90 votes. For each reallocation you -1 from the eliminated party and +1 to the preferred party. -1 + 1 = 0, = 90 90 90 90 90 90 Oh My God

ROUND 1
20
30
10

ELIMINATION STAGE
10-1 , 20+1
9-1 , 21+1
8-1 , 22+1
7-1 , 23+1
6-1 , 24+1

5-1, 30+1
4-1, 31+1
3-1, 32+1
2-1, 33+1
1-1, 34+1

ROUND 2
25
35
0
 
Last edited:
No you are still totalling for each round, that is not how stats are recorded. Go read up on what stats are. The stats will show a total of 110 votes split over two rounds.
You only -1 for the election result, not for the stats, this seems to be totally over your head.

The stats will record that 20 people had their first vote ignored and voted again. At the end the stats will not show zero votes for labour, it will show all votes, all 110 of them.
 
AcidHell2 said:
No you are still totalling for each round, that is not how stats are recorded. Go read up on what stats are. The stats will show a total of 110 votes split over two rounds.
You only -1 for the election result, not for the stats, this seems to be totally over your head.

The stats will record that 20 people had their first vote ignored and voted again. At the end the stats will not show zero votes for labour, it will show all votes, all 110 of them.
Click to expand...

You STILL have no defined what 'stats' are.
 
BunnyKillBot said:
YOU STILL HAVE NOT DEFINED WHAT 'STATS' ARE
Click to expand...

Stats is short for statistics and are what is published after the results. Really you are just trolling you know what stats are and you must know you are wrong.

The table in here is an example of the 2010 general election stats

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/

If it was av those stats would be a lot more complicated. It would also show more votes than number of people who turned out.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom