Unfortunately I do, hence why arguing with you is pointless.
Poll: F.P.T.P or A.V.. This Thursday
- Thread starter Fuzz
- Start date
Unfortunately I do, hence why arguing with you is pointless.
I am not a Labour supporter but am in a pretty safe Labour seat and I still do not want AV...
So, as I said, both rubbish analogies... glad we agree.
Do you honestly not see the parallel with the pub/coffee analogy and AV?
Everyone who wants to go to the pub has to choose one pub. Everyone who wants a left wing government has to choose one left wing party.
There are several pubs, and everyone who chose one would rather go to any pub than to the coffee house. There are several left wing parties, everyone who chooses a left wing party would rather they won than the right wing party.
AV deals with this by choosing the winner based on majority opinion, FPTP doesn't.
If you'd rather the right wing party got in then fair enough, admit it and admit that you're voting against AV for that reason. But surely you can see AV's potential for improving voter satisfaction? Not to mention the fact that tactical is reduced under AV...
you're right, his accusation wasn't "against the no people", but since the no campaign and people who support no are looking for the same result, he was inferring that that result is supporting a "broken political system" (his words). Spin it how you like, the guy comes across as an arrogant ****.
And try not to be so condescending, it might help your argument.
Well I asked if you lived in a safe seat for your preferred party, and your reply was: "Yeah, islington is a pretty safe labour seat."
You could see how I read in to that as "Yes, I do."
Re-reading I see that you do indicate that it isn't your actual choice, so I apologise for misreading initially.
I still don't agree that a large chunk of voters in a constituency end up having no say at governmental elections is fair. Yes, fixing the boarders would help with this, but that isn't on the cards and I feel that AV is more representative of overall consensus than FPTP.
What a load of ****. There are so many fallacies and untruths in there I don't even know where to begin. Instead I'll just link to this, which explains everything very nicely:
http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/is-av-better-than-fptp/
I thought this was being done too? It was part of the bill that got the referendum wasn't it? Evening the sizes of the constinuencies?
Not really are there. You did see the teacher explaining it to the class right. The thing the public don't like, is, it's too complicated. One vote for one person should be where it ends!
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
Cool so RDM is defeated on that issue.
And here is another one i am not sure anybody has touched on yet.
At the point where it comes to forming governments, after the votes have been cast and MPs elected, we have a little special case caveat called a Hung Parliament. To form a government, any given party have the majority of seats, ergo >50%.
If FPTP is the best system, why do we not apply FPTP when forming governments after MPs have been elected?
I am looking forward to the responses on this one
And here is another one i am not sure anybody has touched on yet.
At the point where it comes to forming governments, after the votes have been cast and MPs elected, we have a little special case caveat called a Hung Parliament. To form a government, any given party have the majority of seats, ergo >50%.
If FPTP is the best system, why do we not apply FPTP when forming governments after MPs have been elected?
I am looking forward to the responses on this one
Last edited:
What a load of crap.
First clip: Coalitions aren't going to suddenly happen all the time, plus they make it out to be in the interests of any party as they can do what they want and blame the other. Why wouldn't everyone want that then?
Second clip: It's not a timed race, it's supposed to be a majority consensus.
Third clip: Purposefully having her explain it in and unstructured and convoluted manner is a pretty cheap tactic.
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 1,807
- Location
- State of Volatile Apathy
'Broken political system' referred to entrenched cynical interests, not the voting system.
And I apologise if I came across as condescending, but didn't you start off your argument calling everyone who disagreed with your stance on this issue 'idiots'?
Sorry you're right, shouldn't be reading the forums at work!
But that's democracy in action! The people have voted for their preferred candidate and a majority has gone to the winner. Just because the elected party doesn't change very often doesn't mean that it isn't fair, I just don't understand this line of reasoning.
Complicated? Rank your preferences in order. It's ridiculously simple. If you're really attached to only voting for one person, then only vote for one person...
Also, the increase in complexity is a tiny amount to pay for a much better representation of public opinion. Do you agree that AV will better gauge opinion?
Also the horse race analogy is 100% flawed. The reason? An election is not a horse race.
In FPTP there is no post, but in AV there is (50%)
So the horse race is just nonsensical.
So a simple, but unfair system is better than a slightly more complicated (and not really if explained in a concise manner) one that shows overall weighted preference?
Sorry you're right, shouldn't be reading the forums at work!
But that's democracy in action! The people have voted for their preferred candidate and a majority has gone to the winner. Just because the elected party doesn't change very often doesn't mean that it isn't fair, I just don't understand this line of reasoning.
A majority minority and an actual majority are pretty different.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
Its ok, i have moved on now. Why is fptp not applied when forming governments after mps have been elected.The only equivalent would be 2 candidates going into an MP coalition when there is no clear majority at a constitute level.
This is coming from someone who doesnt know how a general election works..... I know exactly what my vote does and I am not the one with a "weakened" position. You did that to yourself when you admitted you do not know the process of a general election. I have answered the question - I am not here to teach you on how a general election works, but how you can try and justify a voting system, when you do not know how the actual result of the general election works, which is what the whole YES/NO argument is all about, quite frankly baffles me. In order to know which way to decide, you dont only need to know about how each form of voting works, but also the way in which the results of those votes determines the outcome. You have already admitted to not understanding that, therefore how can anything you say be at all jusitfied? I am throwing no toys at all, I am simply pointing out that you need to familiarise yourself first with how the results of the voting actually go on to effect the overall outcome of voting in a general election.
The ULTIMATE end result, be it FPTP or AV, of the candidates who are elected in each ward, result in who forms the government, so of course you are voting for which party gets in. Its not JUST about who you want to represent you as your MP. Yes that is part of it, but there is a bigger picture. Regardless of FPTP or AV this will STILL be the case, so you need to understand how it works before you make a decision, let alone try to justify that decision, so I would again suggest you do some research into how a general election works.
No I do not, because as stated about two dozen times already, the example is not represenative of the real life situation.....