AV - whats the crack?


Status
Not open for further replies.
The fact you all totally and utterly miss the point speaks volumes about why we shouldnt have it in the slightest..

You want it because you do but the bigger picture is something you just refuse to see.........

And thats still before we look at its impressive track record in the world we live in....................




You"re as ever on here Wolfie a total utter waste of a lentil............

Still keep on howling..

That's a dummy well and truly spat :lol:
 
Well either you're suggesting you're as intelligent as Stephen Hawking or you don't understand it.

What an odd turn.



Proving the point beyond doubt mate and you are obviously totally incapable of a wider sense of comprehension..............

Lay bets you are some sort of Uni anorak living in a bubble thats spawned the view that just because you understand things they should be foisted on everyone else not as fortunate as yourself intellectually...............

Step forth from the halls the world does exist beyond them.............

That's a dummy well and truly spat :lol:

nope Wolfie you"ve always been a lentil short of a soup mate................ :-D

If it was truly spat you would have dropped the knitting and not taken so long for the oh so cutting reposte..........

2/10 still fails the mid term test on here..................

:-D
 
Proving the point beyond doubt mate and you are obviously totally incapable of a wider sense of comprehension..............

Lay bets you are some sort of Uni anorak living in a bubble thats spawned the view that just because you understand things they should be foisted on everyone else not as fortunate as yourself intellectually...............

Step forth from the halls the world does exist beyond them.............



nope Wolfie you"ve always been a lentil short of a soup mate................ :-D

If it was truly spat you would have dropped the knitting and not taken so long for the oh so cutting reposte..........

2/10 still fails the mid term test on here..................

:-D

I didn't realise there was a time limit on replies. I'll try to get here quicker in future. You've always been a bad loser when it comes to a debate though - you clearly don't learn from your considerable experience.
 
Proving the point beyond doubt mate and you are obviously totally incapable of a wider sense of comprehension..............

Lay bets you are some sort of Uni anorak living in a bubble thats spawned the view that just because you understand things they should be foisted on everyone else not as fortunate as yourself intellectually...............

Step forth from the halls the world does exist beyond them.............

Tedious, but no.

You implied it was impossible to understand. As I said, my 80 year old uneducated grandmother understands it. I'd say you're doing people a disservice given, y'know, that it's fairly straightforward.

It's a fairly shite argument all things considered. At least some have taken the time to disagree with the specifics of the set-up.
 
the streaker said:
I do so it should be.............. :lol:

You have just reinforced my point more than any post on any message board ever could mate..................

Tanya Gold once wrote a good article about this kind of thing.






Can't seem to find the link though.
 
I didn't realise there was a time limit on replies. I'll try to get here quicker in future. You've always been a bad loser when it comes to a debate though - you clearly don't learn from your considerable experience.

As ever wolfie you never have an argument...............

It was straight in and ooh look its a dummy..........

Its always yours though as your total lack of depth and shallow self shows up on here time after time after time..........:lol:

Tedious, but no.

You implied it was impossible to understand. As I said, my 80 year old uneducated grandmother understands it. I'd say you're doing people a disservice given, y'know, that it's fairly straightforward.

It's a fairly shite argument all things considered. At least some have taken the time to disagree with the specifics of the set-up.

Its not at all because you have only ever considered the fact that you and your parents understand it...........which as you clearly want it you wouldnt be saying anything diferent anyway would you...

There are a hell of a lot of folk who dont and reading this thread only illustrates that perfectly and the arguments for this have got into deep water in an attempt to clarify this and have only muddied waters for these folk.

And thats before we look at the rininging endorsements AV has around the rest of the world where its of course been oh so sucessful all over the place.

The proof of a pudding is in the eating and this one world wide is still on the shelf at the back of the warehouse...........
 
Even if it means 60% of people who voted don't want them



Is his not the most popular he got 42% of the vote.

Yes, he is as he got the largest percentage and that's part of my point. How can you disregard to person who gets the most first choice votes, which there is a danger of under AV?

This is avoided under full PR as the top few in an enlarged constituency get in.

(However, someone earlier in the thread said he couldn't be the most popular as he didn't get 50%? Eh???)

 
Proving the point beyond doubt mate and you are obviously totally incapable of a wider sense of comprehension..............

Lay bets you are some sort of Uni anorak living in a bubble thats spawned the view that just because you understand things they should be foisted on everyone else not as fortunate as yourself intellectually...............

Step forth from the halls the world does exist beyond them.............

But you understand it, and have decided - based on no evidence whatsoever - that the 'intellectual unfortunates' won't.

You vote for your favourite, and you can also say at the same time who you like if your favourite doesn't win. That's it.

Your perspective;

Intellectual unfortunate - "I would like some bread please."
Shop - "We have no bread."
Intellectual unfortunate - "Then I will surely starve."


My perspective;

Intellectual unfortunate - "I would like some bread please."
Shop - "We have no bread."
Intellectual unfortunate - "Then I will have a Pot Noodle."


There are many stupid people out there, but few so stupid as to be unable to make ranked choices.
 
But you understand it, and have decided - based on no evidence whatsoever - that the 'intellectual unfortunates' won't.

You vote for your favourite, and you can also say at the same time who you like if your favourite doesn't win. That's it.

Your perspective;

Intellectual unfortunate - "I would like some bread please."
Shop - "We have no bread."
Intellectual unfortunate - "Then I will surely starve."


My perspective;

Intellectual unfortunate - "I would like some bread please."
Shop - "We have no bread."
Intellectual unfortunate - "Then I will have a Pot Noodle."


There are many stupid people out there, but few so stupid as to be unable to make ranked choices.


Yep more incomprehensible dribble from the man who thinks a country should vote twice to ensure whats required is achieved.............

Stick to advertising as thats clearly where the dribble was conceived............
 
Yes, he is as he got the largest percentage and that's part of my point. How can you disregard to person who gets the most first choice votes, which there is a danger of under AV?

This is avoided under full PR as the top few in an enlarged constituency get in.

(However, someone earlier in the thread said he couldn't be the most popular as he didn't get 50%? Eh???)


He is the most popular, but all we know is more than half the population didn't want him. AV gives us the chance to find out what the rest want. And if someone got 40-odd%, then it's extremely likely that many within the 60% or so would have indicated that bloke as a second preference. The only circumstance where that wouldn't be the case is if that person was incredibly divisive, and in that instance it's even more important to register the will of that 60%.

Daft example alert; Say, for instance, there was a feminist candidate who pledged to give £1m to every women if they were elected, and that £1m could only be spent on stuff for women, sold by women. A lot of women would like that idea, but all men would not.

So, after the first round 38% of women voted it as first preference (12% of women thought it was unfair, so didn't rank it at all), and no men voted for it. In the second and third round, that party wouldn't get a single extra vote, so would not get an overall electoral majority. They might still get in power, but would have to form a coalition with another party who'd have the chance to curb their excesses. Under FPTP, they would be in power alone.

Yep more incomprehensible dribble from the man who thinks a country should vote twice to ensure whats required is achieved.............

Stick to advertising as thats clearly where the dribble was conceived............

Still banging that fantasy drum I see.

Well I happen to remember you saying that we should have a dictatorship, headed up by Kelvin Mackenzie.
 
He is the most popular, but all we know is more than half the population didn't want him. AV gives us the chance to find out what the rest want. And if someone got 40-odd%, then it's extremely likely that many within the 60% or so would have indicated that bloke as a second preference. The only circumstance where that wouldn't be the case is if that person was incredibly divisive, and in that instance it's even more important to register the will of that 60%.

Daft example alert; Say, for instance, there was a feminist candidate who pledged to give £1m to every women if they were elected, and that £1m could only be spent on stuff for women, sold by women. A lot of women would like that idea, but all men would not.

So, after the first round 38% of women voted it as first preference (12% of women thought it was unfair, so didn't rank it at all), and no men voted for it. In the second and third round, that party wouldn't get a single extra vote, so would not get an overall electoral majority. They might still get in power, but would have to form a coalition with another party who'd have the chance to curb their excesses. Under FPTP, they would be in power alone.



Still banging that fantasy drum I see.

Well I happen to remember you saying that we should have a dictatorship, headed up by Kelvin Mackenzie.

Remember this is simple isnt it................:lol:

Point proven once again beyond any doubt at all..........
 
Remember this is simple isnt it................:lol:

Point proven once again beyond any doubt at all..........

You vote for your favourite, and you can also say at the same time who you like if your favourite doesn't win.
 
You vote for your favourite, and you can also say at the same time who you like if your favourite doesn't win.

You try and take the dribble posted on a lot of this thread trying to "explain" things and take it round the streets anywhere in the UK and a hell of a lot of folk wont have a clue what you are on about.............

Again its so sucessful its been road tested world wide as well hasnt it.............

FPTP isnt perfect but this is far from that and not the answer in the slightest..........
 
He is the most popular, but all we know is more than half the population didn't want him. AV gives us the chance to find out what the rest want.

With FPTP we already know what they want.
I seem to be siding with people I would normally be against politically here however by dismissing the fact that it might be complicated for some to understand you are doing your argument no favours.
A sizeable minority won't understand it. Whether that is their fault for not reading up on it properly is another argument but I think it is a risk.
 
You try and take the dribble posted on a lot of this thread trying to "explain" things and take it round the streets anywhere in the UK and a hell of a lot of folk wont have a clue what you are on about.............

Again its so sucessful its been road tested world wide as well hasnt it.............

FPTP isnt perfect but this is far from that and not the answer in the slightest..........

People won't understand 'You vote for your favourite, and you can also say at the same time who you like if your favourite doesn't win'? What's difficult to understand about that?

I agree that AV is a bit of a messy compromise, but to vote No because you assume that people (not you, other people) don't understand it is daft imo.
 
People won't understand 'You vote for your favourite, and you can also say at the same time who you like if your favourite doesn't win'? What's difficult to understand about that?

I agree that AV is a bit of a messy compromise, but to vote No because you assume that people (not you, other people) don't understand it is daft imo.

Ah the artistic licence of the ad agency comes out once again...........


Not once have I said anything of the sort and once again you've missed the point totally and utterly............
 
With FPTP we already know what they want.
I seem to be siding with people I would normally be against politically here however by dismissing the fact that it might be complicated for some to understand you are doing your argument no favours.
A sizeable minority won't understand it. Whether that is their fault for not reading up on it properly is another argument but I think it is a risk.

I think a lot of people won't understand the Yes / No arguments, as muddying the waters seems to be the tactic employed by the No campaigners, and the Yes crowd are making an arse of it.

But surely the only consideration when voting is whetehr or not you understand it, and if you like it? I don't choose political parties based on whether other people like them, or if I think strangers might get their policies.

And to clarify the point I'm making is that, if implemented, people would understand it fine at the ballot box. You see a list of people and you write '1', '2' and '3'. And I'm basing that on first hand experience. We have up to 10 preferences here, and it couldn't be easier.
 
He is the most popular, but all we know is more than half the population didn't want him. AV gives us the chance to find out what the rest want. And if someone got 40-odd%, then it's extremely likely that many within the 60% or so would have indicated that bloke as a second preference. The only circumstance where that wouldn't be the case is if that person was incredibly divisive, and in that instance it's even more important to register the will of that 60%.

Daft example alert; Say, for instance, there was a feminist candidate who pledged to give £1m to every women if they were elected, and that £1m could only be spent on stuff for women, sold by women. A lot of women would like that idea, but all men would not.

So, after the first round 38% of women voted it as first preference (12% of women thought it was unfair, so didn't rank it at all), and no men voted for it. In the second and third round, that party wouldn't get a single extra vote, so would not get an overall electoral majority. They might still get in power, but would have to form a coalition with another party who'd have the chance to curb their excesses. Under FPTP, they would be in power alone.

The problem I have is that there's the chance the most popular first choice is disregarded, something that would not happen under full PR. I understand your argument, but I feel uneasy about a probable second choice (everybody make do) candidate being sole representative.

As regards curbing the excesses of the main party, I don't think the Limp Dems have been that successful (tuition fees for example is now going pear shaped in a way I didn't expect to this scale - graduate tax please!!!).

People won't understand 'You vote for your favourite, and you can also say at the same time who you like if your favourite doesn't win'? What's difficult to understand about that?

I agree that AV is a bit of a messy compromise, but to vote No because you assume that people (not you, other people) don't understand it is daft imo.

People have contacted BBC Breakfast (report 6.45 am this morning) and said they don't understand it. The BBC failed to explain it very well to be honest.
 
I think a lot of people won't understand the Yes / No arguments, as muddying the waters seems to be the tactic employed by the No campaigners, and the Yes crowd are making an arse of it.

But surely the only consideration when voting is whetehr or not you understand it, and if you like it? I don't choose political parties based on whether other people like them, or if I think strangers might get their policies.

And to clarify the point I'm making is that, if implemented, people would understand it fine at the ballot box. You see a list of people and you write '1', '2' and '3'. And I'm basing that on first hand experience. We have up to 10 preferences here, and it couldn't be easier.

Or you don't vote 1,2,3 and just vote 1. That's the first bit of confusion. How your second or third choices are used is also confusing for some as has been proved on this thread. Surely this has to be considered when voting yes or no because if there is a chance of people not voting as they wanted due to misunderstandings then surely this is a bad thing.
My main reason for voting No is that I do understand it and I don't think it is better than what we have.
Vote for who you want and if more people vote for your person than anyone else then they get in. Sounds fair to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top