N
not spavin
Guest
I'm not scared at all. I'm voting No out of spite.![]()
We all know that you haven't voted for anything that didn't involve texting Endemol.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm not scared at all. I'm voting No out of spite.![]()
Candidate A: 4 first preference. 0 second preference.
Candidate B: 3 first preference. 5 second preference.
Candidate C: 1 first preference. 0 second preference.
Noone has a majority thus second preferences come into play. Candidate B was impressive enough that all four of Candidate A's supporters and Candidate C's one supporter were moved enough to actively mark him down as a perfectly acceptable preference. They had the opportunity not to, or to choose in that place Candidate C.
Why is this an unfair scenario?
I'll be taking the sensible option and voting yes.
With AV, you get to choose who your first choice is and, should they not get in, who you're next favourite candidate is, and should they not get in, who your third favourite candidate is. What's unfair and what's not to like?
At least with AV, you get closer to the idea of the winner having more of a mandate than with FPTP.
We all know that you haven't voted for anything that didn't involve texting Endemol.
In that case then it must be compulsory to pick a 2nd preference etc or else your vote becomes null and void. The system needs consistency.
In that case then it must be compulsory to pick a 2nd preference etc or else your vote becomes null and void. The system needs consistency.
It needs mandatory voting and that everyone has to pick 2nd & 3rd preferences then.
Windypants said:I'll be taking the sensible option and voting yes.
With AV, you get to choose who your first choice is and, should they not get in, who you're next favourite candidate is, and should they not get in, who your third favourite candidate is. What's unfair and what's not to like?
At least with AV, you get closer to the idea of the winner having more of a mandate than with FPTP.
Mmmm. Like John Reid's horseshite.
In that case then it must be compulsory to pick a 2nd preference etc or else your vote becomes null and void. The system needs consistency.
Candidate A: 4 first preference. 0 second preference.
Candidate B: 3 first preference. 5 second preference.
Candidate C: 1 first preference. 0 second preference.
Noone has a majority thus second preferences come into play. Candidate B was impressive enough that all four of Candidate A's supporters and Candidate C's one supporter were moved enough to actively mark him down as a perfectly acceptable preference. They had the opportunity not to, or to choose in that place Candidate C.
Why is this an unfair scenario?
It needs mandatory voting and that everyone has to pick 2nd & 3rd preferences then.
I really don't get it. Why?
If people are impressed enough to rank, they can. If they're not, they won't. Candidate's fault, candidate suffers (potentially).
He actually presented a few coherent arguments this morning in a well-mannered debate, widely praised by commentators.
The shite doesn't come from the lead poltical figures but from the campaigners and campaigns.
He's still right that turnout dropped significantly after AV was introduced in Australia. Even if their turnout figures were high to start off with.
But why would I want to elect somebody who I deemed to be inferior to my preferred candidate?
I want to vote for one candidate and thats it. I don't want people to have the option to vote for more than one. It would be unfair.
Unless I'm missing something...I know you'll correct me if I am...
But you're assuming that everybody will make both first and second preferences. In your example everybody has - which makes it fair.
However in your previous posts you've suggested that it's not compulsory - which means you could end up with some people casting one vote and others casting 2 or 3...
Richard Lionheart said:But by not using up all your preferences you are handing away the level playing field. Sod that.
I've no interest in voting for random candidates.
Oh so funny, however i never said that before. I'm the first to admit there's a deliberate campaign of misinformation.
What i do say is once provided with the facts on how it works rather than a scare story to attempt to stop people voting for it it's not complicated in the slightest. :roll:
Why campaign on lies instead of the truth? Because the truth might be popular.
There is no explanation why the NO campaign are running such a cynical campaign other than the fact they think confronted with the truth voters might think it's a good idea.
Aye a rather hilarious stance to take, proving he doesn't really care what AV is all he knows is he is against it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0