UK Voters

Post by **FreeBeer** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 12:21 pm

oh.. I forgot this last night:

Just vote agri as supreme dictator. If he screws up, keep re-electing him until he gets it right.

HSharp · Post by **HSharp** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 12:32 pm

tsubaki_sanjuro wrote:QUOTE (tsubaki_sanjuro @ Apr 21 2011, 01:08 PM) Every vote is counted under FPTP, and the most AV would do is recognise the votes of 50.1% of the electorate - everyone else would still be disenfranchised, at least according to the argument put forward by the pro-AV mob.

Yes 49.9% could be disenfranchised but that's a lot lower then the current, AV leads to majority rule while FPTP is minority rule.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE explains AV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo...;feature=relmfu why FPTP is not good.

Post by **Raveen** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 2:49 pm

tsubaki_sanjuro wrote:QUOTE (tsubaki_sanjuro @ Apr 21 2011, 01:08 PM) Every vote is counted under FPTP, and the most AV would do is recognise the votes of 50.1% of the electorate - everyone else would still be disenfranchised, at least according to the argument put forward by the pro-AV mob.

Are you honestly suggesting that every vote is not counted under AV? Do you have no clue about the system being proposed at all given that vote counting is entirely what it's all about?

Or are you suggesting that under AV an elected politician would ignore those of their electorate that didn't support them? In that case can you please show some evidence that this is likely to be the case and explain why this would happen under AV but not under FPTP.

tsubaki_sanjuro · Post by **tsubaki_sanjuro** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:43 pm

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Apr 21 2011, 03:49 PM) Or are you suggesting that under AV an elected politician would ignore those of their electorate that didn't support them? In that case can you please show some evidence that this is likely to be the case and explain why this would happen under AV but not under FPTP.

No, agri is suggesting that (under FPTP) elected politicians do not routinely ignore those people who dont vote for them, his point being to demonstrate that the argument advanced by the pro-AV crowd (that because an electors candidate doesnt win it means their individual vote "doesnt count") is fundamentally wrong.

HSharp wrote:AV leads to majority rule while FPTP is minority rule.

Wrong - we do not have one constituency that encompasses the whole of the country, we have 650. For a party (or group of parties) to win total control of the government they have to get a majority of those 650, which of course means that the individual MPs will have had more votes cast for them than any other candidate.

HSharp · Post by **HSharp** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 8:50 pm

tsubaki_sanjuro wrote:QUOTE (tsubaki_sanjuro @ Apr 21 2011, 08:43 PM) Wrong - we do not have one constituency that encompasses the whole of the country, we have 650. For a party (or group of parties) to win total control of the government they have to get a majority of those 650, which of course means that the individual MPs will have had more votes cast for them than any other candidate.

You seem to be forgetting about strategic voting, everyone thinks the choice is going to be between labour and conservatives so they try and vote whoever they hate least rather then the party they like most, maybe over half of Britain are closet Greens, maybe they are closet BNP's who knows, the matter of fact is that they will only vote labour or conservative because voting for a 3rd party is almost useless. With AV a person can still vote for their candidate of choice while still showing which of the other candidates they would prefer rather then just throwing their vote away or exacerbating the two party system.

Jimen · Post by **Jimen** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:01 pm

Strategic voting is so big a deal, in fact, that the two major parties in the US use it as a mainstream election strategy! During the 2010 election, the Democrats basically campaigned on "Well we really haven't done anything at all for our base, but you'll like the other party even less than you like us, so vote Dem to keep the scary Republicans out of office!".

tsubaki_sanjuro · Post by **tsubaki_sanjuro** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 11:34 pm

HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Apr 21 2011, 09:50 PM) You seem to be forgetting about strategic voting, everyone thinks the choice is going to be between labour and conservatives so they try and vote whoever they hate least rather then the party they like most, maybe over half of Britain are closet Greens, maybe they are closet BNP's who knows, the matter of fact is that they will only vote labour or conservative because voting for a 3rd party is almost useless. With AV a person can still vote for their candidate of choice while still showing which of the other candidates they would prefer rather then just throwing their vote away or exacerbating the two party system.

Nope - in many parts of the England its Lib Dem vs Labour or Tory. In most of Scotland, sizeable parts of Wales and all of NI the nationalist / local parties are a significant factor as well - and as for "so they try and vote whoever they hate least", that is exactly what AV would bring about more of - you could see candidates winning seats because they annoyed the least amount of people.

Makida · Post by **Makida** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 11:39 pm

@Jimen - That also seems to be the Liberals' strategy in the current election campaign in Canada. "Don't vote for the NDP -- you'll just be throwing your votes away! Instead, vote for us, the Liberals, or the Conservatives will win!"

Camaro · Post by **Camaro** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 1:23 am

girlyboy wrote:QUOTE (girlyboy @ Apr 21 2011, 02:39 PM) @Jimen - That also seems to be the Liberals' strategy in the current election campaign in Canada. "Don't vote for the NDP -- you'll just be throwing your votes away! Instead, vote for us, the Liberals, or the Conservatives will win!"

That is the Republican's strategy in America for getting Libertarian votes.

... alternatively it can be the Democrat's strategy in America for getting Libertarian votes.

HSharp · Post by **HSharp** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 7:21 am

tsubaki_sanjuro wrote:QUOTE (tsubaki_sanjuro @ Apr 22 2011, 12:34 AM) you could see candidates winning seats because they annoyed the least amount of people.

The problem being?