Politics! *Awaits the sound of 70% of readers now closing this tab*
Go and vote today if you're eligable and haven't voted today already.
The Alternative Vote refurendum is important - I'm voting "Yes" - and there are national elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as local and mayoral elections in some English constituencies.
IMPORTANT! UK peoples read this.
What he said! Vote No on AV & SNP for Scotland :3 now.
- richarddavies
- Level 14
- Posts: 1173
- Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 2:00 pm
- Location: Manchester, UK
Im voting when I finish work. Voting yes myself. Im not sure it's actually gonna pass with all the bullshit the No campaign have been spreading though. They pretty much say if you vote yes your a baby killer and soldiers in Afghanistan will die and you hate England. I just like seeing all the politicians arse's twitchin at the possibility that yes might win.
- Kaito-kun
- Level 15
- Posts: 5589
- Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:46 pm
- Location: Scotland
- Preferred pronouns: He/Him/They
- Contact:
This. My favourite - oh so ridiculous - tactic of the No camp has been "If you vote Yes then you're siding with the BNP!" even though Nick Griffin is against AV and has been quoted as supporting the No capaign.richarddavies wrote:Im voting when I finish work. Voting yes myself. Im not sure it's actually gonna pass with all the bullshit the No campaign have been spreading though. They pretty much say if you vote yes your a baby killer and soldiers in Afghanistan will die and you hate England. I just like seeing all the politicians arse's twitchin at the possibility that yes might win.
It does suggest something when the only two parties officially supporting the No capaign are the Convervitives and the BNP...
The 'No' campaign has been a frightening display of ignorance and scare tactics, it worries me about the future of this country.
Seems we're all screwed anyway.
Obviously, I'm voting yes. Anyone who can actually think will realise it is the better, fairer option and will have an effect on future politics and elections. It's just a shame the 'No' campaign has been so manipulative. Anyone seen the video of the kid training to win a sports day? How ridiculous.
Seems we're all screwed anyway.
Obviously, I'm voting yes. Anyone who can actually think will realise it is the better, fairer option and will have an effect on future politics and elections. It's just a shame the 'No' campaign has been so manipulative. Anyone seen the video of the kid training to win a sports day? How ridiculous.
How it works now? Vote for who you want, if they don't win? Tough Shit.CapnCloudchaser wrote:The 'No' campaign has been a frightening display of ignorance and scare tactics, it worries me about the future of this country.
Seems we're all screwed anyway.
Obviously, I'm voting yes. Anyone who can actually think will realise it is the better, fairer option and will have an effect on future politics and elections. It's just a shame the 'No' campaign has been so manipulative. Anyone seen the video of the kid training to win a sports day? How ridiculous.
How it'd work under AV? Pick and choose a bunch of people and hope that it sort of maybe might work out.
Are people really so indecisive and lame that they can't pick a political party any more?
Here's a nice example of how AV can put a party in power when they don't deserve it:
'Second, it is simply inaccurate to claim that AV unequivocally elects the MP preferred by a majority of voters. It is perfectly possible for AV to select a candidate who is ranked below another candidate in the race by a majority of the population. The example below shows a hypothetical election where candidate B is elected under AV even though a majority of voters would prefer candidate A to B in a straight contest between the two.
A hundred citizens are electing one of three candidates. The citizens’ preferences can be described as follows:
- 36 voters rank candidate C top, then candidate A second and candidate B as worst choice.
- 34 citizens rank candidate B top, then candidate A second and candidate C as worst choice; and
- 30 citizens rank candidate A top, then candidate B second and again candidate C as worst choice.
If we write > to mean ‘is preferred to’, then we can summarize the preferences of our electorate as follows:
for 36 citizens: C > A > B
for 34 citizens: B > A > C
for 30 citizens: A > B > C
Assuming that all citizens vote sincerely (i.e. follow their own top preference), then FPTP elects candidate C and AV elects candidate B.
The risks of FPTP are highlighted in this example: candidate C is the candidate ranked last by almost two thirds of citizens here, and this majority would prefer either candidate A or candidate B over the actual FPTP winner.
However, we can also see in this case how candidate B selected under AV does not have unequivocal majority support. In a ‘pairwise’ straight head-to-head choice between A and B – that is, if it was a run-off contest between these two candidates – then A gets 66 votes and B only 34. Thus a clear majority of voters prefer A to B.
(Incidentally if we also checked to see if A is preferred to C, this run-off would give candidate A 64 votes and candidate C only 36. In a rule suggested in the eighteenth century by the Marquis of Condorcet, A would clearly beat both her rivals in straight comparison votes).
The possibility of strategic voting (often called tactical voting in Britain) is present under both electoral systems:
- Under FPTP, voters supporting candidates A and B have incentives to coordinate and try to outvote candidate C.
- Under AV, if seven voters backing C pretend that they favour candidate A, then they will elect their second most preferred option as winner (candidate A instead of B).'
-
- Level 15
- Posts: 2652
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:54 am
- Location: United Kingdom>Cornwall
- richarddavies
- Level 14
- Posts: 1173
- Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 2:00 pm
- Location: Manchester, UK
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests