egafd.com

The trouble with the logic is that the logic is being used to say 1 minority party will be defeated while others will be helped.

You couldn't make the logic up it will either help all or none which is why the bullcrap from the yes campaign is just well erm bullcrap

I wouldn't worry to much though it looks like the argument is now back to Tory v Labour and leader bashing despite the Yes campaign saying the opposite last week when the why won't Ed share a stage with Cleggy if AV is that important question was raised.

It may change tomorrow though I believe a few Yes MP's aren't to happy with their own campaign saying "Worried about your job Your MP isn't".

The Sun back the people that they think that they will win.

This the support for the SNP in Scotland.

Most people don't know who the Labour, Liberal or Tory leaders here are.

Everyone in Scotland knows the fish man.

[quote]The key point is you have no evidence.[/quote]

My logic is the evidence. Having more than one vote means smaller parties have more of a chance of getting votes. Simple. Would have have more chance of winning the lottery buying 3 tickets or just one? That's my evidence. Do you have evidence that suggests more votes equals less chance of smaller parties gaining votes?

What I think you're asking me for isn't evidence but proof. That's silly. No one can prove anything until after it's happened.

[quote]I am not sure exactly what you mean by "helps". Given that av is not proportional in any way, then I cannot see "helps" meaning that parties who are not in the first three, ending up winning a seat.[/quote]

I didn't use the term 'helps'. You did in your question. I don't know what you mean by 'not proportional in any way.' Can you elucidate, please? I'm not arguing that AV is proportional, just that I think it will be more proportional that FPTP, which we all know ISN'T proportional.

[quote]So the only way "helps" can have any meaning in the AV scenario re. minority groups seems to be in horse trading prior to the election i.e. Green candidate, UKIP, BNP etc say to one of the main three parties - you agree to do this (either with or without telling the electorate what we have agreed) and we will tell our supporters to vote for your party as their second preference. This apparently happens regularly in Australia, one of the few countries in the world that actually uses this system for their general election.[/quote]

Firstly, I don't know how any party can force would-be voters' second choices. They may try to persuade voters to vote one way or another but that's the whole point of politics, isn't it......to persuade voters to go one way or another? Are you saying persuading voters is wrong? Bang goes every political manifesto in history!

[quote]So this potentially creates a situation whereby minority groups may have more influence but no accountability.[/quote]

Yes. 'Potentially' and 'may'. I could 'potentially' be bitten by a radioactive spider from Fukushima and 'may' start wearing a funny suit and climb tall buildings with my cock out. This is just scare-scaremongering as far as I'm concerned.

[quote]Second-choice trading among the parties may become widespread and smaller parties may thrive in their new role of vote-lobbyists. With AV there is a danger that the tail wags the dog.[/quote]

May, may and more may. And as for tail wagging the dog: <30% can get you a seat in almost any constituency. There have been tails wagging dogs for years under FPTP. Must do better, David.

[quote]I am also a tad amused by the way in which a number of the YES to AV supporters argue that it will "help" the Greens (nice minority party) and not the BNP (horrible minority party)[/quote]

Yeah, this I agree with you on. Still, it's not like the 'no' campaigners haven't said silly things and resorted to downright lies in their quest, is it?

[quote]I suspect that what characterises both the Yes and No campaigns is they have no real idea how this is going to pan out. Given that we do not know:

1. How many people are going to select more than 1 candidate.
2. How many people are going to select multiple preferences.
3. How many people are going to put in preferences for all the candidates on the ballot paper e.g. English Democrats, Independents, Raving Loony etc etc[/quote]

We just have opinions, David. Still, I'd rather give the voters the choice of one candidate or many in order of preference because I think choice is a good thing. Some round here are too quick to pigeon-hole people into a single box which polarizes our politics and society in general. I don't think this is a good thing.

[quote]Given what we DO know i.e. it is not proportional, does not "help minority parties to win seats", does not end majority governments based on a minority of the votes since there is no compulsion to put in preferences, allows minority groups to potentially work like lobbyists for their preferences without any accountability, I personally see no reason to move from FPTP to AV[/quote]

What evidence do you have that it does not help minorities win seats? You've just admitted no one knows much about how it's going to pan out...............apart from you, apparently. And do you have evidence that hints at AV being generally less proportional than FPTP? I've seen none so far. Which leads me back to that article again when they talk about AV being 'preferential' not 'proportional'. Since you posted the link, and no doubt have studied it thoroughly, maybe you could tell me the difference between 'preferential' and 'proportional' in the context of multiple voting methods. Cheers.

[quote]Based on results over the past century, at least FPTP tends to be overwhemingly a provider of one party governments. And in the case of one party governments you can say "You promised this. You did this, you bastards. Last time I will vote to you."[/quote]

Except that only a small percentage actually go out and vote for another party, in reality. It's the 10-20% of floating voters that decide if we have a Conservative or Labour government and it's been that way for nigh on 100 years. One could argue that a good many stay loyal to one party due to class and a good many because they feel voting for a smaller party is a wasted vote? I was in the latter category this last election because the Liberal Democrats were actually my second preference. I first choice was in fact the Green Party but I knew that really would be a pointless vote. Maybe there are many who think this way. I can think of no other reason why the people vote in the same two parties over and over and over, no matter how much they piss off the country.

I really think that because AV is a little bit unknown then there'll be many MPs in current safe seats that might just pull their fingers out of their arses just a little bit for fear of their places. Again, I think this would be a good thing.

My sister called round with the kids on Saturday and phoned me up while on here way to tell me she was popping to the chippy and asked if I wanted anything. I said, "Yeah, get me chips, haddock and peas. - if they've no haddock I'll have cod." Under FPTP I'd have ended up with a fucking rissole or something !laugh!

"Having more than one vote means smaller parties have more of a chance of getting votes. "

How exactly does that "help" the minority parties in AV, a system which is not proportional? I can understand how getting more votes "helps" a minority party in a proportional system but not under AV. Can you explain please?

"Would have have more chance of winning the lottery buying 3 tickets or just one?"

Your logic/analogy is faulty. In a lottery, winning tickets are selected by chance. This does not happen in any election, never mind one with AV.

" I didn't use the term 'helps'."

I must have dreamt that you stated in an earlier post in this thread "I can only repeat what I've said about it (meaning AV) helping minority parties "

"I don't know what you mean by 'not proportional in any way.' "

I am gobsmacked that you are asking me this question. Nevertheless I will take you seriously and reply seriously.

AV is not proportional as a voting system. Campaigners such as the Electoral Reform Society want a proportional system where the number of seats a party wins is more closely aligned with the number of votes they get. A preferential system such as AV does not align the number of seats a party wins to the number of votes they get which is the hallmark of a proportional system. As Nick Clegg who as I recall you fervently supported around about May time, argued that AV is not proportional, and can actually produce less proportional results than the traditional first-past-the-post system. If you want to get more info, try dropping him a line.

"I'm not arguing that AV is proportional, just that I think it will be more proportional that FPTP"

As an apparent student of logic and grammar, are you happy with the phrasing above?

"Firstly, I don't know how any party can force would-be voters' second choices."

You are contradicting something that I clearly did not say. Unlike your use of the word "helps", I have not used the word "force" anywhere. If you cannot understand my point, say so and I will try to explain again.

"What evidence do you have that it does not help minorities win seats?"

I do not want to babysit you. If you google the literature on AV you will find that the BNP, the Greens etc i.e. minority parties will not be helped to win seats as they would be by a proportional system. The reason being is that one of the minority parties tends to drop out first (that's why they are a minority party) and their preferences are passed on.

"I really think that because AV is a little bit unknown then there'll be many MPs in current safe seats that might just pull their fingers out of their arses"

There you go using the word "might" again. Some "might" say that it is a bit like using the word "may" which you don't like one eensy teensy little bit. !wink!

Cheers
D

Once again you've missed the entire point of how AV works and worse the argument of the Yes Campaign Sam

The minority parties will get more votes or preferences as the yes lot prefer to call them but these votes will not be sufficient to be enough to get through to be 'counted', in terms of the percentage needed to win.

That's the argument they are using to say how it will defeat the party nobody likes but that very point works the same for the minorities some do like.

What the Yes lot are selling as fair just isn't.

Correct.

The parties that will be "helped" to win seats by the AV system are the three main parties. The minority parties', such as the BNP, English Democrats, UKIP and the Greens etc, second and third preferences will be passed on once they come bottom of each round of the polling count.

The minority parties will not be "helped" to win seats by the AV system, but they will be "helped" by being able to do deals pre-election with the three main parties (which we may or may not hear about) in return for recommending to their supporters that they should vote for main party A instead of B etc.

Cheers
D

[quote]Your logic/analogy is faulty. In a lottery, winning tickets are selected by chance. This does not happen in any election, never mind one with AV.[/quote]

The logic isn't faulty. Isn't it by chance how one votes? We are all products of our environments to some degree so chance plays a major part of you being left or right wing, for instance.

[quote]I must have dreamt that you stated in an earlier post in this thread "I can only repeat what I've said about it (meaning AV) helping minority parties "[/quote]

You only quoted your question, which used the term 'help'. I cannot be expected to reread every post I've made before every reply. I assume when you quote yourself and ask a question, my answer is based around said quote. Not that it matters too much here, since I've given a full reply how I think it helps (whether I used the term or not).

[quote]"I don't know what you mean by 'not proportional in any way.' "

I am gobsmacked that you are asking me this question. Nevertheless I will take you seriously and reply seriously.

AV is not proportional as a voting system. Campaigners such as the Electoral Reform Society want a proportional system where the number of seats a party wins is more closely aligned with the number of votes they get.[/quote]

Read back your answer carefully. You accused AV as, and I quote, "not proportional in any way." Why I asked what you meant by that is because you've not given me, or anyone else, your own opinion on what IS proportional (either completely or partially). You said, "Campaigners such as the Electoral Reform Society want a proportional system where the number of seats a party wins is more closely aligned with the number of votes they get." This, I, you or anyone could call 'not proportional in any way' too. Either something is proportional or it isn't. There is no grey area in between so your argument here does not stack up. I don't have that problem because I've never said AV is proportional, just that in general it is 'more' proportional that FPTP. You and I may differ on what we deem reasonable proportionality and I think AV gives a more reasonable proportionality that FPTP. You haven't given any clues about what you class as reasonably proportional (if you even want any element of proportionality at all), which is why I asked. If you're gobsmacked at the question, my guess it's more to do with it never occurring to you. Strictly, full PR isn't completely and unquestionably proportional. It's just considered the most proportional way of voting easily achievable.

[quote]A preferential system such as AV does not align the number of seats a party wins to the number of votes they get which is the hallmark of a proportional system.[/quote]

This was one question you never bothered to give an answer to from my last post. What, in this particular context, is the difference between what is proportional and what is preferential? I hear it a lot from the 'no camp' but no one seems to have asked what they mean and what the difference is. And if there is a difference what are you judging the 'proportionality' against? The results of a FPTP system based on peoples' 1st preference votes? It's just saying words with no clarification or, possibly, meaning.

[quote]"I'm not arguing that AV is proportional, just that I think it will be more proportional that FPTP"

As an apparent student of logic and grammar, are you happy with the phrasing above?[/quote]

Yes.

[quote]You are contradicting something that I clearly did not say. Unlike your use of the word "helps", I have not used the word "force" anywhere.[/quote]

No, but I can fathom no other reason why you're upset by the prospect of AV, highlighting what some minority parties 'may' do to push a few of their policies through. If these parties try and persuade their voters to vote one way or another then why is this so scary? A major part of politics is the art of persuasion. If a voter feels so strongly about one particular policy, it may not be important to that person which party sets it in motion. No one can really be frightened of this scenario so I assumed it must be something darker and scarier - like force. My guess is that there are plenty of supporters of minority parties now, who'll vote for a bigger party due to a certain amount of policies they're in favour of. And that's under FPTP. My guess is that if a certain policy by one party (say the Lib Dems) is very popular with voters, then a larger party may adopt that policy any way (say Labour) to persuade would-be Lib Dem voters to back a different party that while might not be their first choice, there are lots of policies they'd support and so it's worth switching their vote. A bit like me with the Greens, for instance. This happens anyway so, again, why are you so concerned with voters being persuaded to vote for bigger parties in return for pushing certain policies through that were the policies of smaller, minority parties?

[quote]I do not want to babysit you. If you google the literature on AV you will find that the BNP, the Greens etc i.e. minority parties will not be helped to win seats as they would be by a proportional system. The reason being is that one of the minority parties tends to drop out first (that's why they are a minority party) and their preferences are passed on.[/quote]

I'm sorry. You've asked me for proof of things many times. And anyway, your answer wasn't proof. It's just an opinion. We've been through that. You do not know if it will help win seats for minority parties. For me, under AV, I would have voted for the Greens last time. It may turn out that AV really doesn't help smaller parties, despite the extra number of possible votes from 2nd and 3rd preferences, but like I said earlier up the thread, it's not like AV is irreversible. It wouldn't be the end of the world.

[quote]There you go using the word "might" again. Some "might" say that it is a bit like using the word "may" which you don't like one eensy teensy little bit.[/quote]

Ah, but I wasn't using 'may' or 'might' as a scaremongering tactic. It was just a positive outlook!

So in summary, you have no idea how AV "may" "help" minority parties even though you use this phrase, other than to use a totally irrelevant analogy with buying extra lottery tickets.

"It may turn out that AV really doesn't help smaller parties, despite the extra number of possible votes from 2nd and 3rd preferences, but like I said earlier up the thread, it's not like AV is irreversible. It wouldn't be the end of the world"

Thanks for that Sam. No to AV.

Cheers
D

[quote]So in summary, you have no idea how AV "may" "help"[/quote]

No. I think over the course of this debate I've given plenty of ideas on how AV may help. My posts are there in black and white for you to reread.

Again, in the context of voting how is proportional different to preferential? I try and answer all of your important questions (and even the unimportant ones about whether I said 'help' or not). Please repay me the same courtesy. Thanks.

"Again, in the context of voting how is proportional different to preferential?"

In a truly proportional system there is an observable connection between number of votes cast and number of seats obtained. In a preferential but not proportional system, you can order candidates in terms of preference but there is no connection between the number of preferences obtained and the number of seats won.

" I think over the course of this debate I've given plenty of ideas on how AV may help."

You have given me plenty of guesses some of which like it "helps" minority parties do not appear to have convinced yourself. You have given me absolutely no evidence to support your guesses even though this is a system which is already used in Australia, Papua New Guinea and Fiji, apparently.

No surprise then, that your guesses have not convinced me either.

Cheers

D