Again, no evidence whatsoever.
I would be grateful if you could do the following:
1. Read the message entitled To be fair to you Sam which gives some examples of what could be termed evidence.
2. Then consider the difference between opinion, which is what the post I am replying to is all about, and evidence, some examples of which are referenced in 1..
3. Then have another go with some studies/evidence which backs up your claims e.g. AV helps minority parties e.g. Greens, BNP get more seats.
Thanks
David
AV...
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Sam, an example of your lack of understanding
So since you are really struggling to understand the difference between opinion and evidence, let me try and help you out.
First let us examine your statement
"Under AV he'd need 50% via other voters' 2nd or 3rd choices. That means at least 50% of those voters had some say in his winning that seat rather than the 1st preference of less than a fifth of the voters under FPTP. He is then representing a larger proportion of voters' in parliament (50% is a larger proportion of 100% than 18%). Simple".
Not simple Samuel. You are wrong. Got that? You are wrong. Let me explain why you are wrong.
The AV system being offered makes the ordering of preferences optional. If you want to get a better understanding of how the same version of AV works in Queensland, read this study on the London School of Economics site.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolic ... eferences/
Now let's take your statement
"Because more people have a say, I think AV, in general, will be more proportional to the peoples' general preferences. "
Opinion, yes. Evidence no. This is wrong. The view of the Constitution Society is as follows:
"There is nothing in the operation of the AV system which increases the correlation between each Party?s percentage of the national vote and the number of Parliamentary seats it secures.
The summary of the Jenkins report which you quote in your favour in terms of three elections states
"The Commission's conclusions from these and other pieces of evidence about the operation of AV are threefold. First, it does not address one of our most important terms of reference. So far from doing much to relieve disproportionality, it is capable of substantially adding to it. Second, its effects (on its own without any corrective mechanism) are disturbingly unpredictable. Third, it would in the circumstances of the last election, which even if untypical is necessarily the one most vivid in the recollection of the public, and very likely in the circumstances of the next one too, be unacceptably unfair to the Conservatives.
And this is from a guy who led the Liberal Democrats in the Lords for nigh on 10 years!
Okay, try again Samuel please! Remember evidence, evidence, evidence! Easy on the logic. As you can see above, your's has a tendency to being faulty!
Cheers
D
First let us examine your statement
"Under AV he'd need 50% via other voters' 2nd or 3rd choices. That means at least 50% of those voters had some say in his winning that seat rather than the 1st preference of less than a fifth of the voters under FPTP. He is then representing a larger proportion of voters' in parliament (50% is a larger proportion of 100% than 18%). Simple".
Not simple Samuel. You are wrong. Got that? You are wrong. Let me explain why you are wrong.
The AV system being offered makes the ordering of preferences optional. If you want to get a better understanding of how the same version of AV works in Queensland, read this study on the London School of Economics site.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolic ... eferences/
Now let's take your statement
"Because more people have a say, I think AV, in general, will be more proportional to the peoples' general preferences. "
Opinion, yes. Evidence no. This is wrong. The view of the Constitution Society is as follows:
"There is nothing in the operation of the AV system which increases the correlation between each Party?s percentage of the national vote and the number of Parliamentary seats it secures.
The summary of the Jenkins report which you quote in your favour in terms of three elections states
"The Commission's conclusions from these and other pieces of evidence about the operation of AV are threefold. First, it does not address one of our most important terms of reference. So far from doing much to relieve disproportionality, it is capable of substantially adding to it. Second, its effects (on its own without any corrective mechanism) are disturbingly unpredictable. Third, it would in the circumstances of the last election, which even if untypical is necessarily the one most vivid in the recollection of the public, and very likely in the circumstances of the next one too, be unacceptably unfair to the Conservatives.
And this is from a guy who led the Liberal Democrats in the Lords for nigh on 10 years!
Okay, try again Samuel please! Remember evidence, evidence, evidence! Easy on the logic. As you can see above, your's has a tendency to being faulty!
Cheers
D