bigreddog wrote:This will no doubt wind up Posh no end, but couldn't resist it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skQ0gw11_MY
And in response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHuiDD_ ... ata_player
bigreddog wrote:This will no doubt wind up Posh no end, but couldn't resist it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skQ0gw11_MY
Heysham_Shrimp wrote:So if theres 15 candidates standing as there can be when there are raving monster loony party and green party etc (the greens could amalgamate with the raving monster loony party!) and I only want to vote for one party as I dont like the other 14 , supposing the party I voted for receive 49% of the first preference votes. It then goes to subsequent further votes where the 2nd and 3rd and 4th and 5th preference votes of all these people who originally voted for all the barm cake parties end up deciding who will be their M.P. And the candidate I voted for who received 49% of first preference votes ends up not elected.
It would appear that A.V. would make the U.K. as democratic as Zimbabwe !
james456 wrote:I don't think that graphic is complete bollocks.
Replace the beers with the phrase "I generally have centre-left views" and the coffee's with the phrase "I generally have centre-right views" and it makes some sense.
james456 wrote:
Ego Tripping wrote:The beer example is absolute bollocks and about right for you posh using your usual way of treating us all like idiots.
Ego Tripping wrote:To use the example that 70% of people want a beer is just plain wrong and misleading. Why can't you leave the left wing tunnel vision behind and try and argue that something is best for the country or is that beyond you?
shrimpnsave wrote:WILL LOCK THIIS POST........
Posh wrote:Trust someone who lives in the Isle of Man and can't even vote in the referendum to waffle on about dog shit and parma violets.
Ego Tripping wrote:The beer example is absolute bollocks and about right for you posh using your usual way of treating us all like idiots.
Posh wrote:Don't do it Darren. By voting against AV you would be doing the Tories and David Cameron's bidding. Progressives have dominated British politics since the war in terms of votes won, yet the Tories dominate government.
PottedShrimp wrote:Posh wrote:Don't do it Darren. By voting against AV you would be doing the Tories and David Cameron's bidding. Progressives have dominated British politics since the war in terms of votes won, yet the Tories dominate government.
AV - where the losers get two votes - really fair .... not
Posh wrote:PottedShrimp wrote:Posh wrote:Don't do it Darren. By voting against AV you would be doing the Tories and David Cameron's bidding. Progressives have dominated British politics since the war in terms of votes won, yet the Tories dominate government.
AV - where the losers get two votes - really fair .... not
Is that not better than tactical voting where you have to abandon your preferred political party in order to defeat an incumbent? Surely it's only the same thing.
Why isn't David Davies leader of the Conservative Party? These are the results of the first vote in 2005. Under FPTP Davies would be leader but Cameron went on to win under proportional voting.
David Davis - 62
David Cameron - 56
Liam Fox - 42
Ken Clarke - 38
Heysham_Shrimp wrote:There was fresh ballot after the first candidate was eliminated , a fresh ballot after the 2nd candidate was eliminated and then a final fresh ballot when they were down to 2 candidates. It bears no resemblance to the pigs ear system that is being advocated by the "yes" campaigners.
Heysham_Shrimp wrote:Posh wrote:Why isn't David Davies leader of the Conservative Party? These are the results of the first vote in 2005. Under FPTP Davies would be leader but Cameron went on to win under proportional voting.
David Davis - 62
David Cameron - 56
Liam Fox - 42
Ken Clarke - 38
This is not really a fair comparison.
There was fresh ballot after the first candidate was eliminated, a fresh ballot after the 2nd candidate was eliminated and then a final fresh ballot when they were down to 2 candidates. It bears no resemblance to the pigs ear system that is being advocated by the "yes" campaigners.
Heysham_Shrimp wrote:We have one of the oldest democracies in the world and we have always pressed less democratic countries to adopt "one person one vote" and then people here are wanting to change it to "one person several votes" !
Posh wrote:Heysham_Shrimp wrote:Posh wrote:Why isn't David Davies leader of the Conservative Party? These are the results of the first vote in 2005. Under FPTP Davies would be leader but Cameron went on to win under proportional voting.
David Davis - 62
David Cameron - 56
Liam Fox - 42
Ken Clarke - 38
This is not really a fair comparison.
There was fresh ballot after the first candidate was eliminated, a fresh ballot after the 2nd candidate was eliminated and then a final fresh ballot when they were down to 2 candidates. It bears no resemblance to the pigs ear system that is being advocated by the "yes" campaigners.
It's a very similar system and one of proportional representation. Instead of having follow-on ballots, its dealt with through preference so it can be concluded in one go.
I notice you don't deal with the fundamental question of why the Tories use PR for their leader and not first past the post? Of course it's much easier to slag off a perfectly good question than it is to actually answer it.Heysham_Shrimp wrote:We have one of the oldest democracies in the world and we have always pressed less democratic countries to adopt "one person one vote" and then people here are wanting to change it to "one person several votes" !
Show me one example of where Britain has 'pressed' another country to adopt First Past The Post as their electoral system. I bet you can't.
And if Britain is so wedded to FPTP why have we adopted Proportional Representation for European Elections, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Assembley Elections and Northern Ireland local elections?
Perhaps you should talk to the Conservative Campaign for Democracy, a group of MPs, councillors and Conservative members fighting for PR and a fully elected House of Lords. They're not all daft.
Heysham_Shrimp wrote:Its all academic anyway. The smart money is on "No" win on Thursday. Even a small "yes" win would have no chance as most Conservative MPs and a good number of Labour MP's especially the ones that win with around 40% of the vote are against it.
marky wrote:Heysham_Shrimp wrote:Its all academic anyway. The smart money is on "No" win on Thursday. Even a small "yes" win would have no chance as most Conservative MPs and a good number of Labour MP's especially the ones that win with around 40% of the vote are against it.
A non-implimented yes win would end the coalition and result in an unexpected General Election that would almost certainly see Labour win or a Conservative attempt at minority rule that would end up being impotent and would also result in a general election that Labour would win.
outsider wrote:Majority for AV 6/1
Majority against AV 1/12
The bookies seem to think its close
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 65 guests