STephen fry on why you should vote yes on the 5th of may Watch

Craig_D
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#81
Report 7 years ago
#81
(Original post by Chocothunder)
Because he's far cleverer than you. Simples.
He got a 2:1 at university, there are plenty of people on TSR who could (and have) beat that. If you mean more on the IQ side of things, well we don't know what it is. He's an intelligent man, but people seem to put him on the level of 'genius' with nothing whatsoever to justify it.
0
reply
Kolya
Badges: 14
#82
Report 7 years ago
#82
(Original post by Craig_D)
It's fine for him to have his own personal political opinions, I just feel it's cheeky for him to use his fame to try and peddle that opinion to others, his fame is independent of politics. I don't listen to his political advice for the same reason I wouldn't ask David Cameron what to watch on TV. I of course believe strongly in freedom of speech, so I have a conflict of interest here, but I'd have preferred it if he'd chosen to take the humble route. I agree it was a tactful ad (even if a couple of facts I didn't agree with!), but the fact remains that why not just get a generic extra or an unknown voice-over artist to read it out? The reason, they're hoping people will be persuaded to follow the cause not on substance but because he is advocating it. What kind of politics does that lead to? Elections are won by those with the most famous supporters? :no:
Maybe the system - where celebrity is more important than substance - is a problem but at the moment that's the way it is. If Fry kept his opinion to himself on principle then his political cause would suffer, as opponents may have no hesitation to use their celebrity to sway voters. So while using celebrity is unsavoury, some might say it serves a greater good.
reply
Kalliope
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#83
Report 7 years ago
#83
This is a better video:
1
reply
Captain Crash
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#84
Report 7 years ago
#84
(Original post by f00ddude)
your sig is the most stupid example ive seen for a yes campaign yet, it doesnt have anything to do with AV at all
I like how you've completely skipped the discussion about and just reasserted it. I'm not going to repeat myself, but isn't it funny how it's just the adamant No voters who think it's a stupid example. I'm not entirely sure why you don't think it's anything to do with AV.
0
reply
Chocothunder
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#85
Report 7 years ago
#85
(Original post by Craig_D)
He got a 2:1 at university, there are plenty of people on TSR who could (and have) beat that. If you mean more on the IQ side of things, well we don't know what it is. He's an intelligent man, but people seem to put him on the level of 'genius' with nothing whatsoever to justify it.
True, but you only have to listen to the man speaking for a few minutes to realise that he's infinitely more intelligent than the average TSR user.
0
reply
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#86
Report 7 years ago
#86
(Original post by Captain Crash)
You've kinda missed the main point of the ad - in real life we use AV all the time. It's a sensible, fair, simple and consensus seeking method of decision making. If we used FPTP we would get unfair bizzare decisions in these real life situations i.e. choosing coffee. However, it's ridiculous that the same system that would produce such an outcome is used for something as important as a government.

There is also a secondary point to the ad that you picked up. Broadly speaking, the top two politicians in an area would represent left or right wing. Though there are different parties and politicians, broadly speaking supporters of a given candidate would be more right or left wing.

To put this in the UK context, the single right wing party (or coffee) got 40% whilst the multiple left wing parties (beer) got in the region of 60%. I admit some lib dems may be more inclined to vote tory, but by and large supporters of left parties will support any left wing party (beer) over the tories (coffee) yet in FPTP this is the case.

The is the spoiler effect and is the largest problem with FPTP that AV solves.
I don't know if anyone has responded to this but I hope you don't mind if I do.

I don't know any group of people who decide on beer vs coffee in the manner of the ad. The reason is simple - the choice in the advert is actually two different questions. First question is do people want beer or coffee? The second question is where do we go for the beer?

As others have pointed out this normally doesn't exist in elections. Or rather it does but the masses don't get to vote in the first round. The first round can be viewed as being the candidate selection. There the choices are all from the same party and can be safely assumed to represent the same underlying "thing". But at the elections it is a bit of a stretch to say that essentially all candidates are one version of just two candidates.

You say that we use AV all the time but we don't really. We use multiple votes where each voting round asks a different question. However, we do use FPTP all the time to select winners of things. Look at Sports Personality of the Year, or the Man Booker Prize or every single other such prize giving scheme. A shortlist of candidates is drafted and then FPTP is used.

Another issue I have with AV is that it fails at its own claim. Consider the following scenario. We have three candidates, A, B and C. The first preference is as follows:

A: 40
B: 35
C: 25

Under FPTP A wins as he is the person who the largest group of people think is the best choice. Under AV though C is eliminated and we look at second preference votes. Now, let's suppose that (as is more normal) A is left wing, B is right wing and C is more central. All of A's and B's supporters put down C as second preference. All of C's supporters put down B as their second preference. Who wins?

Well, C is eliminated under AV and so A sticks with 40% while B wins with 60%. But now the people who voted for A have voted for a losing candidate. Their second preference is not counted unlike the people who voted for other losing candidates. So let's go back and count their second preferences. And now C wins with 65%! Yet AV handed victory to B because the second preference of C's supporters were counted as being more important than the second preference of A's supporters.

AV appears to fail even by its own standards. And it seems to do so because it doesn't treat all people's opinions equally. It's not "one man, one vote" in the sense that we would normally understand it.
0
reply
f00ddude
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#87
Report 7 years ago
#87
(Original post by Captain Crash)
I like how you've completely skipped the discussion about and just reasserted it. I'm not going to repeat myself, but isn't it funny how it's just the adamant No voters who think it's a stupid example. I'm not entirely sure why you don't think it's anything to do with AV.
it doesn't
when the hell do you vote with your mates like that? if your mates are voting rather with each other then discussing i feel sorry for you. if people in that situation don't think ok 7 of us wanna beer, lets go a pub, then they're probably unemployed and an't afford either
also, how do you know their second choice?
for all you know people could have thought, a pint at 1 pub as 1st, then cofee at 2nd

all that campaign does is try to link beer with the campaign for the youth vote, or the "of look we like beer were cool vote"
anyone know knows anything about political campaigns will see its worthless in value

i wasn't too bothered about AV tbh, but im gunna hope for a NO outcome now, just to put a stop to people who have never studied politics going on about how AV is fairer when in fact they haven't got a clue and are simply going "im cool, look i support lib dems, oh wait, public opinion has gone down, ok i don't support lib dem, even though they have enacted more of their manafesto than ever, im cool guys i support AV and therefore im smart"
still dont care enough to vote though
1
reply
py0alb
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#88
Report 7 years ago
#88
(Original post by niall c)
Why would they not? In what way is their first choice their first choice if they subsequently change it?

Also, can you please at least try to provide some solid evidence behind these tediously substance-free claims you throw out, like that 'Frequently' people don't vote for the same person next time round?
I fail to see why it falls on me to do your personal research for you, when 3 minutes on google could answer all of your concerns about tactical voting in Australia, tactical voting in the Olympics,



see what Captain Crash said re Cambridge. The results you so gleefully cite directly contradict the idea that the election was 'far from being safe'
yet Captain Crash said:

Originally Posted by Captain Crash
Cambridge is far from a safe seat.
which directly backs me up, does it not? Maybe the Greens were a small exaggeration, but any of the other 3 parties could easily have won.
0
reply
JW92
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#89
Report 7 years ago
#89
(Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
Well you're wrong then.

In Politics, there are no 4 identical candidates. The poster shows 4 identical pubs, all serving identical beer, in politics this does not exist.

This situation just does not exist - it is absurd. 70% of candidates may not vote for the winning candidate, however the poster implies that 70% voted for the same thing.. in politics, that 70% would be split amongst totally different candidates. The poster would be truthful if instead of 4 beers, it was 1 cider, 1 beer, 1 milkshake and 1 line of coke. The coffee would have won with 30% of the vote, and you would see that it was fair because the other 4 candidates all received less than 30%.

And which pub do you suppose should win then? Why should, say, the Red Lion win, when it only won 20%?

This poster is so infantile the designer should be embarrassed. It's as bad as anything the No2AV campaigners have designed.
I'm pretty sure the metaphor is supposed to imply that we have one right-wing party that monopolises the right-wing vote (coffee) and many shades of left that share the left-wing vote (pubs that are similar but have differences). It works quite well IMO.
0
reply
Captain Crash
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#90
Report 7 years ago
#90
(Original post by UniOfLife)
I don't know if anyone has responded to this but I hope you don't mind if I do.

I don't know any group of people who decide on beer vs coffee in the manner of the ad. The reason is simple - the choice in the advert is actually two different questions. First question is do people want beer or coffee? The second question is where do we go for the beer?

As others have pointed out this normally doesn't exist in elections. Or rather it does but the masses don't get to vote in the first round. The first round can be viewed as being the candidate selection. There the choices are all from the same party and can be safely assumed to represent the same underlying "thing". But at the elections it is a bit of a stretch to say that essentially all candidates are one version of just two candidates.

You say that we use AV all the time but we don't really. We use multiple votes where each voting round asks a different question. However, we do use FPTP all the time to select winners of things. Look at Sports Personality of the Year, or the Man Booker Prize or every single other such prize giving scheme. A shortlist of candidates is drafted and then FPTP is used.

Another issue I have with AV is that it fails at its own claim. Consider the following scenario. We have three candidates, A, B and C. The first preference is as follows:

A: 40
B: 35
C: 25

Under FPTP A wins as he is the person who the largest group of people think is the best choice. Under AV though C is eliminated and we look at second preference votes. Now, let's suppose that (as is more normal) A is left wing, B is right wing and C is more central. All of A's and B's supporters put down C as second preference. All of C's supporters put down B as their second preference. Who wins?

Well, C is eliminated under AV and so A sticks with 40% while B wins with 60%. But now the people who voted for A have voted for a losing candidate. Their second preference is not counted unlike the people who voted for other losing candidates. So let's go back and count their second preferences. And now C wins with 65%! Yet AV handed victory to B because the second preference of C's supporters were counted as being more important than the second preference of A's supporters.

AV appears to fail even by its own standards. And it seems to do so because it doesn't treat all people's opinions equally. It's not "one man, one vote" in the sense that we would normally understand it.
Hopefully I've responded to some of your points in the other thread. With regard to the beer vs coffee, if you can't think of a situation where the question is exactly as I put it, so much the poorer for your imagination:



As for many competitions using is, yes, some do but many use an alternative system. The Oscar for best picture uses AV for instance; many TV talent shows are runoff elections. I also reject the suggestion that electing an MP should be a prize. We are selecting an individual for a job. No major election for an individual (whether for party leaders, mayors, bishops etc) uses FPTP.
0
reply
Captain Crash
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#91
Report 7 years ago
#91
(Original post by f00ddude)
it doesn't
when the hell do you vote with your mates like that? if your mates are voting rather with each other then discussing i feel sorry for you.
FFS, it isn't a case of holding secret ballots with a returning officer. AV is used informally all the time in real life. Whether it's discussing where we're going out (see video above, if your imagination can't handle that...), what to buy at a shop or vending machine, which individual to hire for a job.

(Original post by f00ddude)
if people in that situation don't think ok 7 of us wanna beer, lets go a pub, then they're probably unemployed and an't afford either
also, how do you know their second choice?
for all you know people could have thought, a pint at 1 pub as 1st, then cofee at 2nd

all that campaign does is try to link beer with the campaign for the youth vote, or the "of look we like beer were cool vote"
anyone know knows anything about political campaigns will see its worthless in value
The point of the poster is to;

i)Demonstrate the spoiler effect and how AV overcomes it
ii)How simple an idea it actually is
(Original post by f00ddude)
i wasn't too bothered about AV tbh, but im gunna hope for a NO outcome now, just to put a stop to people who have never studied politics going on about how AV is fairer when in fact they haven't got a clue and are simply going "im cool, look i support lib dems, oh wait, public opinion has gone down, ok i don't support lib dem, even though they have enacted more of their manafesto than ever, im cool guys i support AV and therefore im smart"
still dont care enough to vote though
What elitist bull****. Why does studying politics make you solely qualified to state an opinion on AV?
0
reply
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#92
Report 7 years ago
#92
(Original post by Captain Crash)
Hopefully I've responded to some of your points in the other thread. With regard to the beer vs coffee, if you can't think of a situation where the question is exactly as I put it, so much the poorer for your imagination:

As for many competitions using is, yes, some do but many use an alternative system. The Oscar for best picture uses AV for instance; many TV talent shows are runoff elections. I also reject the suggestion that electing an MP should be a prize. We are selecting an individual for a job. No major election for an individual (whether for party leaders, mayors, bishops etc) uses FPTP.
Let's not go into the main discussion here as well. On the point of prizes I have only heard of one Oscar being awarded using AV, all other prizes are awarded by FPTP. The TV talent shows use runoffs so that they can have week after week of elections and thereby make more money. They also have no limit to the number of times you can vote or who for. They are not a good analogy.

The reason I think prizes are a good analogy is that I think with FPTP we're asking who do the largest number of people think is "the best". With prizes the best footballer of the year is the one who the largest number of people say is "the best". I think a good case can be made that a representative should likewise be selected in that manner. Executives (like Party leaders and Mayors) should probably be selected such that they can be tolerated by the largest number of people.

These are all thoughts and could be wrong. It's open for debate. So many people on TSR seem to have forgotten that that's the point of a forum and just neg rep anything they don't agree with. /miniscule-rant
0
reply
nonotrly
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#93
Report 7 years ago
#93
So the only ones against AV are Conservatives, racists and Communists, and now it's revealed STEPHEN FRY is voting yes.

What more do you want, people? Jesus and Megatron?
1
reply
Renner
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#94
Report 7 years ago
#94
Steven Fry is a comedian, actor and TV Personality. People should not get to hooked up on what he says because of QI which is nothing more than a quiz show.

I have no doubt that he is a good, intelligent man. But so are most people, and I wouldn't let him influence the way I vote
0
reply
f00ddude
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#95
Report 7 years ago
#95
(Original post by Captain Crash)

What elitist bull****. Why does studying politics make you solely qualified to state an opinion on AV?
how is that elitist? studying politics is something pretty much everyone has access to, but lets see, whos more qualified to talk on this kinda thing, propoganda fed puppies
or someone studying it at A level and now degree level?
you can have an opinion of course, and your chance to vote, but you shouldn't have the right to sprout nonsense to support your opinion
i feel like thats stating the obvious
0
reply
el pollo diablo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#96
Report 7 years ago
#96
(Original post by Craig_D)
He got a 2:1 at university, there are plenty of people on TSR who could (and have) beat that.
A 2.1 30 years ago is not comparable to a 2.1 today. I read somewhere that Hugh Laurie got a 3rd.

I think both campaigns have been pretty terrible though. The outright lies of the No campaign and the weakness of the Yes campaign. Abysmal.
0
reply
Captain Crash
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#97
Report 7 years ago
#97
(Original post by f00ddude)
how is that elitist? studying politics is something pretty much everyone has access to, but lets see, whos more qualified to talk on this kinda thing, propoganda fed puppies
or someone studying it at A level and now degree level?
you can have an opinion of course, and your chance to vote, but you shouldn't have the right to sprout nonsense to support your opinion
i feel like thats stating the obvious
So I can't argue politics unless I'm one of the privileged few who've done an A-level and/or degree in politics?

*******s.

Politics isn't a scientific subject like physics or medicine that only those who study it can really comment on. I rather agree with Chomsky on this when he says that politics is something that can and should be discussed by anyone and everyone. There isn't a fountain of knowledge about politics that politics students are privy to and no-one else; politics essentially boils down to implementation of values that we hold dear.
0
reply
f00ddude
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#98
Report 7 years ago
#98
(Original post by Captain Crash)
So I can't argue politics unless I'm one of the privileged few who've done an A-level and/or degree in politics?

*******s.

Politics isn't a scientific subject like physics or medicine that only those who study it can really comment on. I rather agree with Chomsky on this when he says that politics is something that can and should be discussed by anyone and everyone. There isn't a fountain of knowledge about politics that politics students are privy to and no-one else; politics essentially boils down to implementation of values that we hold dear.
you can argue it, but unless you have studied it the chances are, you will not know as much as someone studying it and it is unlikely you will know of the full details of political systems and so on, and it is only then you start to fully understand it
politics does not simply focus on the implementation of values, and if you think this, you hold a very simple view of politics, one which makes it exremely unlikely you know what your talking about to the same level i do. in the same way you would know more in the area you are studying
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (399)
37.64%
No - but I will (82)
7.74%
No - I don't want to (75)
7.08%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (504)
47.55%

Watched Threads

View All