Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Adorno)
    If it affects Labour who are a national party... how can it not? I give up. I don't really see what your point is.
    It's not Labour who shapes debate, it's the press. The press in England don't cover events in Wales.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    The fact you say this over and over suggests you're not listening. The PAA killed the debate, this was its problem. And mine is no longer a lone voice. If even Teaddict, who agrees with me on nothing politically, is now shouting the same thing then I'm afraid the opinion of the House has turned away from your position. PAA - whether intended or not - killed the HoC.
    No, you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not denying that the PAA stopped debate. I'm pointing out that it did so not because of its mere existence but because enough people agreed that it concluded the debate.

    (Original post by Adorno)
    Then why tear open the stitches and make a song and dance of a dead argument? I don't understand why you do this.
    You're conveniently forgetting that my posts on this topic were in response to one of yours in which you baselessly attacked both the PAA and myself. You suggested that the PAA was a "deus ex machina" and that I had written it purely out of maliciousness in the full knowledge that it would ruin everyone's fun. I don't think it unreasonable that I respond to those attacks.

    As a side point - it is incredibly hypocritical for anyone from the Socialists of Labour to bemoan a Bill as being "deus ex machina" when almost every one of their Bills is a proposal for the government to pay for something or other without considering where the money would come from. If inventing new money isn't "deus ex machina" then the PAA (which was sourced and costed) is certainly not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    My hayfever tablets say 'avoid alcohol'; after some research it works out that you feel the effects of alcohol quicker after taking them. Cheap nights for me then :awesome:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I disagreed with pretty much everything Tristam Hunt said on YVQT.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Thanks sweetheart
    ??
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Is "could have been clearer" the BBC's new euphemism for "should probably go read an election pamphlet?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    Is "could have been clearer" the BBC's new euphemism for "should probably go read an election pamphlet?
    Humphries is entirely right when he says that it's wrong that some people's votes get counted more times than others, though. Cameron is wrong.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Humphries is entirely right when he says that it's wrong that some people's votes get counted more times than others, though. Cameron is wrong.
    Isn't it the other way round? Cameron said that only the person who is eliminated has their votes retallied, which is correct, while Humphreys said that everyone's votes are retallied, which is wrong.

    They're both messing up the language but it seems to me that Cameron was right.

    EDIT: Wait, no. Hush brain.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    Isn't it the other way round? Cameron said that only the person who is eliminated has their votes retallied, which is correct, while Humphreys said that everyone's votes are retallied, which is wrong.

    They're both messing up the language but it seems to me that Cameron was right.
    No, no, everyone's vote is counted again in the next round of counting. It is merely that the person who had their vote eliminated is now registering their vote for a different candidate - both have it counted again. Humphries is entirely correct to point out the huge fallacy in Cameron claiming that one person, one vote does not hold.

    This is what I (and Humphries) are getting at:



    Although the video makes a point of saying the votes are counted multiple times, I find it's more intuitive to look at it as each person voting once in multiple elections each with the candidate that came last in the previous not standing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    No, no, everyone's vote is counted again in the next round of counting. It is merely that the person who had their vote eliminated is now registering their vote for a different candidate - both have it counted again. Humphries is entirely correct to point out the huge fallacy in Cameron claiming that one person, one vote does not hold.

    This is what I (and Humphries) are getting at:



    Although the video makes a point of saying the votes are counted multiple times, I find it's more intuitive to look at it as each person voting once in multiple elections each with the candidate that came last in the previous not standing.
    Damn, you got there before my brain kicked in and I realised my error. Stupid Cameron, making me look stupid.

    And I study politics as well :laugh:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    to be honest that Cat video alone makes me want to vote Yes, I really cant say I care either way, but OMG the Cat video is Win!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Okay this is getting annoying now, why do the pro-AV side keep saying the Conservatives use AV? They don't use AV at all. The Conservatives have separate ballots eliminating the last place candidate in each round until there are only two candidates remaining - no votes are tranferred as with AV.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Okay this is getting annoying now, why do the pro-AV side keep saying the Conservatives use AV? They don't use AV at all. The Conservatives have separate ballots eliminating the last place candidate in each round until there are only two candidates remaining - no votes are tranferred as with AV.
    Both sides 'make mistakes' (lie through their teeth). And you could call that system manual AV if you were a Labour spin doctor.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Okay this is getting annoying now, why do the pro-AV side keep saying the Conservatives use AV? They don't use AV at all. The Conservatives have separate ballots eliminating the last place candidate in each round until there are only two candidates remaining - no votes are tranferred as with AV.
    This is exactly the same process as AV, though. Let us imagine you voted for Kenneth Clarke in the first round. He's eliminated. Who do you vote for in the next round? Your second preference, and so forth. All AV is, is this process but done in the course of one ballot by getting all the necessary information from preferences, rather than holding multiple rounds in each seat.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Okay this is getting annoying now, why do the pro-AV side keep saying the Conservatives use AV? They don't use AV at all. The Conservatives have separate ballots eliminating the last place candidate in each round until there are only two candidates remaining - no votes are tranferred as with AV.
    Ditto what everyone else has said. Exhaustive ballot has more in common with AV than FPTP.

    Why don't the tories use FPTP if its such a great system.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Well that's it. Degree finished. No more lectures. No more essays. No more exams. Ever.

    Torn between doing a little jig and crapping myself at not being a student anymore. A couple of free weeks now, so time to catch up on sleep and telly.
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Student2806)
    Well that's it. Degree finished. No more lectures. No more essays. No more exams. Ever.

    Torn between doing a little jig and crapping myself at not being a student anymore. A couple of free weeks now, so time to catch up on sleep and telly.
    Maybe some professional exams XD
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    This is exactly the same process as AV, though. Let us imagine you voted for Kenneth Clarke in the first round. He's eliminated. Who do you vote for in the next round? Your second preference, and so forth. All AV is, is this process but done in the course of one ballot by getting all the necessary information from preferences, rather than holding multiple rounds in each seat.
    It's not AV.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    It's not AV.
    No, it isn't, but it does basically the same thing. So, people saying "lol the tories use AV" are silly, but saying that the Tories don't use something which is fundamentally the same as AV is wrong.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    It's not AV.
    :facepalm2:

    It's run-off voting.

    AV is instant run-off voting.

    The only difference? AV does it in one swoop.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.