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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure either way on AV but here's a thought with regards the Tories using it or not. Aren't the two "competitions" different?

    When electing a Party Leader you really need someone who at least a majority of the Party are prepared to tolerate. But when it comes to choosing an MP we're looking for the candidate who the most people think will do a good (or "the best") job. For such a competition it seems FPTP would be best because under that scheme the winner is the one who the largest number of people think would do the best job. I think its hard to claim that someone's third preference is the same as saying "he'll do a good job". Therefore while AV gets you the guy most people can tolerate FPTP would seem to get you the guy that the largest number of people think would do the best job.

    If AV is thought of as a series of elections then think of FPTP as a survey asking who do you think would be best as MP for this constituency. The winner is the one who gets the most people saying "its him", just like on Family Fortunes
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    I'm not sure either way on AV but here's a thought with regards the Tories using it or not. Aren't the two "competitions" different?

    When electing a Party Leader you really need someone who at least a majority of the Party are prepared to tolerate. But when it comes to choosing an MP we're looking for the candidate who the most people think will do a good (or "the best") job. For such a competition it seems FPTP would be best because under that scheme the winner is the one who the largest number of people think would do the best job. I think its hard to claim that someone's third preference is the same as saying "he'll do a good job". Therefore while AV gets you the guy most people can tolerate FPTP would seem to get you the guy that the largest number of people think would do the best job.
    I don't really think this is true at all. Some may feel like this, sure, but to be honest I'd prefer to get a better say on the party leader than a constituency MP.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    :facepalm2:

    It's run-off voting.

    AV is instant run-off voting.

    The only difference? AV does it in one swoop.
    It's still not AV.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    I'm not sure either way on AV but here's a thought with regards the Tories using it or not. Aren't the two "competitions" different?

    When electing a Party Leader you really need someone who at least a majority of the Party are prepared to tolerate. But when it comes to choosing an MP we're looking for the candidate who the most people think will do a good (or "the best") job. For such a competition it seems FPTP would be best because under that scheme the winner is the one who the largest number of people think would do the best job. I think its hard to claim that someone's third preference is the same as saying "he'll do a good job". Therefore while AV gets you the guy most people can tolerate FPTP would seem to get you the guy that the largest number of people think would do the best job.

    If AV is thought of as a series of elections then think of FPTP as a survey asking who do you think would be best as MP for this constituency. The winner is the one who gets the most people saying "its him", just like on Family Fortunes
    I would rep you if I could.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12070726

    2:40 onwards. It just makes me laugh.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    I don't really think this is true at all. Some may feel like this, sure, but to be honest I'd prefer to get a better say on the party leader than a constituency MP.
    Its not really anything to do with a better or worse "say". I'm raising the possibility that the two systems differ on what the people using them are saying. The winner of AV is the most tolerated while the winner of FPTP is the best.

    Since the entire campaign is centred on terrible analogies, here is another one. If you want to find out who is the best footballer you go into a pub and take a survey. Its extremely unlikely that any one person will get a majority but the guy who the largest number of people say is the best is considered the best. No one would insist that the people who thought someone else was the best vote again and then take their second choice as "the best".

    FPTP is our best method for finding the best candidate while AV is the best method for finding the most tolerated. With that in mind a strong case can be made that FPTP is the better method for finding MPs, especially as an MP is supposed to represent the views of all constituents not just those who voted for him/her.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12070726

    2:40 onwards. It just makes me laugh.
    That's genius. Would rep if I could.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Its not really anything to do with a better or worse "say". I'm raising the possibility that the two systems differ on what the people using them are saying. The winner of AV is the most tolerated while the winner of FPTP is the best.

    Since the entire campaign is centred on terrible analogies, here is another one. If you want to find out who is the best footballer you go into a pub and take a survey. Its extremely unlikely that any one person will get a majority but the guy who the largest number of people say is the best is considered the best. No one would insist that the people who thought someone else was the best vote again and then take their second choice as "the best".

    FPTP is our best method for finding the best candidate while AV is the best method for finding the most tolerated. With that in mind a strong case can be made that FPTP is the better method for finding MPs, especially as an MP is supposed to represent the views of all constituents not just those who voted for him/her.
    I see. I think we fundamentally disagree on what the two systems mean. I think the opposite is true, since under FPTP you get one guy who has been voted in by the largest minority/majority, where in the former case he is the most tolerated. Under AV, you still don't necessarily get the 'best' though, of course.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    FPTP is our best method for finding the best candidate while AV is the best method for finding the most tolerated.
    This simply isn't true.

    Consider this. We have 3 candidates. Two of them (A and B) are similar, but have nuanced policy differences, while C is from the opposite end of the political spectrum.

    First round voting:

    A: 26
    B: 34
    C: 40

    So here, C wins under FPTP.

    Under AV, A is eliminated, and we'll transfer the second preferences of A voters, and they go to B:

    B: 60
    C: 40

    So B wins under AV.

    Your claim here is that C is the 'best' candidate, and B is merely the 'most tolerated'.

    However, let's look at how people match up the two candidates:

    A vs B: 26-34 (assuming C voters have no preference between them, they find them equally repulsive)
    A vs C: 60-40
    B vs C: 60-40

    C would lose an election against either A or B alone, and yet is the best candidate? Madness. I appreciate that AV doesn't guarantee a Condorcet winner (where there is one), but it makes it much more likely that you'll find one (the only times it doesn't is when the Condorcet winner is knocked out in very early rounds). AV is simply a mathematically better system for picking a single-winner, which is what an MP seat is.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    It's a perception of being too left wing. He's not done much more than Neil Kinnock who was further left than Ed.



    Oh no, Labour aren't in a wilderness in Scotland. They still dominate Westminster seats and will be in position to make the most of Salmond's mistakes. It's just that Iain Grey is not very exciting as a leader and has none of the stature of Dewar or Salmond. If Salmond plays the independence card and it fails then he'll have to go and if you place Nichola Sturgeon against a better Labour leader than Grey, Labour will win again.

    Voting habits are fundamentally different for Westminster and the Devolved institutions. The SNP gets more seats in Holyrood because it is a "Scottish" party for Scottish interests, for most of the bread and butter issues this gives the SNP an advantage - not governed by a London HQ. Same goes for Plaid Cymru in Wales, they have many more seats than they have been able to win in Westminster elections. Labour does better for Westminster because it is a more powerful party there and so benefits from being a British party. I know lots of people who will vote for one party at one tier of government and another - usually Labour - at Westminster.
    Miliband-wise, do you think that this perception is doing much harm for him, more so than Kinnock who was actually more or less on the point of victory in 1992? Has the Blair-Brown premiership made us all shuffle to the right so much so that we're swinging towards America in our perception of left-wingers?

    On Scotland, thanks for correcting me on the voting point. I can't really see Salmond risking proposing independence for a while though, even if I see the Union only getting weaker from here on (going to get shouted at by L i b for this, but it's the impression I get).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    This simply isn't true.

    Consider this. We have 3 candidates. Two of them (A and B) are similar, but have nuanced policy differences, while C is from the opposite end of the political spectrum.

    First round voting:

    A: 26
    B: 34
    C: 40

    So here, C wins under FPTP.

    Under AV, A is eliminated, and we'll transfer the second preferences of A voters, and they go to B:

    B: 60
    C: 40

    So B wins under AV.

    Your claim here is that C is the 'best' candidate, and B is merely the 'most tolerated'.

    However, let's look at how people match up the two candidates:

    A vs B: 26-34 (assuming C voters have no preference between them, they find them equally repulsive)
    A vs C: 60-40
    B vs C: 60-40

    C would lose an election against either A or B alone, and yet is the best candidate? Madness. I appreciate that AV doesn't guarantee a Condorcet winner (where there is one), but it makes it much more likely that you'll find one (the only times it doesn't is when the Condorcet winner is knocked out in very early rounds). AV is simply a mathematically better system for picking a single-winner, which is what an MP seat is.
    I'm aware of the way AV works and can do the maths too

    The point I'm making is that more people think C is the best person for the job than think that A is or that B is. The people who thought A was the best cannot later be said to have equally thought that B was the best when you remove A from the list. They still think A is the best and B is still thought to be the best by fewer people than C.

    Your example only shows what I said - B is the most tolerated where as C is the one considered the best by the largest number of people. Proof - if B was considered the best by more people than C he would have got more votes.

    So it boils down to the question of whether you think MPs should be the best candidate or the most tolerated. I think they should be the best. FPTP may not be a perfect way of finding that guy but its better at it than AV.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    SciFiBoy takes extreme idicocy to another level:
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&postcount=311

    Hmm I want the idiot to defend himself:

    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    I'm a racist moron
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    You're a dumbass Tea.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    You're a dumbass Tea.
    Why?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Why?
    You've taken an exaggeration made by someone somewhere else and brought it here with provocative language involved. Why. Do it via PM if you care so much :p:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    I'm aware of the way AV works and can do the maths too

    The point I'm making is that more people think C is the best person for the job than think that A is or that B is. The people who thought A was the best cannot later be said to have equally thought that B was the best when you remove A from the list. They still think A is the best and B is still thought to be the best by fewer people than C.

    Your example only shows what I said - B is the most tolerated where as C is the one considered the best by the largest number of people. Proof - if B was considered the best by more people than C he would have got more votes.

    So it boils down to the question of whether you think MPs should be the best candidate or the most tolerated. I think they should be the best. FPTP may not be a perfect way of finding that guy but its better at it than AV.
    Not at all. If B and C stand in an election, who wins? Therefore - who is the better candidate of the two? Indeed, what if those people voting C thought that candidate D would have been better, but he didn't stand because he wants to keep his current job? To say that FPTP picks the best candidate is bizarre, it doesn't even pick the one the electorate want from the ones available. This is what the electorate think:

    B is better than A.
    B is better than C.
    A is better than C.

    A system which turns this into C being the winner is absolute madness.

    Imagine a candidate from Party D, which didn't have the resources to stand in this seat - party D is more similar to party C, and then we have the vote split on both sides, and B being the winner. Does this suddenly mean that B is the best merely because D stood, while if D doesn't stand, C is the best? Your logic is barmy.

    EDIT: Indeed, to take your football analogy (and show how flawed it is) let us imagine 4 people in a pub discussing which one is the best football out of this lot: Messi, Xavi, Ronaldo and Kaka (for the sake of things). They take a vote and decide on Messi. Now imagine they're not including Kaka in the discussion, and trying to find the best out of Messi, Xavi and Ronaldo. Now, Ronaldo is the best footballer. Makes sense?!

    EDIT2: To give you an analogy here, too. Three boxers, A, B and C are in a tournament to decide who is the best. They play each other to decide who wins the belt. Boxer A beats boxer B. Boxer B beats boxer C. Boxer A beats boxer C. Boxer C is crowned world champion, and deemed the best. Why? He lost both times.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    You've taken an exaggeration made by someone somewhere else and brought it here with provocative language involved. Why. Do it via PM if you care so much :p:
    No it's fun :cool:

    Still I don't think dumbass is appropriate... I mean seriously? American language? Is it really necessary?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    SciFiBoy takes extreme idicocy to another level:
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&postcount=311

    Hmm I want the idiot to defend himself:
    its a stupid poll and a stupid thread, if people really get upset over the skin colour of their compatriots then frankly they probably are racists.

    I honestly couldnt care less how many people in the UK are black, white or whatever.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    its a stupid poll and a stupid thread, if people really get upset over the skin colour of their compatriots then frankly they probably are racists.

    I honestly couldnt care less how many people in the UK are black, white or whatever.
    It's not about having a problem with people of another race and if you were less of a fool you would realise that. Now I won't deny, by the looks of it, some of them are probably racist - but most people aren't, they just don't want to be a minority in their own country - most sane people don't.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Let's not start calling names please.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

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.