x Turn on thread page Beta
 You are Here: Home

# The Commons Bar Mk IV watch

1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear....html?image=23

^^ Looks happy
2. Even as a Tory I think that Nadine Dorries' latest comments on sex education are stupendously short sighted and that she is an utter tosspot.
3. Nadine Dorris is a bint.
4. (Original post by jesusandtequila)
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.
Your analogies are flawed. Let's take the first one. Those people who initially thought Kaka was the best footballer in the world do not suddenly think that Ronaldo is. They still think Kaka is but that choice has been taken away. So when they switch to Ronaldo they are not saying he is the best footballer only that he is the second best footballer after Kaka. And this is what AV does, it gives you the person that some people think is the best, some think is the second best and some think is the third or fourth best etc. FPTP gives you the person who more people thought was the best than thought anyone else was the best.

I think your second analogy is the most flawed of all. Because in reality what happens is that boxer C beats boxer A and B but cannot beat both at the same time. This is how AV gets someone to win by letting A and B fight on the same side against C. When all three fight individually C wins. In AV the second preference votes are counted again as equal to first preference ones in order to make a winner. That is, A only beats C if he fights with B on his side. If A fought C alone A would lose. This is because more people think C is the "best" candidate than think that A is.

This is the point I'm making. FPTP tells you who the largest group thinks is "the best" while AV tells you who most people think is acceptable.

To clarify once more just in case I haven't done a good enough job earlier. The people whose first preference is for A DO NOT think B is the best. And if proof were needed that FPTP is the way to find the best I think we only need look at awards across the world. All of these are done via FPTP (except ones designed to make money off of numerous voting rounds like BGT or X-Factor which have to have round after round in order to get the same people phoning in multiple times).
5. (Original post by UniOfLife)
Your analogies are flawed. Let's take the first one. Those people who initially thought Kaka was the best footballer in the world do not suddenly think that Ronaldo is. They still think Kaka is but that choice has been taken away. So when they switch to Ronaldo they are not saying he is the best footballer only that he is the second best footballer after Kaka. And this is what AV does, it gives you the person that some people think is the best, some think is the second best and some think is the third or fourth best etc. FPTP gives you the person who more people thought was the best than thought anyone else was the best.
No, they're trying to work out who is the best out of those 4. They vote, and Messi is crowned the best of those 4, by FPTP.

Then they're trying to work out the best of just 3, if the system works - then the best footballer should still be the same, but now it comes out as Ronaldo.

So who's the best, Ronaldo or Messi?

You don't seem to understand that we are restricted by the choice of candidates, and thus we're not picking the best at all, we're picking the best of a certain group, the candidates standing. Like I said: If D stands, 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.

I think your second analogy is the most flawed of all. Because in reality what happens is that boxer C beats boxer A and B but cannot beat both at the same time. This is how AV gets someone to win by letting A and B fight on the same side against C. When all three fight individually C wins. In AV the second preference votes are counted again as equal to first preference ones in order to make a winner. That is, A only beats C if he fights with B on his side. If A fought C alone A would lose. This is because more people think C is the "best" candidate than think that A is.
No, if A fought alone against C (that is, if A and C were in the election), then A wins. Likewise B against C. Each time it's a fight between two boxers (two candidates), and you end up with C losing both times. How can C be the best? Indeed, the analogy extends such that if A, B and C fight in a ring in an 3-way fight (that is the election with all three candidates), then C wins, but only because A and B spend so long fighting with each other (ie. the vote is split) that they are both weakened by the time they get to C.

This is the point I'm making. FPTP tells you who the largest group thinks is "the best" while AV tells you who most people think is acceptable.
By definition, it tells who the largest group think is the best yes, but that's a completely different concept to the actual best candidate, as I'm demonstrating. Indeed, you can have a candidate which is hated by 90% and liked by 10%, and 10 other candidates each liked by 90% and hated by only 10% that split the vote 10-ways. Which is best for the constituency? One of the 10. Which is the 'best' in the eyes of the electorate? One of the 10 (indeed, if any one of the 10 stood against the one that seems best in your eyes, they'd win). Which is thought the best by the largest group? The one. It's an entirely different concept.

Indeed, let us imagine you make the claim that X are the best football team in the world. I say, what happens if X play Y? Y win. What if X play Z? Z win. What if X play A? A wins. Ok, so how are X the best football team in the world? Uh...because Y, Z and A are similar?

To clarify once more just in case I haven't done a good enough job earlier. The people whose first preference is for A DO NOT think B is the best. And if proof were needed that FPTP is the way to find the best I think we only need look at awards across the world. All of these are done via FPTP (except ones designed to make money off of numerous voting rounds like BGT or X-Factor which have to have round after round in order to get the same people phoning in multiple times).
Your concept of best is absolutely flawed, though. Best is relative to the other candidates - it's a concept of preference, by definition.

Let us imagine there is an objectively 'best' candidate. Should it matter if people similar to the best stand or not? The answer is clearly not, since the system should pick that best candidate no matter what. The fact that other people stand does not make any the candidates better or worse.
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.
why do you care though, how does it matter what colour skin people in your country have...
7. (Original post by Nothos)
Even as a Tory I think that Nadine Dorries' latest comments on sex education are stupendously short sighted and that she is an utter tosspot.
What's she said now?
8. (Original post by TheCrackInTime)
What's she said now?
Put a bill before the commons to turn sex education for girls into "Do not have sex. If you have sex you will get AIDS and die"
9. (Original post by Nothos)
Put a bill before the commons to turn sex education for girls into "Do not have sex. If you have sex you will get AIDS and die"
Oh dear.

10. (Original post by Nothos)
Put a bill before the commons to turn sex education for girls into "Do not have sex. If you have sex you will get AIDS and die"
11. (Original post by jesusandtequila)
No, they're trying to work out who is the best out of those 4. They vote, and Messi is crowned the best of those 4, by FPTP.

Then they're trying to work out the best of just 3, if the system works - then the best footballer should still be the same, but now it comes out as Ronaldo.

So who's the best, Ronaldo or Messi?

You don't seem to understand that we are restricted by the choice of candidates, and thus we're not picking the best at all, we're picking the best of a certain group, the candidates standing. Like I said: If D stands, 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.

No, if A fought alone against C (that is, if A and C were in the election), then A wins. Likewise B against C. Each time it's a fight between two boxers (two candidates), and you end up with C losing both times. How can C be the best? Indeed, the analogy extends such that if A, B and C fight in a ring in an 3-way fight (that is the election with all three candidates), then C wins, but only because A and B spend so long fighting with each other (ie. the vote is split) that they are both weakened by the time they get to C.

By definition, it tells who the largest group think is the best yes, but that's a completely different concept to the actual best candidate, as I'm demonstrating. Indeed, you can have a candidate which is hated by 90% and liked by 10%, and 10 other candidates each liked by 90% and hated by only 10% that split the vote 10-ways. Which is best for the constituency? One of the 10. Which is the 'best' in the eyes of the electorate? One of the 10 (indeed, if any one of the 10 stood against the one that seems best in your eyes, they'd win). Which is thought the best by the largest group? The one. It's an entirely different concept.

Indeed, let us imagine you make the claim that X are the best football team in the world. I say, what happens if X play Y? Y win. What if X play Z? Z win. What if X play A? A wins. Ok, so how are X the best football team in the world? Uh...because Y, Z and A are similar?

Your concept of best is absolutely flawed, though. Best is relative to the other candidates - it's a concept of preference, by definition.

Let us imagine there is an objectively 'best' candidate. Should it matter if people similar to the best stand or not? The answer is clearly not, since the system should pick that best candidate no matter what. The fact that other people stand does not make any the candidates better or worse.
I notice that you did not refer to my point about awards. Think about the Oscars or Sports Personality of the Year, or the Man Booker Prize or thousands of other similar awards granted each year to "the best" in a field. In all cases there are a number of shortlisted candidates and they all use FPTP. And in all these cases they are looking for "the best". Why don't they use AV?

The point is that you are talking about "better" and I am talking about "the best". This is the point I started with. AV and FPTP answer different questions. AV deals with preferred candidates, it is a relative measure. FPTP deals with the best candidate, it deals with absolute measures.

So that's why under AV A beats C and B beats C because AV asks "who do you prefer out of these choices". But under FPTPT C beats A and C beats B because FPTP asks "who is the best candidate (not just out of these guys)." It is true that FPTP is not perfect because there may be a candidate D who is the best but no one claimed it was perfect and we can only deal with what's in front of us.

My proposition in my first post was simply this - that AV and FPTPT measure different things. And the question really ought to be what kind of measure do we think is best for electing MPs - relative or absolute.

Now, with regards a leadership election it makes sense to use AV. A leader must lead and therefore must have a majority prepared to follow him, hence AV. However, an MP is not a leader of his constituents but a follower. And this is where we can argue. Should an MP be the guy who the largest number think is the best man for the job or should he be the guy who most people are prepared to put up with?

Consider this though, when faced with a decision in which his constituents are split the MP must choose. And the only natural choice is for him to follow the opinion of the largest group. In which case is it not logical that the MP be the one wanted by the largest group?

I don't know for sure. All I am trying to do is point out that AV and FPTP are not different methods for finding out the same information. They attempt to find out different information.
12. (Original post by SciFiBoy)
why do you care though, how does it matter what colour skin people in your country have...
Who said I cared? I merely stated that most sane people would. The Chinese don't want to be a minority in their own country. The Indians don't want to be a minority in their own country - no one does except people like you.

But then again, most people in the country would regard your nonsensical multicultural jibberish as just that - jibberish.

(Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...y-MP-says.html
13. (Original post by SciFiBoy)
why do you care though, how does it matter what colour skin people in your country have...
I am guessing this is about Britain becoming a minority state for the natives so... you're a plonker if you wish to have the British as a minority in their own country. I personally would hate it if France became a Muslim majority instead of a secular () country that looks out for the natives, those who are French come first then immigrants second, that is how it is now and should always be... the same applies to the UK.

If the immigrants which to change the UK into a country that suits them as they don't like the laws, customs or whatever they should leave imo.

(tried not to come off as a ****, if I have caused offence sorry).
Abstinence should be taught but along side how to be safe, how to use the condoms etc etc not instead of.
14. Ta. Have to say, it's not that bad. It's pretty funny though.
15. (Original post by UniOfLife)
I notice that you did not refer to my point about awards. Think about the Oscars or Sports Personality of the Year, or the Man Booker Prize or thousands of other similar awards granted each year to "the best" in a field. In all cases there are a number of shortlisted candidates and they all use FPTP. And in all these cases they are looking for "the best". Why don't they use AV?
The Oscars have moved to AV: http://www.nextleft.org/2010/02/osca...tive-vote.html

Why?

The point is that you are talking about "better" and I am talking about "the best". This is the point I started with. AV and FPTP answer different questions. AV deals with preferred candidates, it is a relative measure. FPTP deals with the best candidate, it deals with absolute measures.
If one is the best, then it's not a stretch to assume they are better than the rest, after all - that is part of the definition of best.

You can't claim that thing A (be it a phone, person, brand of tea or meal) is the best, but that thing B is better. That's a contradiction, completely.

So that's why under AV A beats C and B beats C because AV asks "who do you prefer out of these choices". But under FPTPT C beats A and C beats B because FPTP asks "who is the best candidate (not just out of these guys)." It is true that FPTP is not perfect because there may be a candidate D who is the best but no one claimed it was perfect and we can only deal with what's in front of us.
You've ignored my point here, I'm not even claiming candidate D is the best. This is my claim:

Let us imagine there is an objectively 'best' candidate. Should it matter if people similar to the best stand or not? The answer is clearly not, since the system should pick that best candidate no matter what. The fact that other people stand does not make any the candidates better or worse.

Furthermore, by definition, FPTP does ask who is the best out of these guys, since we don't vote on who is the best of all 6.8 billion people in the world, merely of the few candidates that stand.

My proposition in my first post was simply this - that AV and FPTPT measure different things. And the question really ought to be what kind of measure do we think is best for electing MPs - relative or absolute.
You can't have an absolute best without them being better relative to the others, though. Best is by definition a relative measure, it's a comparative term.

Now, with regards a leadership election it makes sense to use AV. A leader must lead and therefore must have a majority prepared to follow him, hence AV. However, an MP is not a leader of his constituents but a follower. And this is where we can argue. Should an MP be the guy who the largest number think is the best man for the job or should he be the guy who most people are prepared to put up with?
Indeed, but an MP votes on policies in the House of Commons, and such it should be that the MP should follow the policy wishes of his constituents. Imagine the case where 60% of the constituents like the policies aligned with A and B, and 40% like them aligned with C. Why should the policies aligned with C be put forward by the representative of the electorate?

To be able to legitimately say that these are the wishes of the electorate, it must be so that they have the majority of constituents that care (i.e. those that voted) behind them, rather than against them.

Consider this though, when faced with a decision in which his constituents are split the MP must choose. And the only natural choice is for him to follow the opinion of the largest group. In which case is it not logical that the MP be the one wanted by the largest group?
It is not natural. Let us imagine this situation, we have an MP put forward the following policy choice to his constituents, because he believes in direct democracy:

Increase NHS funding by 20% (and the relevant tax increases that come with it, for all the below too)
Increase NHS funding by 19%
Increase NHS funding by 18%
Increase NHS funding by 17%
Increase NHS funding by 16%
Increase NHS funding by 15%
Increase NHS funding by 14%
Increase NHS funding by 13%
Increase NHS funding by 12%
Increase NHS funding by 11%
Increase NHS funding by 10%
Keep NHS funding the same
Privatise Healthcare (and the relevant tax decreases that come with it)

Now, a majority of constituents would like to see NHS funding increased, but a minority would like to see it privatised. People vote for different increases, and the MP votes for privatising healthcare, on the basis that the largest group picked that. It is only natural where there are two options, do this or do that, but in that case you're going to reach the mark where you can legitimately represent them, 50%.

I don't know for sure. All I am trying to do is point out that AV and FPTP are not different methods for finding out the same information. They attempt to find out different information.
They do collect different information, but you're making the mistake of treating best as an absolute measure when by definition it is a comparative - and thus a relative measure.
16. (Original post by tehFrance)
I am guessing this is about Britain becoming a minority state for the natives so... you're a plonker if you wish to have the British as a minority in their own country. I personally would hate it if France became a Muslim majority instead of a secular () country that looks out for the natives, those who are French come first then immigrants second, that is how it is now and should always be... the same applies to the UK.

If the immigrants which to change the UK into a country that suits them as they don't like the laws, customs or whatever they should leave imo.

(tried not to come off as a ****, if I have caused offence sorry).

Abstinence should be taught but along side how to be safe, how to use the condoms etc etc not instead of.

Please rate some other members before rating this member again.
17. (Original post by tehFrance)
Abstinence should be taught but along side how to be safe, how to use the condoms etc etc not instead of.
How would that work exactly? Other than "Don't have sex" what more is there to teach? Other than Abstinence +, of course.

Rep for anyone who gets the reference. Unless I've repped you too recently, in which case you'll have to make do with this
18. (Original post by tehFrance)
Abstinence should be taught but along side how to be safe, how to use the condoms etc etc not instead of.
Why? I cannot see any grounds for teaching abstinence in sex education classes. The statistics show that there is only a negligible difference in the number of sexual partners, we're talking 0.1% that those who get taught to be abstinent in sex education have.

Besides, I don't like the idea of the state indoctrinating students with an anti-sex agenda. Teach them about sex and how to have it safely, certainly, that benefits everyone, but don't tell them they shouldn't have it.
19. I have decided! What I would like to see in the next PMQ's is something like this:

Backbencher: Mr Speaker, What will my Right Honourable friend do about reforming the tax system.

Prime Minister: A lot.

That would make my day.
20. (Original post by TheCrackInTime)
How would that work exactly?
Teach the advantages of not having sex, how doesn't it work?

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: July 18, 2011
Today on TSR

### Four things top students are doing

Over the Easter break

### Her parents made her dump me

Poll

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