Apparently, in my seat Some Guy won by a landslide.
Apparently, in my seat Some Guy won by a landslide.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Haha, it seems Some Guy is a former Tory. All the Tory and Lib Dem candidates decide to Stop being Tories and Lib Dems and run under the Banner of 'The Alliance'.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Something being complicated is itself a strike on the merits, in any mass-endeavor activity.Originally Posted by Hazir
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Had a discussion earlier today, where a pro-reform campaigner was upset and blaming the electorate. Complained the electorate was stupid and had got the decision wrong. Said they'd probably get it wrong decision if you asked:
"What is the better approximation for Pi?"
22/7 [ ]
Gregory-Leibniz [ ]
Said to him that while Gregory-Leibniz is a more accurate approximation, 22/7 is the better approximation for the vast majority of people.
Is that discussion really so profound RB that you have to post it? It literally.. it's just ridiculous. I'm no enforcer on what can or can't be posted it does seem a little random.
I got in an argument with a pro-reformer about what's better pepporoni or sausage pizza. While I showed pepporoni is the better tasting one, sausage is the better health choice for the vast majority of people.
Last edited by Lebanese Dragon; 05-09-2011 at 08:33 AM.
Not random at all: It was a direct response to, and agreement with, Fuzzies point.
I apologize, I missed his post. What you said makes sense now. At first it seemed so out place.
Negatives and positives to both systems.
Didn't care enough to vote.
Seriously? This seems like a pretty major issue to have in front of you.
Timbuk, as I recall, you're a Lib Dem, no? What's a major negative to the AV system?
Hope is the denial of reality
Have always voted Lib Dem, just once Labour quite some time back.
Swung considerably toward Tory in recent years, in part due to age () I guess, in part due to Labour's piss-poor financial performance in the last term, and in part due to working as a banker with all the influences therein.
My being a lib-dem has always been completely ideological. Getting older, pragmatism comes more to the fore. I view the lib-dems as not particularly realistic these days.
~
Hum. AV.
Not proportional-representation. Makes coalitions more likely which I don't view as a good thing.
The low turnout on this vote is what I was kinda hoping for.
I'd like to see a change, but don't really think AV is it. If enough people gripe about FPTP, but we have low-turnouts for alternatives like AV, then maybe someone will get the message and offer more viable alternatives. The I accept that such machinations are (very) slow to come about.
AV works for some things, but not voting in a government. Works well in song and talent-show contests.
Last edited by Timbuk2; 05-10-2011 at 10:44 AM.
You want full PR but are against because AV causes a bigger likelyhood of coalitions? I'm pretty certain that unless you put in unreasonably high thresholds in PR, you are certain to get coalitions.
I think the British (press at least) were a bit hysterical about the forming of the present government which took all of one week? A country like Belgium is doing quite ok without having a government for almost a year now. Here in Holland, which is easily one of the best run countries in the world after elections we frequently go without a fully functional executive for months.
Congratulations America
Yeh the British press did get a bit hysterical about 'no one in office'.
Most people are fully aware that everything continues as normal during transitional periods.
Most people are also fully aware that the British press gets hysterical.
I thought about this, and I like this idea, except I would like to find a method that makes it so everyone only has to vote once, yet we still get the benefits of the rounds system.
The cons I saw listed were legitimate, and I'd be willing to add one. Since the concern of splitting votes is eliminated, then each party running will be encouraged to have way more candidates in hopes one of them has an influential platform. That seems wasteful, and inefficient, and encouraging dishonest campaigning. Granted an educated populace could be a great counter to that problem. The other problem I beleive Timbuk2 pointed out with lower turn out if you have to come back and vote more than once. I think this problem is a blessing and a curse. On one hand if we have lower turn out we'll get more serious and knowledable voters. (However, I'd imagine everyone would come out for the last voting cycle.) Also though we could potentailly eliminate this problem all together if we can devise a way to vote so you only have to vote once, and the rounds will take care of themselves, after you've made your initial voting prefrence known.
Could it be done this way, just brain storming just now. Voters simply order who'd they vote for in what in what order, say I want Mr. A, Mr. B, Mr. C, Mr. D... someone else could also want Mr. A first but want Mr. C second etc... and they rank them this way.
Then a computer uses that voting prefrence to determine the results in the following pairings:
AB
AC
AD
BC
BD
CD
I need to think about this, but one should end up winning all their pairings, or tying with another person(s). hmmmm.. Would this be fair? That would only take one trip to the voting booth for voters. And you would get rid of the problem of splitting support. hnmmm... I'm thinking it should work. I need to think of a simple counter example where it contains a similar flaw to the current voting system being used. What i mean is a flaw In the voting system itself, I already acknowledge it'll encourage more candidates from each party to run which can be seen as a wasteful thing. But i think voter turn out would remain roughly the same, and you may only get more seroius voters. And if you don't order some they're randomized. hmmm it does change up some voting strategies though, now you'll put your opponents best guy to beat yours last on your priority list even if you value him higher than that. Interesting.
Side note:
What would you guys think about making people take a no-brainer political quiz before their allowed to vote. So and so's slogan was: they have to fill in the right bubble. Out of these what was so and so's stance, or what was their main talkings points, to show they had a basic following of each candidate. Seems elitist, and room for corruption.
Last edited by Lebanese Dragon; 05-13-2011 at 01:27 AM.
Um, under the AV system, everyone only votes once.
Hope is the denial of reality
I kind of like the run off system they have in France.
Congratulations America
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote