In article , 
JN@noparticularplacetogo.com (JNugent) wrote:

> ikr2@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> 
> > rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk () wrote:
> 
> >> So, you'd rather have a mere 31.5% of the voters get 100% of the 
> >> representation with voters having not make difficult tactical 
> >> considerations whether to vote for the independents or the SNP or 
> >> Liberal Democrat candidates and thereby distort their genuine 
> >> preferences?
> >> AV is not perfect because the winner still gets 100% of the 
> >> representation with well under 100% of the voters' support but it's 
> >> still the support of well over one-third of those voting.
> 
> > Hear, hear.
> > I was composing a reply along the same lines, but then saw that 
> > you had responded.
> 
> > Ian Ridley
> > "I am a Liberal
> 
> Well, that at least explains it - and thanks for making it clear.
> 
> Fiddling the counting of the vote (to make it look like one of the 
> losers won) is the only hope of government that Libs realistically 
> have.
> 
> I expect your patron saint is the late President Marcos.

Why is giving full effect to the preferences of the voters "fiddling", 
pray?

-- 
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Cambridge                    http://www.rosenstiel.co.uk/
Cambridge Liberal Democrats: http://www.cambridgelibdems.org.uk/

rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:

> JN@noparticularplacetogo.com (JNugent) wrote:
>> ikr2@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>> rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk () wrote:

>>>> So, you'd rather have a mere 31.5% of the voters get 100% of the 
>>>> representation with voters having not make difficult tactical 
>>>> considerations whether to vote for the independents or the SNP or 
>>>> Liberal Democrat candidates and thereby distort their genuine 
>>>> preferences?
>>>> AV is not perfect because the winner still gets 100% of the 
>>>> representation with well under 100% of the voters' support but it's 
>>>> still the support of well over one-third of those voting.

>>> Hear, hear.
>>> I was composing a reply along the same lines, but then saw that 
>>> you had responded.
>>> Ian Ridley
>>> "I am a Liberal

>> Well, that at least explains it - and thanks for making it clear.
>> Fiddling the counting of the vote (to make it look like one of the 
>> losers won) is the only hope of government that Libs realistically 
>> have.
>> I expect your patron saint is the late President Marcos.

> Why is giving full effect to the preferences of the voters "fiddling", 
> pray?

Define "full effect" in a way that does not depend on Lib-preferred outcomes.

Paul Hyett wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 at 00:57:05, JNugent  
> wrote in uk.politics.electoral :
> 
>> rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> Why is giving full effect to the preferences of the voters 
>>> "fiddling",  pray?
>>
>> Define "full effect" in a way that does not depend on Lib-preferred 
>> outcomes.
> 
> Surely the 'preferred outcome' in any election is that parties should be 
> represented nationally in close proportion to their vote share?

The proper outcome in an election is that the (single) winner is the one who 
gets most votes.

In article ,
   JNugent  wrote:
> Paul Hyett wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 at 00:57:05, JNugent  
> > wrote in uk.politics.electoral :
> > 
> >> rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> >>
> >>> Why is giving full effect to the preferences of the voters 
> >>> "fiddling",  pray?
> >>
> >> Define "full effect" in a way that does not depend on Lib-preferred 
> >> outcomes.
> > 
> > Surely the 'preferred outcome' in any election is that parties should
> > be represented nationally in close proportion to their vote share?

> The proper outcome in an election is that the (single) winner is the
> one who gets most votes.

That's the way I (and I should think most of the public-at-large) would
view it.  Anything else they would deduce is a fiddle.  Especially with
all the postal votes in Birmingham and other stuff going on, even within
parties (such as Labour at Erith and Thamesmead) anything that isn't
absolutely straightforward and transparent in the electoral field will
inevitably be perceived as yet another form of corruption.

Then again, perhaps a "new" system for Britain that "works elsewhere" is
the way to go, as for example the daily allowance scheme that Gordon
Brown wishes to introduce for MPs, based on the EU model:

http://wwwjohn-m-ward.blogspot.com/2009/04/daily-allowances.html

-- 
John M Ward - see http://www.horsted.john-ward.org.uk
--> In favour of returning all local decisions to local people!

On 26 Apr, 13:22, John M Ward  wrote:

>    JNugent  wrote:

> > The proper outcome in an election is that the (single) winner is the
> > one who gets most votes.
>
> That's the way I (and I should think most of the public-at-large) would
> view it.
> John M Ward

If you think that "most of the public at large" want FPTP instead of
AV, then how do you explain the fact that when the government did a
consultation process on the establishment of the London Assembly and
Mayor, most respondents said that they wanted the Mayor to be elected
by AV?