I thought you said Although the majority of those would have directly voted for the candidate that had a chance of winning instead of the one they wanted to elect anywayOriginally Posted by Uppercut
Vote for the one who represents your own views, even if it is loosely, then your fine, but argument B is a complete and utter contradiction of argument A there
"All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher." - Ambrose Bierce
Langeveldt: I of course blame their parents.. and unchecked immigration!
GingerFurball: He's Austrian, they tend to produce the odd ****ed up individual
Burgey: Be careful dealing with neighbours whose cars don't have wheels but whose houses do.
Uppercut: Maybe I just need better strippers
The only point I'm making is that if you think A>B>C, but A has no chance of winning, you'll probably vote for B.
Not that you'll go out of your way to pick the candidate you think will win regardless of how you feel towards them.
I'd probably be less in favour of AV if I wasn't personally embittered by the fact that the current system effectively disenfranchises me based solely on my location. And as an ironic result, I have no vote with which to express the opinion that the electoral system should be reformed. Democracy sucks.
For all the advantages of a FPTP system most of its proponents just spout some kind of euphemism for "we're too ****ing stupid to understand anything else".
Last edited by Uppercut; 28-09-2010 at 08:15 AM.
Would like to see some authority for this.
If you vote like that, you are. Alas I'll give credit in that because a lot of people vote that way, it may be disenfranchising not to yourself, but at the end of the day, if A what you want, you should be voting A, regardless of what others are voting. You shouldn't vote B because they'll stop C winning, you are doing your personal pick out of any chance of sucess, and basically IMO trying to spite those who do like C rather than voting for your choice. Sure if everyone who liked A voted A, C might win, but thats because their policies have appealed to more people than any other singular candidate.
See above
Haha I obviously only have my own experiences to go on and am most certainly not referring to particular politicians.
But the most common complaints I've heard about AV are that it's too complicated or confusing and that they're used to FPTP.
You're taking quite a principled stand that isn't founded in reality- maybe my example isn't clear enough- let's rename A "the Social Democratic Party", B "the Democratic Socialist Party" and C "The BNP".
And now explain to a black man why he should vote for A rather than B.
My main gripe with the system is not that it is complicated, but that it effectively encourages tactical voting, which isn't really what the purpose of a general election is imho. Pretty much what CPR is alluding to in other words.
Because if he believes in A more than B he should vote A. If C wins, then alas for the poor bugger they are the choice of the electorate. Its upto him what he does next. If he feels he can still live in a UK society that democratically elects the BNP, he can stay and defend his rights, fight for what he believes is right etc. However if he feels the country has gone too extreme for him to live there, then he can have the seat next to me on the plane, as i'll be leaving such a puking cesspit of a country to rot away too.
The fact is, thats a nice extreme example to back up your argument, a good theoretical 'Well it could happen'.... In such extremes people do not act the normal way: Firstly the politicians themselves would probably work together so that A and B wern't equally strong candidates, probably encourage a straight A v C race. Secondly a coalition might prevent C winning, thirdly if all else failed the public would rise.... Unless of course C won 50%+ of the popular vote, then anyone with half a clue would leave the country.
The fact is its very rarely that extreme, and people don't face decisions like that. A, B and C are usually reasonable well adjusted folks (candidates like the BNP are usually letters X, Y and Z in this scenario, and dont factor in the final outcome), and although their policies differ, they arn't going to destroy the country overnight and do irreversible damage. If you believe in politician A, but more people believe in politician C than the rest, why is it your imperitive to go out of your way to damage the chances of these people getting the representative they would like? And to do it in a way that spites your own first choice too?
FPTP may not be the best, but if people play fair, it is fair. I refuse to endorse any system that is designed to limit people's prime choice.
Also, in a AV system, say if its applied to a constituency, and no party gets 50% first time round, but Labour did after the Lib Dems were kicked out... Why should that Labour candidate be then allowed to sit as a fully labour representative? He's a coalition MP, as he's in based on the Lib Dem vote going to him over his rival. He should have to share the seat with a Lib Dem MP on a proportional basis... Otherwise the system is returning a candidate that doesnt reflect what people voted, and doing exactly what FPTP is criticised for.
Racist.
I think what uppercut is saying is this:
For years my parents voted labour but often said they'd like to see the lib dems get power. But the reason they voted labour was to have a realistic attack on the conservatives. They saw the Lib-Dem vote as a "Wasted Vote"
It can also be described in a metaphor from the simpsons:
Well I believe I'd vote for a third party candidate.
Go ahead, throw your vote away!!!!!
Everyone wants to change the world, noone wants to change himself.
-Tolstoy
My parents (rather unfairly) aren't fans of the Lib-Dems now though.
Believe that metaphor was more to do with the two party system in the USA tbh. What with Ross Perot and all.I think what uppercut is saying is this:
For years my parents voted labour but often said they'd like to see the lib dems get power. But the reason they voted labour was to have a realistic attack on the conservatives. They saw the Lib-Dem vote as a "Wasted Vote"
It can also be described in a metaphor from the simpsons:
Well I believe I'd vote for a third party candidate.
Go ahead, throw your vote away!!!!!
Depending on their reasons I wouldn't say it was particularly unfair, since the Lib Dems basically sold a load of their voters down the river.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
