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?
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

In article , pah@invalid.invalid (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?

In the AV (single winner) case, merely that the candidate with most 
support wins, surely?

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

rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article , pah@invalid.invalid (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?
> 
> In the AV (single winner) case, merely that the candidate with most 
> support wins, surely?

Correct. And every voter gets one vote, cast once.

PR: "Count early, count often".

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 at 05:06:10, rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote in 
uk.politics.electoral :

>In article , pah@invalid.invalid (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?
>
>In the AV (single winner) case, merely that the candidate with most
>support wins, surely?
>
That's why I mentioned 'nationally' to (unsuccessfully) avoid 
misunderstanding.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham