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

> 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.

Er, voter-preferred outcomes, actually!

-- 
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 , 
> JN@noparticularplacetogo.com (JNugent) wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Er, voter-preferred outcomes, actually!

You fail the test at the first hurdle.