Epping Forest DC, Loughton Alderton
BNP 393 (32.2;-5.4), Residents 367 (30.1;+1.0), Con 163 (13.3;-3.1), 
LD 172 (14.1;+10.5), Lab 98 (8.0;-5.2), UKIP 28 (2.3;+2.3)
Majority 26. Turnout 36.7%. BNP hold. Last fought 2006.

Isle of Wight UA, Newport North
Con 207 (35.5;-3.0), LD 189 (32.4;+3.9), Lab 137 (23.5;-9.5), 
UKIP 25 (4.3;+4.3), Ind 23 (3.9;+3.9), Ind 2 (0.3;+0.3)
Majority 18. Turnout 30.0%. Con hold. Last fought 2005.

Stroud DC, Nailsworth
Con 857 (44.5;+6.1), Green 810 (42.0;+4.1), Lab 261 (13.5;+0.2)
[LD 0 (0.0;-5.1), UKIP 0 (0.0;-5.3)]
Majority 47. Turnout 38.0%. Con hold. Last fought 2007.


Information courtesy of the Association of Liberal Democrat Councillors
www: http://www.aldc.org. 
Also available at http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/byelections/
-- 
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Cambridge

In uk.politics.electoral on Sat, 1 Sep 2007, Colin Rosenstiel 
 wrote :

>Epping Forest DC, Loughton Alderton
>BNP 393 (32.2;-5.4), Residents 367 (30.1;+1.0), Con 163 (13.3;-3.1),
>LD 172 (14.1;+10.5), Lab 98 (8.0;-5.2), UKIP 28 (2.3;+2.3)
>Majority 26. Turnout 36.7%. BNP hold. Last fought 2006.

BNP hold, but with a slipping vote, not to mention fragmented 
opposition...
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Paul Hyett wrote:

> Colin Rosenstiel  wrote :

>> Epping Forest DC, Loughton Alderton
>> BNP 393 (32.2;-5.4), Residents 367 (30.1;+1.0), Con 163 (13.3;-3.1),
>> LD 172 (14.1;+10.5), Lab 98 (8.0;-5.2), UKIP 28 (2.3;+2.3)
>> Majority 26. Turnout 36.7%. BNP hold. Last fought 2006.

> BNP hold, but with a slipping vote, not to mention fragmented opposition...

It looked an interesting one. Clearly, there are some very particular 
"local factors" operating there.

Obviously, UKIP (who I assume didn't stand last time) have taken some 
of the BNP votes (and no doubt a few Conservative votes as well). The 
"Resident" seems to be the main rival to the BNP. There could be quite 
a tale behind that. The winning BNP, the Conservatives and the Labour 
Party seem to have lost vote share, with the LDs making a proportional 
gain (though far from having a reasonable hope of winning). Perhaps 
the lost Labour votes transferred to the LDs as a tactic?

Paul Hyett <p...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Colin Rosenstiel  wrote
> >Epping Forest DC, Loughton Alderton
> >BNP 393 (32.2;-5.4), Residents 367 (30.1;+1.0), Con 163 (13.3;-3.1),
> >LD 172 (14.1;+10.5), Lab 98 (8.0;-5.2), UKIP 28 (2.3;+2.3)
> >Majority 26. Turnout 36.7%. BNP hold. Last fought 2006.
>
> BNP hold, but with a slipping vote, not to mention fragmented opposition...

And the BNP winning on less than a third of the votes. That's FPTP for
you.
--
Henry

In article ,
   usenet@bondegezou.demon.co.uk 
wrote:
> Paul Hyett <p...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> > Colin Rosenstiel  wrote
> > >Epping Forest DC, Loughton Alderton
> > >BNP 393 (32.2;-5.4), Residents 367 (30.1;+1.0), Con 163
> > > (13.3;-3.1),
> > >LD 172 (14.1;+10.5), Lab 98 (8.0;-5.2), UKIP 28 (2.3;+2.3)
> > >Majority 26. Turnout 36.7%. BNP hold. Last fought 2006.
> >
> > BNP hold, but with a slipping vote, not to mention fragmented
> > opposition...
>
> And the BNP winning on less than a third of the votes. That's FPTP for
> you.

I see.  So one of the other candidates, with fewer votes, should have
won.  Is that right?  A simple yes or no will suffice in response.

-- 
John M Ward - see http://www.horsted.john-ward.org.uk
Conservative Councillor for Rochester South & Horsted ward, Medway
 * Oppose electoral fraud, especially through postal votes
 * Scrap the ODPM's successor and the Regionalisation agenda
 * Return all local decisions to local people

John M Ward  wrote
>  wrote
> > Paul Hyett <p...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> > > Colin Rosenstiel  wrote
> > > >Epping Forest DC, Loughton Alderton
> > > >BNP 393 (32.2;-5.4), Residents 367 (30.1;+1.0), Con 163
> > > > (13.3;-3.1), LD 172 (14.1;+10.5), Lab 98 (8.0;-5.2), UKIP 28 (2.3;+2.3)
> > > >Majority 26. Turnout 36.7%. BNP hold. Last fought 2006.
> > >
> > > BNP hold, but with a slipping vote, not to mention fragmented
> > > opposition...
> >
> > And the BNP winning on less than a third of the votes. That's FPTP for
> > you.
>
> I see.  So one of the other candidates, with fewer votes, should have
> won.  Is that right?  A simple yes or no will suffice in response.

The candidate with the most support should have won. FPTP doesn't find
out who that is very well.
--
Henry

usenet@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote:

> John M Ward  wrote
>> wrote
>>>Paul Hyett <p...@invalid.invalid> wrote
>>>>Colin Rosenstiel  wrote

>>>>>Epping Forest DC, Loughton Alderton
>>>>>BNP 393 (32.2;-5.4), Residents 367 (30.1;+1.0), Con 163
>>>>>(13.3;-3.1), LD 172 (14.1;+10.5), Lab 98 (8.0;-5.2), UKIP 28 (2.3;+2.3)
>>>>>Majority 26. Turnout 36.7%. BNP hold. Last fought 2006.

>>>>BNP hold, but with a slipping vote, not to mention fragmented
>>>>opposition...

>>>And the BNP winning on less than a third of the votes. That's FPTP for
>>>you.

>>I see. So one of the other candidates, with fewer votes, should have
>>won. Is that right? A simple yes or no will suffice in response.

> The candidate with the most support should have won. FPTP doesn't find
> out who that is very well.

It finds it out 100% perfectly.

On the figures posted, it seems incontrovertible that the BNP 
candidate had most support.

Don't mistake "most support" for "least opposition".

On 2 Sep, 13:03, John M Ward  wrote:
>  wrote:
> > And the BNP winning on less than a third of the votes. That's FPTP for
> > you.
>
> I see.  So one of the other candidates, with fewer votes, should have
> won.  Is that right?  A simple yes or no will suffice in response.

If you want us to indulge in the puerile game of giving a one-word
answer, then the answer is "No".

If you want to have a proper discussion, then you should bear in mind
that (as far as I know) all electoral systems in use in public
elections at all levels in all countries in the world produce resultsa
in which the winning candidate(s) is (are) the one(s) with the most
votes.  In FPTP, the winning candidate is the one with most votes.  In
AV, the winning candidate is the one with most votes.  In STV, the
winning candidates are the ones with most votes.

In uk.politics.electoral on Sun, 2 Sep 2007, 
"usenet@bondegezou.demon.co.uk"  wrote :
>> >
>> > And the BNP winning on less than a third of the votes. That's FPTP for
>> > you.
>>
>> I see.  So one of the other candidates, with fewer votes, should have
>> won.  Is that right?  A simple yes or no will suffice in response.
>
>The candidate with the most support should have won. FPTP doesn't find
>out who that is very well.

Significant that you said 'candidate' rather than 'party'?
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

In uk.politics.electoral on Sun, 2 Sep 2007, JNugent 
 wrote :
>
>> The candidate with the most support should have won. FPTP doesn't find
>> out who that is very well.
>
>It finds it out 100% perfectly.

Party, not necessarily candidate...
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

JNugent  wrote
> use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote
> > John M Ward  wrote
> >> wrote
> >>>Paul Hyett <p...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> >>>>Colin Rosenstiel  wrote
> >>>>>Epping Forest DC, Loughton Alderton
> >>>>>BNP 393 (32.2;-5.4), Residents 367 (30.1;+1.0), Con 163
> >>>>>(13.3;-3.1), LD 172 (14.1;+10.5), Lab 98 (8.0;-5.2), UKIP 28 (2.3;+2.3)
> >>>>>Majority 26. Turnout 36.7%. BNP hold. Last fought 2006.
> >>>>BNP hold, but with a slipping vote, not to mention fragmented
> >>>>opposition...
> >>>And the BNP winning on less than a third of the votes. That's FPTP for
> >>>you.
> >>I see. So one of the other candidates, with fewer votes, should have
> >>won. Is that right? A simple yes or no will suffice in response.
> > The candidate with the most support should have won. FPTP doesn't find
> > out who that is very well.
>
> It finds it out 100% perfectly.
>
> On the figures posted, it seems incontrovertible that the BNP
> candidate had most support.
>
> Don't mistake "most support" for "least opposition".

Don't mistake a vote under FPTP for "most support".

Voters' support is dependent on what candidates stand and how they are
doing. Had some of the Con/LibDem/Lab voters known that the BNP would
win, they would have supported a different candidate. FPTP fails to
handle this. Ordinal systems (AV, STV, two-ballot systems) are better
at handling this.
--
Henry

usenet@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote:
> JNugent  wrote
> 
>>use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote
>>
>>>John M Ward  wrote
>>>
>>>> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>Paul Hyett <p...@invalid.invalid> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>Colin Rosenstiel  wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Epping Forest DC, Loughton Alderton
>>>>>>>BNP 393 (32.2;-5.4), Residents 367 (30.1;+1.0), Con 163
>>>>>>>(13.3;-3.1), LD 172 (14.1;+10.5), Lab 98 (8.0;-5.2), UKIP 28 (2.3;+2.3)
>>>>>>>Majority 26. Turnout 36.7%. BNP hold. Last fought 2006.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>BNP hold, but with a slipping vote, not to mention fragmented
>>>>>>opposition...
>>>>>
>>>>>And the BNP winning on less than a third of the votes. That's FPTP for
>>>>>you.

>>>>I see. So one of the other candidates, with fewer votes, should have
>>>>won. Is that right? A simple yes or no will suffice in response.

>>>The candidate with the most support should have won. FPTP doesn't find
>>>out who that is very well.

>>It finds it out 100% perfectly.
>>On the figures posted, it seems incontrovertible that the BNP
>>candidate had most support.
>>Don't mistake "most support" for "least opposition".

> Don't mistake a vote under FPTP for "most support".

That is exactly what it is. If getting the largest number of votes 
isn't indicative of having the biggest support, it's hard to think 
what would be.

Even the most ardent supporters of PR do not claim otherwise. What 
they want (though they never admit it) is two votes each, with only 
one vote each going to the supporters of the larger parties. Some of 
them have even dreamed up fanciful ways of "justifying" that wish. 
Some of them may even claim that the party with most support has the 
least support.

> Voters' support is dependent on what candidates stand and how they are
> doing.

And it is expressed through the number of votes cast.

> Had some of the Con/LibDem/Lab voters known that the BNP would
> win, they would have supported a different candidate. FPTP fails to
> handle this. Ordinal systems (AV, STV, two-ballot systems) are better
> at handling this.

Remember what I said about some PR supporters dreaming up fanciful 
justifications?

Voters should vote for the candidate they want most. If you don't want 
the BNP to win, that has to be achieved by means other than simply 
fiddling the votes.

On 3 Sep, 17:12, JNugent 
wrote:
> Even the most ardent supporters of PR do not claim otherwise. What
> they want (though they never admit it) is two votes each, with only
> one vote each going to the supporters of the larger parties. Some of
> them have even dreamed up fanciful ways of "justifying" that wish.

In all the long years of being interested in electoral systems, I have
never ever come across anybody who has ever suggested that some voters
should be allowed to have more votes than other voters in the same
election.

In an AV election, each voter is allowed to vote once in each round.
Just because some voters choose to vote for the same candidate in
several rounds does not somehow mean that they are voting fewer
times.  I have difficulty in believing that FPTP supporters are
*genuinely* unable to understand this simple point.

JohnLoony wrote:

> JNugent  wrote:

>>Even the most ardent supporters of PR do not claim otherwise. What
>>they want (though they never admit it) is two votes each, with only
>>one vote each going to the supporters of the larger parties. Some of
>>them have even dreamed up fanciful ways of "justifying" that wish.

> In all the long years of being interested in electoral systems, I have
> never ever come across anybody who has ever suggested that some voters
> should be allowed to have more votes than other voters in the same
> election.

Look back along this thread. It was stated (not even suggested) that 
supporters of candidates/parties who lose on the first count should be 
able to have their vote "swapped" to another candidate, by having 
their "first preference" over-ridden by a second preference. Such a 
methos allows losers two different votes. It doesn't matter how you 
dress that up, that's the effect.

> In an AV election, each voter is allowed to vote once in each round.
> Just because some voters choose to vote for the same candidate in
> several rounds does not somehow mean that they are voting fewer
> times.  I have difficulty in believing that FPTP supporters are
> *genuinely* unable to understand this simple point.

There is no need for any of it. The losers lose and having lost, 
they've lost and they're out (and so are the votes cast for them). End of.

On 3 Sep, 17:12, JNugent 
wrote:
> If getting the largest number of votes
> isn't indicative of having the biggest support, it's hard to think
> what would be.

Getting a majority of the votes is better than getting a plurality.

On 3 Sep, 22:36, JNugent 
wrote:
> JohnLoony wrote:
> > JNugent  wrote:
> >>Even the most ardent supporters of PR do not claim otherwise. What
> >>they want (though they never admit it) is two votes each, with only
> >>one vote each going to the supporters of the larger parties. Some of
> >>them have even dreamed up fanciful ways of "justifying" that wish.
> > In all the long years of being interested in electoral systems, I have
> > never ever come across anybody who has ever suggested that some voters
> > should be allowed to have more votes than other voters in the same
> > election.
>
> Look back along this thread. It was stated (not even suggested) that
> supporters of candidates/parties who lose on the first count should be
> able to have their vote "swapped" to another candidate, by having
> their "first preference" over-ridden by a second preference. Such a
> method allows losers two different votes. It doesn't matter how you
> dress that up, that's the effect.

No it isn't 2 different votes.  It's one vote being transferred from
one candidate to another.  The votes of the top candidates are
retained in the second round, not lost.

JohnLoony wrote:

> JNugent  wrote:

>>Look back along this thread. It was stated (not even suggested) that
>>supporters of candidates/parties who lose on the first count should be
>>able to have their vote "swapped" to another candidate, by having
>>their "first preference" over-ridden by a second preference. Such a
>>method allows losers two different votes. It doesn't matter how you
>>dress that up, that's the effect.

> No it isn't 2 different votes.  It's one vote being transferred from
> one candidate to another.

Absolutely beyond satire.

JohnLoony wrote:

> In all the long years of being interested in electoral systems, I have
> never ever come across anybody who has ever suggested that some voters
> should be allowed to have more votes than other voters in the same
> election.

You've not met people advocating the Additional Member System then? Or 
parties trying to game the system by appealing for split tickets/only 
running on the list?

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:12:39 +0100, JNugent
 wrote:

>Voters should vote for the candidate they want most. 

I agree; but under FPTP, they have (in many cases) a strong incentive
not to do so, an option that many thousands take at every general
election.

On 3 Sep, 23:46, JNugent 
wrote:
> JohnLoony wrote:
> > JNugent  wrote:
> >>Look back along this thread. It was stated (not even suggested) that
> >>supporters of candidates/parties who lose on the first count should be
> >>able to have their vote "swapped" to another candidate, by having
> >>their "first preference" over-ridden by a second preference. Such a
> >>method allows losers two different votes. It doesn't matter how you
> >>dress that up, that's the effect.
> > No it isn't 2 different votes.  It's one vote being transferred from
> > one candidate to another.
>
> Absolutely beyond satire.

I don't know what your definition of "satire" is in this context, but
what I wrote is absolutely true.  Absolutely nothing that anybody can
ever possibly do in the whole history of the universe could result in
any amount of inaccuracy in what I wrote.

On 3 Sep, 23:56, "Tim Roll-Pickering" 
wrote:
> JohnLoony wrote:
> > In all the long years of being interested in electoral systems, I have
> > never ever come across anybody who has ever suggested that some voters
> > should be allowed to have more votes than other voters in the same
> > election.
>
> You've not met people advocating the Additional Member System then? Or
> parties trying to game the system by appealing for split tickets/only
> running on the list?

Of course I have met people who advocate the Additional Member
System.  Those people advocate that each voter should have 2 votes (1
in the constituency section, and 1 in the top-up list section).  None
of them has ever suggested that some voters should only be allowed 1
vote when some other voters are allowed the 2 votes (which is what was
being alleged).  Your response to my statement is so irrelevant and so
bizarre that I have to assume that you did not read it properly.

JNugent  wrote
> use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote
> > JNugent wrote
> >>use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote
[...]
> >>>The candidate with the most support should have won. FPTP doesn't find
> >>>out who that is very well.
> >>
> >>It finds it out 100% perfectly.
> >>On the figures posted, it seems incontrovertible that the BNP
> >>candidate had most support.
> >>Don't mistake "most support" for "least opposition".
> >
> > Don't mistake a vote under FPTP for "most support".
>
> That is exactly what it is. If getting the largest number of votes isn't
> indicative of having the biggest support, it's hard to think what would be.

People's votes are conditional on others' behaviour. Numerous people
under FPTP do not vote for the candidate they most wish to win, but
vote tactically. An ordinal system allows people to express their vote
to cover all eventualities instead of them having to double guess
everyone else's actions. Under the ordinal systems under discussion,
each voter gets the same number of votes and the candidate with the
largest number of votes for them wins, but the votes cast better
represent the electorate's true support by allowing the voter to
express more information about their preferences.

> Even the most ardent supporters of PR do not claim otherwise. What
> they want (though they never admit it) is two votes each, with only
> one vote each going to the supporters of the larger parties. Some of
> them have even dreamed up fanciful ways of "justifying" that wish.
> Some of them may even claim that the party with most support has the
> least support.

First, you remain so ignorant that you are unable to distinguish
between PR systems and ordinal systems. Secondly, we are not talking
about fanciful systems. We are talking about electoral systems used in
large numbers of countries around the world. Far more countries use PR
than FPTP. Although used in the world's largest democracy and a couple
of other big countries, FPTP is only used by a minority of the world's
democracies.

The idea that the electoral systems under discussion are somehow
fanciful or inherently unfair is an insult to the populations of
Ireland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Australia, New
Zealand, Italy, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Finland and so on and so on.
After World War II, to re-build democracy in Germany, the UK didn't
introduce FPTP, but a PR system. To re-build democracy in troubled
Northern Ireland, the UK introduced a proportional and ordinal system,
i.e. STV. Yet the UK hangs on to FPTP.

> > [...] Had some of the Con/LibDem/Lab voters known that the BNP would
> > win, they would have supported a different candidate. FPTP fails to
> > handle this. Ordinal systems (AV, STV, two-ballot systems) are better
> > at handling this.
>
> Remember what I said about some PR supporters dreaming up fanciful
> justifications?
>
> Voters should vote for the candidate they want most. If you don't want
> the BNP to win, that has to be achieved by means other than simply
> fiddling the votes.

Under FPTP, voters voting for the candidate they want most are often
fools. FPTP encourages tactical voting and that's what millions do
under FPTP.
--
Henry

JohnLoony wrote:

>> > In all the long years of being interested in electoral systems, I have
>> > never ever come across anybody who has ever suggested that some voters
>> > should be allowed to have more votes than other voters in the same
>> > election.

>> You've not met people advocating the Additional Member System then? Or
>> parties trying to game the system by appealing for split tickets/only
>> running on the list?

> Of course I have met people who advocate the Additional Member
> System. Those people advocate that each voter should have 2 votes (1
> in the constituency section, and 1 in the top-up list section). None
> of them has ever suggested that some voters should only be allowed 1
> vote when some other voters are allowed the 2 votes (which is what was
> being alleged).

They've not suggested it overtly but de facto voters gaming the system do 
get double votes.

> Your response to my statement is so irrelevant and so
> bizarre that I have to assume that you did not read it properly.

Also have you never encountered people who think everyone with an interest, 
particularly those working/studying, in a constituency should have a say in 
who represents it? If the MP represented the *area* rather than the voters 
then there is a case for those with multiple interests to have a say in 
each.

Tim Roll-Pickering  wrote
> JohnLoony wrote
> >> > In all the long years of being interested in electoral systems, I have
> >> > never ever come across anybody who has ever suggested that some voters
> >> > should be allowed to have more votes than other voters in the same
> >> > election.
> >>
> >> You've not met people advocating the Additional Member System then? Or
> >> parties trying to game the system by appealing for split tickets/only
> >> running on the list?
> >
> > Of course I have met people who advocate the Additional Member
> > System. Those people advocate that each voter should have 2 votes (1
> > in the constituency section, and 1 in the top-up list section). None
> > of them has ever suggested that some voters should only be allowed 1
> > vote when some other voters are allowed the 2 votes (which is what was
> > being alleged).
>
> They've not suggested it overtly but de facto voters gaming the system do
> get double votes.

Not really. By gaming the system, some voters' votes are more
influential on the result, but everyone still has the same number of
votes.

It is an undesirable property that some voters' votes are more
influential on the result, but you can hardly make a big fuss about
minimising this issue while supporting FPTP, a system in which some
voters' votes are much more influential on the result than others!

Anyway, people rarely argue for a system on the grounds that they can
then game it! Given whatever system, people will try to find
loopholes, but that's not used as an argument for a system.

> > Your response to my statement is so irrelevant and so
> > bizarre that I have to assume that you did not read it properly.
>
> Also have you never encountered people who think everyone with an interest,
> particularly those working/studying, in a constituency should have a say in
> who represents it? If the MP represented the *area* rather than the voters
> then there is a case for those with multiple interests to have a say in each.

Now you're just being pedantic.
--
Henry

usenet@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote:

> JNugent  wrote
>>use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote
>>>JNugent wrote
>>>>use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote

> [...]

>>>>>The candidate with the most support should have won. FPTP doesn't find
>>>>>out who that is very well.

>>>>It finds it out 100% perfectly.
>>>>On the figures posted, it seems incontrovertible that the BNP
>>>>candidate had most support.
>>>>Don't mistake "most support" for "least opposition".

>>>Don't mistake a vote under FPTP for "most support".

>>That is exactly what it is. If getting the largest number of votes isn't
>>indicative of having the biggest support, it's hard to think what would be.

> People's votes are conditional on others' behaviour. Numerous people
> under FPTP do not vote for the candidate they most wish to win, but
> vote tactically.

Not relevant. They choose the candidate for whom they wish to vote. 
That candidate has their support. The support is expressed via the 
vote, and not by anything else. If the result comes out as something 
other than what they wanted, that's their problem. The answer is not 
to vote negatively (though I myself confess to having voted Liberal to 
keep Labour out), but to vote positively.

> The idea that the electoral systems under discussion are somehow
> fanciful

...is a patent strawman, as you well know. It is NOT what I wrote and 
you are attempting puerile distortion of what I wrote.

It is the contrived *justifications* advanced by the PR-fans which are 
fanciful - full of "fairness" and "representation" when the proponents 
actually want no such thing. They just want the Lib Dems to win every 
time (by holding the BoP where necessary) but cannot admit that, for 
obvious reasons.

On 4 Sep, 10:50, "Tim Roll-Pickering" 
wrote:

> Also have you never encountered people who think everyone with an interest,
> particularly those working/studying, in a constituency should have a say in
> who represents it? If the MP represented the *area* rather than the voters
> then there is a case for those with multiple interests to have a say in
> each.

No I haven't.

usenet@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote:

>> > Of course I have met people who advocate the Additional Member
>> > System. Those people advocate that each voter should have 2 votes (1
>> > in the constituency section, and 1 in the top-up list section). None
>> > of them has ever suggested that some voters should only be allowed 1
>> > vote when some other voters are allowed the 2 votes (which is what was
>> > being alleged).

>> They've not suggested it overtly but de facto voters gaming the system do
>> get double votes.

> Not really. By gaming the system, some voters' votes are more
> influential on the result, but everyone still has the same number of
> votes.

> It is an undesirable property that some voters' votes are more
> influential on the result, but you can hardly make a big fuss about
> minimising this issue while supporting FPTP, a system in which some
> voters' votes are much more influential on the result than others!

Under FPTP all votes are influential on the result within the constituency 
at equal weight. Under AMS some votes will be contributing to the election 
of two members, some to one and some to none at all. And AMS is billed as a 
PR system so its failure to meet this stands out more

>> Also have you never encountered people who think everyone with an 
>> interest,
>> particularly those working/studying, in a constituency should have a say 
>> in
>> who represents it? If the MP represented the *area* rather than the 
>> voters
>> then there is a case for those with multiple interests to have a say in 
>> each.

> Now you're just being pedantic.

No - there are people who argue that those who live in more than one 
constituency, or who work in a different constituency from where they live, 
should be entitled to a say in who represents each area. It comes back to 
the question of just what the MP is for - just c75,000 voters or a defined 
area?

On 4 Sep, 16:53, JNugent 
wrote:

> It is the contrived *justifications* advanced by the PR-fans which are
> fanciful - full of "fairness" and "representation" when the proponents
> actually want no such thing. They just want the Lib Dems to win every
> time (by holding the BoP where necessary) but cannot admit that, for
> obvious reasons.

You are being remarkably unimaginative in your vision of parliaments
elected under PR.

If the general elections in the UK since 1945 had been translated into
PR elections, with the number of seats being exactly proportional to
the votes cast, then most of those parliaments would indeed have the
Lib (Dems) holding the balance of power between Conservative and
Labour.

But you are neglecting ot mention:

(1) in most of those elections, the Conservative Party would also have
held the balance of power between the Labour Party and the Liberal
Party / Lib Dems

(2) in most of those elections, the Labour Party would also have held
the balance of power between the Conservative Party and the Liberal
Party / Lib Dems

(in other words, a majority could have been formed by a coalition of
any of the 2 main parties - it is naive to assume that it would always
include the Liberal Democrats)

(3) experience of PR systems in other countries has shown that minor
parties which put unrealistic demands on the main parties tend to get
punished by the voters

and more to the point:

(4) If PR were introduced int he UK, there would be a fragmentation
and growth of minor parties such as the Green Party, the UKIP, Respect
(or other socilaist groups) and the BNP, many of which would also get
substantial numbers of seats in parliament.  In other words, it is
unlikely that it would be normally possible to form a majority
coalition involving only the Lib Dems and either of the two main
parties.  It is much more likely that the Lib Dems could form a
majority with the largest party, but not the second largest, or that
any majority would require more than 2 parties.  This scenario can be
seen clearly from the results of the European election results of 1999
or 2004, or the Scottish parliament election results of 1999 2003 and
2007.

Oh, and if you think that *I* want the LIb Dems to "win every time"
then you are woefully ignorant of my opinion of the Lib Dems.  Anybody
who has visited my website will have noticed that it says

"Of the three main parties, the Liberal Democrats are, by far, the
most treacherous in wishing to surrender the U.K. to the growing
clutches of the E.U., and its undemocratic and unaccountable
government, its laws, and its taxes.  They denigrate and insult the
Monarchy and the House of Lords, and they are happy to let loose the
addictive
and health dangers of cannabis to a mass market through legalisation.
They promise all sorts of improvements on the basis of the same
marginal amount of extra taxation, and would happily pour all our
nation's democratic powers down the plughole of an ever hungrier E.U."

JNugent wrote:

> It is the contrived *justifications* advanced by the PR-fans which are 
> fanciful - full of "fairness" and "representation" when the proponents 
> actually want no such thing. They just want the Lib Dems to win every 
> time (by holding the BoP where necessary) but cannot admit that, for 
> obvious reasons.

I am not a Liberal Democrat supporter, I do not want them to win seats, 
yet I support STV.  And I do so knowing that if it was adopted we would 
lose some seats under this system in areas where we are strong, though 
that might be counterbalanced by winning some seats in areas where we 
have some strength but not yet enough to win via FPTP.

I support STV because it hands power to the people, not just over which 
party represents them but _which individual_.  This is far more 
important than the party battles.  It also ensures that you have no vast 
areas represented by only one party, which leads to a corruption of 
interest.  A party with no representatives from a geographical location 
or from an area where one group predominates will not experience fully 
the needs of the electorate and will no longer seek their votes, just of 
the core supporters that they need to be elected.


-- 
Lyn David Thomas "Windows [n.] A thirty-two bit extension and GUI shell 
to a sixteen bit patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded 
for a four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that can't 
stand one bit of competition." (Anonymous USEnet post)

Tim Roll-Pickering  writes
>usenet@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote
>
>>> > Of course I have met people who advocate the Additional Member
>>> > System. Those people advocate that each voter should have 2 votes (1
>>> > in the constituency section, and 1 in the top-up list section). None
>>> > of them has ever suggested that some voters should only be allowed 1
>>> > vote when some other voters are allowed the 2 votes (which is what was
>>> > being alleged).
>
>>> They've not suggested it overtly but de facto voters gaming the system do
>>> get double votes.
>
>> Not really. By gaming the system, some voters' votes are more
>> influential on the result, but everyone still has the same number of
>> votes.
 >>
>> It is an undesirable property that some voters' votes are more
>> influential on the result, but you can hardly make a big fuss about
>> minimising this issue while supporting FPTP, a system in which some
>> voters' votes are much more influential on the result than others!
>
>Under FPTP all votes are influential on the result within the constituency
>at equal weight. Under AMS some votes will be contributing to the election
>of two members, some to one and some to none at all. And AMS is billed as a
>PR system so its failure to meet this stands out more

I don't follow your logic. Under FPTP, some votes contribute to the 
election of one member and some don't contribute to the election of 
anyone, so I don't see a fundamental difference with AMS.

>>> Also have you never encountered people who think everyone with an
>>> interest,
>>> particularly those working/studying, in a constituency should have a say
>>> in
>>> who represents it? If the MP represented the *area* rather than the
>>> voters
>>> then there is a case for those with multiple interests to have a say in
>>> each.
>
>> Now you're just being pedantic.
>
>No - there are people who argue that those who live in more than one
>constituency, or who work in a different constituency from where they live,
>should be entitled to a say in who represents each area. It comes back to
>the question of just what the MP is for - just c75,000 voters or a defined
>area?

What you're saying is true. It is, however, I feel a minor issue of 
tangential relevance to what John was saying.
-- 
Henry

JNugent  wrote
> use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote
> > JNugent wrote
> >>use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote
> >>>JNugent wrote
> >>>>use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote
> > [...]
> >>>>>The candidate with the most support should have won. FPTP doesn't find
> >>>>>out who that is very well.
> >>>>
> >>>>It finds it out 100% perfectly.
> >>>>On the figures posted, it seems incontrovertible that the BNP
> >>>>candidate had most support.
> >>>>Don't mistake "most support" for "least opposition".
> >>>
> >>>Don't mistake a vote under FPTP for "most support".
> >>
> >>That is exactly what it is. If getting the largest number of votes isn't
> >>indicative of having the biggest support, it's hard to think what would be.
> >
> > People's votes are conditional on others' behaviour. Numerous people
> > under FPTP do not vote for the candidate they most wish to win, but
> > vote tactically.
>
> Not relevant. They choose the candidate for whom they wish to vote.
> That candidate has their support. The support is expressed via the
> vote, and not by anything else.

Under many communist systems, people could vote for whoever they
wanted, as long as it was a communist party candidate. You presumably
would have been fine with that as people's support is expressed via
the vote, and not by anything else. I can see that a flawed system
cannot be defended by simply ignoring its flaws.

FPTP distorts how people vote, leading them to vote for compromise
candidates rather than who they really want. Saying that's not
relevant is avoiding the entire debate.

> If the result comes out as something
> other than what they wanted, that's their problem. The answer is not
> to vote negatively (though I myself confess to having voted Liberal to
> keep Labour out), but to vote positively.

Voting positively is a stupid strategy under FPTP and clearly vast
numbers of people (including you) don't do it. You can't argue for a
system by saying it would work if only everyone behaved differently!
Why not support a system where people can vote positively and know
that the system will treat their vote fairly?

> > The idea that the electoral systems under discussion are somehow
> > fanciful
>
> ...is a patent strawman, as you well know. It is NOT what I wrote and
> you are attempting puerile distortion of what I wrote.
>
> It is the contrived *justifications* advanced by the PR-fans which are
> fanciful - full of "fairness" and "representation" when the proponents
> actually want no such thing. They just want the Lib Dems to win every
> time (by holding the BoP where necessary) but cannot admit that, for
> obvious reasons.

PR is used in the majority of democracies around the world: you can't
blame Liberal Democrats for that! Why have the majority of countries
around the world adopted PR? Are they all fools believing in
"contrived *justifications*"? Have most countries in the world got it
wrong?

I don't know why I am bothering replying to your nonsense. You are
willfully ignorant on the subject of electoral mechanics. You offer
partisan bickering rather than any rational argument. If you want
partisan bickering, let's look at the Conservatives' views on voting
systems. The Conservatives support FPTP, a system that over-represents
their support in the country, typically giving them far more seats in
the Commons. Yet if we go north of the border, in Scotland where FPTP
would see the Tories almost wiped out in the Scottish Parliament,
guess what? The Tories in Scotland don't support introducing FPTP for
the Scottish Parliament. It appears from that the Tories support
whichever system will get them the most seats.
--
Henry

usenet@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote:

> JNugent :
>>use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote
>>>JNugent wrote
>>>>use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote
>>>>>JNugent wrote
>>>>>>use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote

>>>[...]

>>>>>>>The candidate with the most support should have won. FPTP doesn't find
>>>>>>>out who that is very well.

>>>>>>It finds it out 100% perfectly.
>>>>>>On the figures posted, it seems incontrovertible that the BNP
>>>>>>candidate had most support.
>>>>>>Don't mistake "most support" for "least opposition".

>>>>>Don't mistake a vote under FPTP for "most support".

>>>>That is exactly what it is. If getting the largest number of votes isn't
>>>>indicative of having the biggest support, it's hard to think what would be.

>>>People's votes are conditional on others' behaviour. Numerous people
>>>under FPTP do not vote for the candidate they most wish to win, but
>>>vote tactically.

>>Not relevant. They choose the candidate for whom they wish to vote.
>>That candidate has their support. The support is expressed via the
>>vote, and not by anything else.

> Under many communist systems, people could vote for whoever they
> wanted, as long as it was a communist party candidate. You presumably
> would have been fine with that as people's support is expressed via
> the vote, and not by anything else.

What IS the point in silly remarks like that?

> I can see that a flawed system
> cannot be defended by simply ignoring its flaws.

What "flaws"?

You vote for the candidate you want to see winning. If you vote for 
"someone else" (for whatever reason), don't be surprised if "someone 
else" wins. That's what votes do - they help people win. I believe 
they have the same function under PR.

> FPTP distorts how people vote, leading them to vote for compromise
> candidates rather than who they really want. Saying that's not
> relevant is avoiding the entire debate.

They should vote for the candidate they really want. If they don't, 
they only have themselves (and others with the same mindset) to blame 
for that candidate not winning.

>>If the result comes out as something
>>other than what they wanted, that's their problem. The answer is not
>>to vote negatively (though I myself confess to having voted Liberal to
>>keep Labour out), but to vote positively.

> Voting positively is a stupid strategy under FPTP and clearly vast
> numbers of people (including you) don't do it.

Oh, make no mistake - I do vote positively. I have voted for the same 
party's candidates - consistently -  since the GE of 1979.

> You can't argue for a
> system by saying it would work if only everyone behaved differently!

I'm not saying that, and it is a strawman to suggest that I am saying it.

It works even if they vote negatively - but the result may not be what 
they preferred. Quelle surprise! The same is true of all electoral 
systems - someone always wins.

> Why not support a system where people can vote positively and know
> that the system will treat their vote fairly?

I do support such a system. We have it.

If by "fairly", you mean that minority parties can't lose, how "fair" 
is that for larger parties?

>>>The idea that the electoral systems under discussion are somehow
>>>fanciful

>>...is a patent strawman, as you well know. It is NOT what I wrote and
>>you are attempting puerile distortion of what I wrote.

>>It is the contrived *justifications* advanced by the PR-fans which are
>>fanciful - full of "fairness" and "representation" when the proponents
>>actually want no such thing. They just want the Lib Dems to win every
>>time (by holding the BoP where necessary) but cannot admit that, for
>>obvious reasons.

> PR is used in the majority of democracies around the world: you can't
> blame Liberal Democrats for that! Why have the majority of countries
> around the world adopted PR? Are they all fools believing in
> "contrived *justifications*"? Have most countries in the world got it
> wrong?

I'm not bothered by what other countries do. That's up to them. Some 
of them, of course, have realised the error of their ways and have 
moved back and forth between systems over the decades. Look at Italy. 
OTOH, you probably don't want to.

> I don't know why I am bothering replying to your nonsense. You are
> willfully ignorant on the subject of electoral mechanics.

Au contraire - I have insight into the motivation of those who want 
distorted vote-counting (and who wish to control the distortion).

> You offer
> partisan bickering rather than any rational argument. If you want
> partisan bickering, let's look at the Conservatives' views on voting
> systems. The Conservatives support FPTP, a system that over-represents
> their support in the country, typically giving them far more seats in
> the Commons. Yet if we go north of the border, in Scotland where FPTP
> would see the Tories almost wiped out in the Scottish Parliament,
> guess what? The Tories in Scotland don't support introducing FPTP for
> the Scottish Parliament. It appears from that the Tories support
> whichever system will get them the most seats.

OTOH, I would happily see Scotland independent. That genie is well and 
truly out of the bottle. In the (regrettable) circumstances, the 
sooner they go, the better.

Now, remember what I said?

PR-fans can conjure up a contrived "justification" for any system of 
vote-counting that will advance their political interest. They will 
even bicker among themselves as to whether this or that PR system is 
"best", according to which party it helps (or hinders) most. Thanks 
for demonstrating that so forcefully. And thanks in particular for 
showing so graphically that it is nothing to do with support for 
particular parties (except the LibDems).

Most of your post is your usual head-in-the-sand, deny-everything
approach. See my previous responses. Given your fundamental argument
is that PR-supporters are entirely motivated by partisan support,
let's focus on that question.

JNugent  wrote:
> use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote [...]
> > You offer partisan bickering rather than any rational argument. If you want
> > partisan bickering, let's look at the Conservatives' views on voting
> > systems. The Conservatives support FPTP, a system that over-represents
> > their support in the country, typically giving them far more seats in
> > the Commons. Yet if we go north of the border, in Scotland where FPTP
> > would see the Tories almost wiped out in the Scottish Parliament,
> > guess what? The Tories in Scotland don't support introducing FPTP for
> > the Scottish Parliament. It appears from that [that] the Tories support
> > whichever system will get them the most seats.
>
> OTOH, I would happily see Scotland independent. That genie is well and
> truly out of the bottle. In the (regrettable) circumstances, the
> sooner they go, the better.
>
> Now, remember what I said?
>
> PR-fans can conjure up a contrived "justification" for any system of
> vote-counting that will advance their political interest. They will
> even bicker among themselves as to whether this or that PR system is
> "best", according to which party it helps (or hinders) most. Thanks
> for demonstrating that so forcefully. And thanks in particular for
> showing so graphically that it is nothing to do with support for
> particular parties (except the LibDems).

So, do you or do you not support FPTP for the Scottish Parliament? Do
you or do you not think the Scottish Conservatives should support FPTP
for the Scottish Parliament? Or is Tory support for FPTP conditional
on whether FPTP benefits them or not?

I support STV both in elections where it would help the LibDems win
more seats (like at Westminster) and in elections where it would lead
to the LibDems winning less seats (like in my local council of
Camden).
--
Henry

usenet@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote:

> JNugent  wrote:
>>use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote [...]

> Most of your post is your usual head-in-the-sand, deny-everything
> approach. 

Translation: I don't agree with you, and I see through your partisan 
arguments.

>>>You offer partisan bickering rather than any rational argument. If you want
>>>partisan bickering, let's look at the Conservatives' views on voting
>>>systems. The Conservatives support FPTP, a system that over-represents
>>>their support in the country, typically giving them far more seats in
>>>the Commons. Yet if we go north of the border, in Scotland where FPTP
>>>would see the Tories almost wiped out in the Scottish Parliament,
>>>guess what? The Tories in Scotland don't support introducing FPTP for
>>>the Scottish Parliament. It appears from that [that] the Tories support
>>>whichever system will get them the most seats.

>>OTOH, I would happily see Scotland independent. That genie is well and
>>truly out of the bottle. In the (regrettable) circumstances, the
>>sooner they go, the better.

>>Now, remember what I said?
>>PR-fans can conjure up a contrived "justification" for any system of
>>vote-counting that will advance their political interest. They will
>>even bicker among themselves as to whether this or that PR system is
>>"best", according to which party it helps (or hinders) most. Thanks
>>for demonstrating that so forcefully. And thanks in particular for
>>showing so graphically that it is nothing to do with support for
>>particular parties (except the LibDems).

> So, do you or do you not support FPTP for the Scottish Parliament? Do
> you or do you not think the Scottish Conservatives should support FPTP
> for the Scottish Parliament? Or is Tory support for FPTP conditional
> on whether FPTP benefits them or not?

> I support STV both in elections where it would help the LibDems win
> more seats (like at Westminster) and in elections where it would lead
> to the LibDems winning less seats (like in my local council of
> Camden).

I don't support PR for anything. In particular, I do not advocate 
veering from one system to another for different elections according 
to which yields the better outcome for this party or that party. I 
accept that Scotland produces different election outcomes as compared 
with England. That's one good reason why Scottish national influence 
should long ago have been trimmed back so as to be no more than 
proportionate to Scotland's population size (rather than being as 
over-represented as it has been).

Minorities are supposed to lose. That's what democracy is about.

JNugent wrote:

> Minorities are supposed to lose. That's what democracy is about.

Interesting you think that.... given that we haven't had a government 
that has been supported by the majority of those voted for a very long 
time.... unless you count the current coalition government in Wales?

-- 
Lyn David Thomas "Windows [n.] A thirty-two bit extension and GUI shell 
to a sixteen bit patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded 
for a four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that can't 
stand one bit of competition." (Anonymous USEnet post)

Lyn David Thomas wrote:

> Interesting you think that.... given that we haven't had a government that 
> has been supported by the majority of those voted for a very long time.... 
> unless you count the current coalition government in Wales?

Which was not put to the people as a coalition in its current form. The way 
that governments get made not in the polling stations but in subsquent 
negotiations between parties does detract from the people chosing who runs 
them. That may be a problem in parliamentary systems, but when most parties 
fight legislative elections on what they'd do in government the voter can be 
forgiven for treating the election as a way to chose the government.

The Lib Dems are worse - why didn't they fight the Scottish elections on a 
platform of continuing the coalition with Labour? The last Scottish 
Executive won more seats than the current one.

On 5 Sep, 14:03, JNugent 
wrote:
> They should vote for the candidate they really want. If they don't,
> they only have themselves (and others with the same mindset) to blame
> for that candidate not winning.

What if there are three candidates, two of whom the voter doesn't
mind, and one of whom the voter detests.  For many voters, defeating
the hated candidate may be the primary motivation in voting.  Under
FPTP, the voter has to guess which of the two preferred candidates is
best placed to defeat the bad candidate.  If they make the wrong
guess, the vote might be split and the bad candidate could get in.  In
AV, such voters could transfer their vote from one to the other in
order to combine to defeat the bad candidate.  It is no use simply
sitting back in your armchair and tell people that they should vote
for the one candidate they want, if there is no one such candidate.

> If by "fairly", you mean that minority parties can't lose, how "fair"
> is that for larger parties?

What makes you think that minority parties can't lose under PR?  What
do you think happened to the SSP and Solidarity in May?  What do you
think happened to the BNP and Respect in London in 2004 and 2000 and
in the European elections in 1999 and 2004?  What do you think
happened in New Zealand when the New Zealand First Party lost most of
its seats due to its arrogant behaviour in making an unpopular and
unmandated coalition?

>  Look at Italy.
> OTOH, you probably don't want to.

Why not?  Italy had PR for decades because it worked well; then it
moved to a mostly-majority system, then it moved back to a mostly-PR
system because the majority system led to extremes of both right and
left getting into government.

> Au contraire - I have insight into the motivation of those who want
> distorted vote-counting (and who wish to control the distortion).

Who are these people who want distorted vote-counting?  I have never
met any.  Do you mean the hard-right establishment in Florida?

> PR-fans can conjure up a contrived "justification" for any system of
> vote-counting that will advance their political interest. They will
> even bicker among themselves as to whether this or that PR system is
> "best", according to which party it helps (or hinders) most.

I have never supporterd or opposed any electoral system on the basis
of which party or parties it would help or hinder.  I have always
consistently supported STV over the last 20 years, during which time I
have voted for 8 different political parties.  If I had supported
electoral systems on the basis of who is helped, I would have had to
switch between three or more systems.

On 5 Sep, 17:35, JNugent 
wrote:

> Minorities are supposed to lose. That's what democracy is about.

And minorities are supposed to be minorities, instead of being
artificially inflated into overwhelming majorities.

JohnLoony wrote:

> JNugent  wrote:

>>They should vote for the candidate they really want. If they don't,
>>they only have themselves (and others with the same mindset) to blame
>>for that candidate not winning.

> What if there are three candidates, two of whom the voter doesn't
> mind, and one of whom the voter detests.  For many voters, defeating
> the hated candidate may be the primary motivation in voting.

Too bad.

They need two votes to achieve that. But like everyone else, they only 
get one.

On 6 Sep, 00:12, JNugent 
wrote:

> Too bad.


If "too bad" is all you can say to people who believe in
accountability and effective representation, and who wish to avoid
guesswork and inefficiency in voting, then that merely exposes the
weakness of your argument.

JohnLoony wrote:

> JNugent  wrote:

>>Too bad.

> If "too bad" is all you can say to people who believe in
> accountability and effective representation,

No, it's all that can be said for the aspirations of negative voters 
whose only wish is to stop two candidates from getting elected (which 
was your snipped scenario). They would need two votes for that. But 
they only get one. However, I do realise you'd like to see them given 
two each.

> and who wish to avoid
> guesswork and inefficiency in voting, then that merely exposes the
> weakness of your argument.

My argument is not weak. Unlike yours, it does not depend on the 
proposition that some voters should get two goes each whilst the 
majority get only one.

JNugent wrote
> use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote [...]
> > So, do you or do you not support FPTP for the Scottish Parliament? Do
> > you or do you not think the Scottish Conservatives should support FPTP
> > for the Scottish Parliament? Or is Tory support for FPTP conditional
> > on whether FPTP benefits them or not?
> >
> > I support STV both in elections where it would help the LibDems win
> > more seats (like at Westminster) and in elections where it would lead
> > to the LibDems winning less seats (like in my local council of
> > Camden).
>
> I don't support PR for anything. In particular, I do not advocate
> veering from one system to another for different elections according
> to which yields the better outcome for this party or that party. I
> accept that Scotland produces different election outcomes as compared
> with England. That's one good reason why Scottish national influence
> should long ago have been trimmed back so as to be no more than
> proportionate to Scotland's population size (rather than being as
> over-represented as it has been).

So, do you or do you not think the Scottish Conservatives should
support FPTP for the Scottish Parliament? Or is Tory support for FPTP
conditional on whether FPTP benefits them or not?

> Minorities are supposed to lose. That's what democracy is about.

As Lyn has already pointed out, Westminster hasn't had a government
elected by a majority for a very long time.
--
Henry

Tim Roll-Pickering  wrote
> Lyn David Thomas wrote:
> > Interesting you think that.... given that we haven't had a government that
> > has been supported by the majority of those voted for a very long time....
> > unless you count the current coalition government in Wales?
>
> Which was not put to the people as a coalition in its current form. The way
> that governments get made not in the polling stations but in subsquent
> negotiations between parties does detract from the people chosing who runs
> them. That may be a problem in parliamentary systems, but when most parties
> fight legislative elections on what they'd do in government the voter can be
> forgiven for treating the election as a way to chose the government.

If you want an electoral system in which the voter chooses the
government, then support one: have a directly elected executive. You
aren't presenting an argument for FPTP; you're presenting an argument
for a different electoral reform.

If you want a system where people elect members of an assembly, then
the reality under most electoral systems (FPTP included) is that that
assembly will frequently not have any one party holding a majority of
the seats.

Each party goes into the election saying what their philosophy and
policies are. Each party hopes to win an overall majority, but if they
don't, each party works to put their manifesto into practice. In
Wales, the coalition parties have decided that they can each get a
reasonable proportion of their manifesto into practice through this
coalition, albeit that none of them will be able to get all their
manifesto enacted.

Someone who voted, say, PC should be happy that at least some of the
PC manifesto will come true and that PC have considerable influence in
government. (If they feel that PC are not having much effect, they can
punish PC at the next election.)

It is in the nature of *representative democracy* that we elect
representatives to make decisions. Having elected a PC representative,
it is up to that representative to make the best of the situation. The
PC representatives feel they can do that through a coalition. Each
parties' bargaining power in any coalition negotiations will be
determined by how many seats they've won (determined by the
electorate) and by what agendas they share with other parties. It's
not voodoo -- it should come down to enacting voters' wishes.

> The Lib Dems are worse - why didn't they fight the Scottish elections on a
> platform of continuing the coalition with Labour? The last Scottish
> Executive won more seats than the current one.

Because the party felt that that wouldn't deliver in terms of putting
LibDem policies into practice. If voters feel that the LibDems should
have done that, they can choose not to vote LibDem next time around
(perhaps just voting Labour instead).
--
Henry

In article ,
   usenet@bondegezou.demon.co.uk 
wrote:
> JNugent wrote

[some snipped]

> > Minorities are supposed to lose. That's what democracy is about.

Indeed.  Think about any other contest, say, for a job.  Okay, TV game
shows are often somewhat contrived in order to make what is considered
"good television", but most other contests one encounters anywhere are
dead straight "highest points score wins" -- and that's it.  I assume
there is a very good reason for this...

If not, then why haven't all these changed to one of these alternative
methods?  Is it perhaps because the organisers want (a) a system that
can be shown to be fair to /all/, and (b) they want the best result, not
the "convenient" result.  An employer in particular would want the best
result for the company, regardless of how (for example) one or a group
of those who tend never to be picked themselves would arrange it.

> As Lyn has already pointed out, Westminster hasn't had a government
> elected by a majority for a very long time.

I'm not aware of /any/ government that has been elected by an actual
/majority/ of the electorate, apart from possibly in places where voting
is compulsory, which therefore probably doesn't really count (as those
voting only under compulsion are unlikely to vote sensibly anyway).

-- 
John M Ward - see http://www.horsted.john-ward.org.uk
Conservative Councillor for Rochester South & Horsted ward, Medway
 * Oppose electoral fraud, especially through postal votes
 * Scrap the ODPM's successor and the Regionalisation agenda
 * Return all local decisions to local people

In article ,
   usenet@bondegezou.demon.co.uk 
wrote:

[smallish snip]

> If you want a system where people elect members of an assembly, then
> the reality under most electoral systems (FPTP included) is that that
> assembly will frequently not have any one party holding a majority of
> the seats.

This happened to us here in Medway, as it happened, when I was first
elected in May 2000.

> Each party goes into the election saying what their philosophy and
> policies are. Each party hopes to win an overall majority, but if they
> don't, each party works to put their manifesto into practice. In
> Wales, the coalition parties have decided that they can each get a
> reasonable proportion of their manifesto into practice through this
> coalition, albeit that none of them will be able to get all their
> manifesto enacted.

We had an "unholy alliance" (as it has been termed -- with
justification!) between the then 42 opposition members of various
colours to oppose our 38-member Administration at all times when doing
so wouldn't hurt their own political standing.  They did.  This is the
other side of the coin, rather than a coalition administration.

Despite their worst efforts, we got a lot of good stuff through, and the
people clearly wanted that as in every election since they have voted
for more of us and fewer of them, with significantly increased turnouts
on the latest occasion just four months ago.

I'd conclude from all of this that ours has been the better way -- for
the community, not necessarily for some of the political parties!  So,
which is more important, eh?

That is the real crux question, and I know from my own personal
principles -- backed up by real-world experience -- that I'd choose
serving the /community/ best as being by far the more important.

> Someone who voted, say, PC should be happy that at least some of the
> PC manifesto will come true and that PC have considerable influence in
> government. (If they feel that PC are not having much effect, they can
> punish PC at the next election.)
>
> It is in the nature of *representative democracy* that we elect
> representatives to make decisions. Having elected a PC representative,
> it is up to that representative to make the best of the situation. The
> PC representatives feel they can do that through a coalition. Each
> parties' bargaining power in any coalition negotiations will be
> determined by how many seats they've won (determined by the
> electorate) and by what agendas they share with other parties. It's
> not voodoo -- it should come down to enacting voters' wishes.

That last part is indeed correct.

Interestingly, when the Cabinet-plus-Scrutiny methodology was forced
upon us (and, just for info, I mention that we introduced this on 1
October 2001) there was even more of /our/ manifesto that was enacted,
with very few call-ins.

By the time the May 2003 election campaign began, we were able to report
that there had been just ten call-ins, three of which were from one
opposition member about the security of one of our main council
buildings (Municipal Buildings in Gillingham, if anyone wants to
research this via the council's web- or library-based records).

All of this happened despite stated opposition to many of the enacted
policies, and we know that if they have been running the council in a
coalition mode (as, incidentally, they did for the first three years of
Medway Unitary's existence) they would not have done what we did.

Especially bearing in mind that we had just had a decade of more-or-less
complete stagnation, with most of the council's 210 million pounds of
reserves spent on achieveing nothing whatsoever (and not even starting
anything!) there is little doubt that much the same would have
continued.

Because the voters voted more for us than for anyone else, knowing what
we had intended to do, they got what they wanted (rather than continued
inaction and waste), and when we delivered they then saw this and have
voted us two overall majorities since.

I think this illustrates a very good point, and I personally witnessed
it.  The Cabinet and Scrutiny records are also available on-line,
including the call-ins and what happened regarding those; so I think
this could be a helpful case study for anyone researching how electoral
outcomes can be handled to get the best results for the electorate, and
ones that they will endorse ever more strongly once they have seen the
delivery of what they voted for in the first place.

-- 
John M Ward - see http://www.horsted.john-ward.org.uk
Conservative Councillor for Rochester South & Horsted ward, Medway
 * Oppose electoral fraud, especially through postal votes
 * Scrap the ODPM's successor and the Regionalisation agenda
 * Return all local decisions to local people

John M Ward wrote:

> Indeed.  Think about any other contest, say, for a job.  Okay, TV game
> shows are often somewhat contrived in order to make what is considered
> "good television", but most other contests one encounters anywhere are
> dead straight "highest points score wins" -- and that's it.  I assume
> there is a very good reason for this...

Tennis, and many other sports, are not won by the player with the highest 
number of raw points but by the winner of the most overall contests (or in 
the casts of tennis two layers of contests) within the match. Or there's the 
difference between leagues, where players/teams accumulate points from 
matches, and tournaments where the winner takes all and moves into the next 
round. I'm not aware of people campaigning for such sports to be converted 
into a straightforward point tally.

usenet@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote:

> So, do you or do you not think the Scottish Conservatives should
> support FPTP for the Scottish Parliament? Or is Tory support for FPTP
> conditional on whether FPTP benefits them or not?

Unfortunately the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party has been acting 
decidedly un-Unionist when it comes to various internal party matters.

John M Ward  wrote
> 
> wrote:
[...]
> > Each party goes into the election saying what their philosophy and
> > policies are. Each party hopes to win an overall majority, but if they
> > don't, each party works to put their manifesto into practice. In
> > Wales, the coalition parties have decided that they can each get a
> > reasonable proportion of their manifesto into practice through this
> > coalition, albeit that none of them will be able to get all their
> > manifesto enacted.
>
> We had an "unholy alliance" (as it has been termed -- with
> justification!) between the then 42 opposition members of various
> colours to oppose our 38-member Administration at all times when doing
> so wouldn't hurt their own political standing.  They did.  This is the
> other side of the coin, rather than a coalition administration.
>
> Despite their worst efforts, we got a lot of good stuff through, and the
> people clearly wanted that as in every election since they have voted
> for more of us and fewer of them, with significantly increased turnouts
> on the latest occasion just four months ago.
>
> I'd conclude from all of this that ours has been the better way -- for
> the community, not necessarily for some of the political parties!  So,
> which is more important, eh?
>
> That is the real crux question, and I know from my own personal
> principles -- backed up by real-world experience -- that I'd choose
> serving the /community/ best as being by far the more important.

Every politician I know is trying to serve their community as well as
they can. They just disagree as to the best way of doing that. When a
party is trying to get their manifesto enacted, they are doing so
because they believe that is the best way to serve the community.
--
Henry

John M Ward  wrote
>  wrote
> > JNugent wrote
>
> [some snipped]
>
> > > Minorities are supposed to lose. That's what democracy is about.
>
> Indeed.  Think about any other contest, say, for a job.  Okay, TV game
> shows are often somewhat contrived in order to make what is considered
> "good television", but most other contests one encounters anywhere are
> dead straight "highest points score wins" -- and that's it.  I assume
> there is a very good reason for this...

Most sports contests are between two teams. If only two people are
standing, it's very easy to pick between them (and FPTP, AV, STV, SV,
SNTV and Condorcet all reduce to the same thing).

Most judged sports aren't using anything like FPTP: it's not the case
that each judge only gets one vote. Rather, every judge gives points
to every contestant. AFAIR, ice skating uses an ordinal voting system
more akin to AV.

> If not, then why haven't all these changed to one of these alternative
> methods?  Is it perhaps because the organisers want (a) a system that
> can be shown to be fair to /all/, and (b) they want the best result, not
> the "convenient" result.  An employer in particular would want the best
> result for the company, regardless of how (for example) one or a group
> of those who tend never to be picked themselves would arrange it.

When people are selected for a job, a voting system is generally not
used. Rather, a consensus is formed through discussion within a
selection panel. It's impractical to do that when you move from a
panel of a few individuals to an electorate of thousands.

What better approximates the consensus making process of a job
selection panel? Is it FPTP, where people only get to say their first
preference, or is it something like STV, where people express all
their preferences? I think it's the latter.

Basically, none of your examples demonstrate FPTP.

> > As Lyn has already pointed out, Westminster hasn't had a government
> > elected by a majority for a very long time.
>
> I'm not aware of /any/ government that has been elected by an actual
> /majority/ of the electorate, apart from possibly in places where voting
> is compulsory, which therefore probably doesn't really count (as those
> voting only under compulsion are unlikely to vote sensibly anyway).

Ture, but there are many examples of governments being elected by a
majority of those who vote (e.g. under STV in Malta and under list-PR
in Portugal).

Given the voters rarely vote such one party has a majority, if you
don't want coalition governments, you should support a directly-
elected executive, e.g. by having a President.
--
Henry

In uk.politics.electoral on Thu, 6 Sep 2007, 
"usenet@bondegezou.demon.co.uk"  wrote :
>Tim Roll-Pickering  wrote
>> Lyn David Thomas wrote:
>> > Interesting you think that.... given that we haven't had a government that
>> > has been supported by the majority of those voted for a very long time....
>> > unless you count the current coalition government in Wales?
>>
>> Which was not put to the people as a coalition in its current form. The way
>> that governments get made not in the polling stations but in subsquent
>> negotiations between parties does detract from the people chosing who runs
>> them. That may be a problem in parliamentary systems, but when most parties
>> fight legislative elections on what they'd do in government the voter can be
>> forgiven for treating the election as a way to chose the government.
>
>If you want an electoral system in which the voter chooses the
>government, then support one: have a directly elected executive. You
>aren't presenting an argument for FPTP; you're presenting an argument
>for a different electoral reform.

The main problem for electoral reform, is that the FPTP inherently 
inhibits it. No party that has gained power via FPTP is likely to want 
any reform to that system.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

usenet@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote:

> JNugent wrote

>>use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote [...]

>>>So, do you or do you not support FPTP for the Scottish Parliament? Do
>>>you or do you not think the Scottish Conservatives should support FPTP
>>>for the Scottish Parliament? Or is Tory support for FPTP conditional
>>>on whether FPTP benefits them or not?

>>>I support STV both in elections where it would help the LibDems win
>>>more seats (like at Westminster) and in elections where it would lead
>>>to the LibDems winning less seats (like in my local council of
>>>Camden).

>>I don't support PR for anything. In particular, I do not advocate
>>veering from one system to another for different elections according
>>to which yields the better outcome for this party or that party. I
>>accept that Scotland produces different election outcomes as compared
>>with England. That's one good reason why Scottish national influence
>>should long ago have been trimmed back so as to be no more than
>>proportionate to Scotland's population size (rather than being as
>>over-represented as it has been).

> So, do you or do you not think the Scottish Conservatives should
> support FPTP for the Scottish Parliament? Or is Tory support for FPTP
> conditional on whether FPTP benefits them or not?

Which bit of "I don't support PR for anything. In particular, I do not 
advocate veering from one system to another for different elections 
according to which yields the better outcome for this party or that 
party" is too difficult for you to understand?

>>Minorities are supposed to lose. That's what democracy is about.

> As Lyn has already pointed out, Westminster hasn't had a government
> elected by a majority for a very long time.

Think of the word as "plurality" if you must.

It's funny that the Liberals never did consider that point when they 
were one of the two natural parties of government, isn't it?

On 6 Sep, 08:36, JNugent 
wrote:
> JohnLoony wrote:
> > JNugent  wrote:
> >>Too bad.
> > If "too bad" is all you can say to people who believe in
> > accountability and effective representation,
>
> No, it's all that can be said for the aspirations of negative voters
> whose only wish is to stop two candidates from getting elected (which
> was your snipped scenario). They would need two votes for that. But
> they only get one. However, I do realise you'd like to see them given
> two each.

I do not want such voters to be given two votes each, and that is not
what I wrote.  Therefore your response to my point is illogical.

> > and who wish to avoid
> > guesswork and inefficiency in voting, then that merely exposes the
> > weakness of your argument.
>
> My argument is not weak. Unlike yours, it does not depend on the
> proposition that some voters should get two goes each whilst the
> majority get only one.

I do not want such voters to be given two votes each, and that is not
what I wrote.  Therefore your response to my point is illogical.

If a system is (in your words) "too bad", why not try to make it
better?

JNugent wrote:
> usenet@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote:
> 
>> As Lyn has already pointed out, Westminster hasn't had a government
>> elected by a majority for a very long time.
> 
> Think of the word as "plurality" if you must.

Plurality does not mean majority.

> It's funny that the Liberals never did consider that point when they 
> were one of the two natural parties of government, isn't it?

Who have not been in that position for about 90 years....

As far as I am aware they were in favour of it as soon as the two party 
system fell apart.

-- 
Lyn David Thomas "Windows [n.] A thirty-two bit extension and GUI shell 
to a sixteen bit patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded 
for a four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that can't 
stand one bit of competition." (Anonymous USEnet post)

JNugent wrote
> use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote [...]
> > So, do you or do you not think the Scottish Conservatives should
> > support FPTP for the Scottish Parliament? Or is Tory support for FPTP
> > conditional on whether FPTP benefits them or not?
>
> Which bit of "I don't support PR for anything. In particular, I do not
> advocate veering from one system to another for different elections
> according to which yields the better outcome for this party or that
> party" is too difficult for you to understand?

So you agree that Conservative support for FPTP is based entirely on
self-interest? Good, glad that's cleared up.
--
Henry

usenet@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote:

> JNugent wrote

>>use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote [...]

>>>So, do you or do you not think the Scottish Conservatives should
>>>support FPTP for the Scottish Parliament? Or is Tory support for FPTP
>>>conditional on whether FPTP benefits them or not?

>>Which