In article <itflu6Fcb93U3@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >> Isn't there a system of differential central government (ie,
> >> taxpayer) support for local authorities with more "need" and less
> >> ability to fund it with local taxation?
> >
> > there was
> >
> > until it was virtually abolished by "Austerity"

> Are you confident that local councils are not in receipt of monies from
> the general taxpayer via the Treasury?

I'm 'confident' of the following:

That UK Government after UK Government have prevented Councils from
raising their local rates or borrow to cover the rise in expenses they are
legally bound as Counciles to pay. While at the same time UK Gov has
*redistributed* funds via a formula that denies money to some areas for the
sake of it being given to others who are judged more 'needy'.

For many years they were also, for example, prevented from replacing,
like-for-like, Social housing, as it was sold off - at a low price -in a
way that was set by UK Government. Also, UK Government *would not allow*
Councils to spend all that money on new Socal housing!

So in the relationship between local and UK a number of processes -
controlled by UK Gov - have been cutting/restricting the income of Councils
whilst blaming Councils for lack of provision, particularly in poorer
areas.

Hence your question fails to penetrate the smokescreen generated by UK Gov
in recent decades, produced to stop people seeing what has been going on.

Another example is the way the ability of Councils to ensure bus transport
covered areas where people would be stranded without it was removed and it
was left to 'the market'. This also means added problems for Councils who
have to deal with the consequences in a way that varies from area to area.

The suits UK Gov that people fail to think of these things and just see the
smokescreens. Hence the real meaning of "via" in your question isn't as
simple as people may think.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <sktuh8$1g1$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 20/10/2021 10:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > Whereas under our PR system for MSPs my vote seems more to be better
> > reflected.

> Is it reflected, my choice was not elected so as far as I am concerned
> my vote was not reflected.

Well, unless we *all* get to be an MP/etc some of us find if we're the only
person voting for someone, we then don't get that. But overall, PR
represents more people more fairly than FPTP.

Not perfect, but better.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <edadda47-bc4e-8282-f4a1-5559a8d61cff@outlook.com>,
Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:

> Oddly many others take the view that - among other things - the
> Conservatives ceded energy policy to the Liberal Democrats as part of
> the price of coalition agreement. Hence we had bugger all on nuclear,
> and a lot on renewable, smart meters, feed-in tariffs,... Bloody
> expensive biscuits.

Many people take a "view" of reality that isn't always the same as the
"view" of others. Fostered by various polticians and spin doctors after the
event. :->

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <itfm4vFcel0U1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 20/10/2021 10:14 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> > JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> >> Your vote (or its absence) *does* have some effect in normal
> >> elections where the candidate with most votes wins.

> > Here "normal" means it has no effect at all for me in FPTP elections.

> What do you mean?

> The result has the same effect on everybody, and that is not even
> limited to electors in the relevant constituency.

You seem to have forgotten that you wrote "Your" - i.e. my - vote.

Time after time here I voted Labour only for the Tory or LD to win, because
few people here voted Labour. Thus my vote was in those FPTP elections
totally irrelevant. In most cases if I'd voted for one of the Tory/LDs my
vote would not have changed the result, either.

However under the Scottish system my votes *do* have an effect via the
list.

> >
> > So your definition of "normal" under FPTP seems somewhat, erm,
> > selective.
> >
> > Whereas under our PR system for MSPs my vote seems more to be better
> > reflected.

> But is it only about you?

> [That's a genuine question. You seem to imply that it is, and that the
> result is somehow non-legitimate unless "your" candidate wins.]

If you get to understand how the system here works you can see for yourself
that the answer to your question is "yes". Or at least "yes" for far more
people than under FPTP. The Scottish system isn't perfect, but it is, on
its results, clearly better than FPTP at following the statistcal
distribution of how people voted in terms of MSP numbers.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <itfmc8Fcel0U3@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 22/10/2021 10:05 am, MB wrote:
> > On 20/10/2021 10:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >> Erm the 'little support' gives a proportion to the number. If the
> >> 'support' is 'little' so are the number of elected MSPs. And there is
> >> nothing to stop 'opposition' MSPs voting with the main 'government'
> >> party on issues where they agree with them.
> >
> >
> > But with the SNP unable to get a majority, the Greenies have much more
> > power than they should from the number of supporters they have. That
> > is typical of what happens under PR.

> Exactly so.

Is it?

> PR would mean the LDs permanently in some sort of power via coalition.

OSAF

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <itfs4gFdfr3U4@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > But that would have meant voting for someone whom one didn't want to
> > elect.

> And?

> It happens all the time.

....under FPTP :-)

The problem then arises where those who vote 'tactically' or simply
fail to vote at all skew the staistics everyone then sees as the
level of 'support' for the various parties.

e.g. in an area where a given party only ever gets a small vote,
you can end up with a much bigger number *wanting* to vote for
them, but never giving any sign of this. This then deters others
from voting for them. Thus confirming the presumption and
forming a feedback process against them every reaching electability.

PR can help avoid that so the votes show what people *actually*
would prefer, and we can then all know that a vote might not
be 'wasted'.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <skusp8$j51$1@dont-email.me>,
Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>I'd be hard-pushed to think of a decent PM in the last 50 years. I
> sometimes wonder if your compatriot would have made a good PM if he had
> lived - John Smith.

I also have often wondered if the UK would be a much better place now if
he'd survived and become PM.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <itge7lFh08mU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > But PR comes closer to it than FPTP.

> That simply isn't true.

> Where the vote splits 45% Conservative, 35% Labour and 25% LibDem, the
> closest it is possible to get to "everyone being represented by the
> candidate of their choice" is given by First Past The Post.

> 45% get their candidate of choice with the Conservatives (whose
> candidate is the clear winner anyway).

> Only 35% or 20% would get representation by the candidate of their
> choice with a system which rigged the counting in favour of one of the
> loser parties.

Afraid all you are doing is showing that ye have nae clue about systems
like the Scottish one. You really *do* need to learn about them before
dismissing them.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 23/10/2021 10:37 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>>>> Isn't there a system of differential central government (ie,
>>>> taxpayer) support for local authorities with more "need" and less
>>>> ability to fund it with local taxation?
>
>>> there was
>>> until it was virtually abolished by "Austerity"
>
>> Are you confident that local councils are not in receipt of monies from
>> the general taxpayer via the Treasury?
>
> I'm 'confident' of the following:
>
> That UK Government after UK Government have prevented Councils from
> raising their local rates or borrow to cover the rise in expenses they are
> legally bound as Counciles to pay.

Parliament has certainly limited the annual increases in Council Tax. It
would have been nicer if the increases had been limited to the same
inflation metric as is used for the incomes of people like myself (and
perhaps yourself). As things stand, Council Tax takes an ever-increasing
proportion of net income of the people who pay it (not everyone does, of
course). That cannot be right.

> While at the same time UK Gov has
> *redistributed* funds via a formula that denies money to some areas for the
> sake of it being given to others who are judged more 'needy'.

That's long been the case, and is not novel.

> For many years they were also, for example, prevented from replacing,
> like-for-like, Social housing, as it was sold off - at a low price -in a
> way that was set by UK Government. Also, UK Government *would not allow*
> Councils to spend all that money on new Socal housing!

There are various reasons for that and they're not to do with the Treasury.

> So in the relationship between local and UK a number of processes -
> controlled by UK Gov - have been cutting/restricting the income of Councils
> whilst blaming Councils for lack of provision, particularly in poorer
> areas.

No-one "blames" councils for the "lack" (alleged) of social housing, but
even if they did (they don't and shouldn't), that would be nothing to do
with the Treasury and the redistribution of taxes which means that some
taxpayers (certainly me, probably you) are effectively forced to pay
taxes to councils where we don't have a vote.

> Hence your question fails to penetrate the smokescreen generated by UK Gov
> in recent decades, produced to stop people seeing what has been going on.

We know what has been going on. Parliament has acted to limit the
economic damage inflicted by certain sorts of council upon taxpayers in
general and their own taxpayers in particular.

I can remember a Labour London borough one year raising rates by 62%
(!!!) and then complaining that the civic centre was besieged by
protesting victims of that rise. You couldn't make it up.

> Another example is the way the ability of Councils to ensure bus transport
> covered areas where people would be stranded without it was removed and it
> was left to 'the market'. This also means added problems for Councils who
> have to deal with the consequences in a way that varies from area to area.

How do they "deal" with it? Councils tend to "deal with" most things badly.

> The suits UK Gov that people fail to think of these things and just see the
> smokescreens. Hence the real meaning of "via" in your question isn't as
> simple as people may think.

Thank you for the above, which seems to show what I suspected. The
Treasury still collects money from the taxpayer at large (irrespective
of location) and "distributes" it to local authorities on the basis of
perceived "need" and without regard for the geography of net taxpayers.

Surprisingly, it also seems that you would prefer to ignore that,
instead blaming Parliament and those pesky taxpayers for being involved
in some sort of conspiracy to ensure that taxation is imposed
democratically.

There's no use in my voting for a local party which believes in, and
delivers, low local taxation, only for profligate councils elsewhere
being able to pick my pocket via the Treasury. That is the antithesis of
democracy.

On 24/10/2021 10:07 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 20/10/2021 10:14 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>>>> Your vote (or its absence) *does* have some effect in normal
>>>> elections where the candidate with most votes wins.
>
>>> Here "normal" means it has no effect at all for me in FPTP elections.
>
>> What do you mean?
>> The result has the same effect on everybody, and that is not even
>> limited to electors in the relevant constituency.
>
> You seem to have forgotten that you wrote "Your" - i.e. my - vote.

What happens because of everybody else's vote also happens because of yours.
>
> Time after time here I voted Labour only for the Tory or LD to win, because
> few people here voted Labour.

Is there something wrong with that?

That sounds like a classic case of the election result being "for the
many, not the few".

> Thus my vote was in those FPTP elections
> totally irrelevant. In most cases if I'd voted for one of the Tory/LDs my
> vote would not have changed the result, either.

Your vote wasn't irrelevant. But that doesn't mean that the few get
their own way and the many don't.
>
> However under the Scottish system my votes *do* have an effect via the
> list.
>
>>> So your definition of "normal" under FPTP seems somewhat, erm,
>>> selective.
>>> Whereas under our PR system for MSPs my vote seems more to be better
>>> reflected.
>
>> But is it only about you?
>
>> [That's a genuine question. You seem to imply that it is, and that the
>> result is somehow non-legitimate unless "your" candidate wins.]
>
> If you get to understand how the system here works you can see for yourself
> that the answer to your question is "yes". Or at least "yes" for far more
> people than under FPTP. The Scottish system isn't perfect, but it is, on
> its results, clearly better than FPTP at following the statistcal
> distribution of how people voted in terms of MSP numbers.

I think you're right: the Scottish system isn't perfect. Far from it, in
fact.

On 24/10/2021 10:10 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <itfmc8Fcel0U3@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 22/10/2021 10:05 am, MB wrote:
>>> On 20/10/2021 10:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>> Erm the 'little support' gives a proportion to the number. If the
>>>> 'support' is 'little' so are the number of elected MSPs. And there is
>>>> nothing to stop 'opposition' MSPs voting with the main 'government'
>>>> party on issues where they agree with them.
>>>
>>>
>>> But with the SNP unable to get a majority, the Greenies have much more
>>> power than they should from the number of supporters they have. That
>>> is typical of what happens under PR.
>
>> Exactly so.
>
> Is it?
>
>> PR would mean the LDs permanently in some sort of power via coalition.
>
> OSAF

?????

On 24/10/2021 10:12 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <itfs4gFdfr3U4@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> But that would have meant voting for someone whom one didn't want to
>>> elect.
>
>> And?
>
>> It happens all the time.
>
>
> ...under FPTP :-)

It happens under any system. That's because not every candidate can win.

This is not Alice in Wonderland.>
> The problem then arises where those who vote 'tactically' or simply
> fail to vote at all skew the staistics everyone then sees as the
> level of 'support' for the various parties.
>
> e.g. in an area where a given party only ever gets a small vote,
> you can end up with a much bigger number *wanting* to vote for
> them, but never giving any sign of this. This then deters others
> from voting for them. Thus confirming the presumption and
> forming a feedback process against them every reaching electability.

Isn't it odd that this doesn't happen to Labour and the Conservatives
(to say nothing of the SNP)?

> PR can help avoid that so the votes show what people *actually*
> would prefer, and we can then all know that a vote might not
> be 'wasted'.

There are other ways of communicating with other voters.

On 24/10/2021 10:23 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <itge7lFh08mU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> But PR comes closer to it than FPTP.
>
>> That simply isn't true.
>
>> Where the vote splits 45% Conservative, 35% Labour and 25% LibDem, the
>> closest it is possible to get to "everyone being represented by the
>> candidate of their choice" is given by First Past The Post.
>
>> 45% get their candidate of choice with the Conservatives (whose
>> candidate is the clear winner anyway).
>
>> Only 35% or 20% would get representation by the candidate of their
>> choice with a system which rigged the counting in favour of one of the
>> loser parties.
>
> Afraid all you are doing is showing that ye have nae clue about systems
> like the Scottish one. You really *do* need to learn about them before
> dismissing them.

Systems which elect one of the losers and fail to elect the winner are a
form of vote-rigging.

On 25/10/2021 11:38, JNugent wrote:
> On 24/10/2021 10:23 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> In article<itge7lFh08mU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>> But PR comes closer to it than FPTP.
>>
>>> That simply isn't true.
>>
>>> Where the vote splits 45% Conservative, 35% Labour and 25% LibDem, the
>>> closest it is possible to get to "everyone being represented by the
>>> candidate of their choice" is given by First Past The Post.
>>
>>> 45% get their candidate of choice with the Conservatives (whose
>>> candidate is the clear winner anyway).
>>
>>> Only 35% or 20% would get representation by the candidate of their
>>> choice with a system which rigged the counting in favour of one of the
>>> loser parties.
>>
>> Afraid all you are doing is showing that ye have nae clue about systems
>> like the Scottish one. You really *do* need to learn about them before
>> dismissing them.
>
> Systems which elect one of the losers and fail to elect the winner are a
> form of vote-rigging.

That is my view too. I would be happy with a PR system that represented
everybody's first choice, but the referendum I answered NO to was one
that had the second choices counted. That isn't true PR, it is a fudge
to give "also rans" another bite of the cherry.

Jim

On 25/10/2021 11:31, JNugent wrote:
> On 23/10/2021 10:37 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>> For many years they were also, for example, prevented from replacing,
>> like-for-like, Social housing, as it was sold off - at a low price -in a
>> way that was set by UK Government. Also, UK Government *would not allow*
>> Councils to spend all that money on new Socal housing!
>
> There are various reasons for that and they're not to do with the Treasury.
>
I would be interested to know what they were.

The only reason I can think of is the mistaken belief that if everybody
renting a council house owned it there would be no requirement for
further council housing and a gradual reduction in maintenance costs.

The "affordable housing" concept is a dismal failure.

Jim

Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> On 25/10/2021 11:31, JNugent wrote:
>> On 23/10/2021 10:37 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>>> For many years they were also, for example, prevented from replacing,
>>> like-for-like, Social housing, as it was sold off - at a low price -in a
>>> way that was set by UK Government. Also, UK Government *would not allow*
>>> Councils to spend all that money on new Socal housing!
>>
>> There are various reasons for that and they're not to do with the Treasury.
>>
> I would be interested to know what they were.
>
> The only reason I can think of is the mistaken belief that if everybody
> renting a council house owned it there would be no requirement for
> further council housing and a gradual reduction in maintenance costs.
>
> The "affordable housing" concept is a dismal failure.
>
> Jim
>

If you live in council housing you can go on strike more easily, as it’s
politically difficult for councils to indulge in mass evictions during a
major industrial dispute. If those workers are instead paying a mortgage or
private rent they find it much more difficult to strike.

On 25/10/2021 12:13 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 25/10/2021 11:38, JNugent wrote:
>> On 24/10/2021 10:23 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> In article<itge7lFh08mU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>>> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>  wrote:
>>>>> But PR comes closer to it than FPTP.
>>>
>>>> That simply isn't true.
>>>
>>>> Where the vote splits 45% Conservative, 35% Labour and 25% LibDem, the
>>>> closest it is possible to get to "everyone being represented by the
>>>> candidate of their choice" is given by First Past The Post.
>>>
>>>> 45% get their candidate of choice with the Conservatives (whose
>>>> candidate is the clear winner anyway).
>>>
>>>> Only 35% or 20% would get representation by the candidate of their
>>>> choice with a system which rigged the counting in favour of one of the
>>>> loser parties.
>>>
>>> Afraid all you are doing is showing that ye have nae clue about systems
>>> like the Scottish one. You really *do* need to learn about them before
>>> dismissing them.
>>
>> Systems which elect one of the losers and fail to elect the winner are a
>> form of vote-rigging.
>
> That is my view too.  I would be happy with a PR system that represented
> everybody's first choice, but the referendum I answered NO to was one
> that had the second choices counted.  That isn't true PR, it is a fudge
> to give "also rans" another bite of the cherry.

It isn't only that. The system would have refused a "second vote" to
anyone who nominated the same candidate as their first and second choices.

Three choices and three rounds (for argument's sake):

Voter A: 1. Conservative 2. Conservative 3. Conservative

Voter B: 1. Labour 2. LibDem 3. Conservative

Voter C: 1. LibDem 2. Conservative 3. Labour

Conservatives get 48% of the so-called "first-round" count.

A only has his vote taken into account in that first round. He is
ignored in the second and subsequent rounds. He gets only one vote to be
cast once.

B and C each get three votes, one to be cast in each round.

And some people regard that as "fair" (presumably meaning no more than
that it tends to keep out the winner, whom they do not support).

The only way in which that could be made anywhere near "fair" is for
voter A's second and subsequent round votes to be counted in addition to
his first round vote (as happens to the votes of Voters B and C).

On 25/10/2021 11:35, JNugent wrote:
> On 24/10/2021 10:10 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> In article <itfmc8Fcel0U3@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> On 22/10/2021 10:05 am, MB wrote:
>>>> On 20/10/2021 10:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>> Erm the 'little support' gives a proportion to the number. If the
>>>>> 'support' is 'little' so are the number of elected MSPs. And there is
>>>>> nothing to stop 'opposition' MSPs voting with the main 'government'
>>>>> party on issues where they agree with them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But with the SNP unable to get a majority, the Greenies have much more
>>>> power than they should from the number of supporters they have.  That
>>>> is typical of what happens under PR.
>>
>>> Exactly so.
>>
>> Is it?
>>
>>> PR would mean the LDs permanently in some sort of power via coalition.
>>
>> OSAF
>
> ?????

(Your personal) opinion stated as (if it were) fact.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 25/10/2021 12:20 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:

> On 25/10/2021 11:31, JNugent wrote:
>> On 23/10/2021 10:37 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>>> For many years they were also, for example, prevented from replacing,
>>> like-for-like, Social housing, as it was sold off - at a low price -in a
>>> way that was set by UK Government. Also, UK Government *would not allow*
>>> Councils to spend all that money on new Socal housing!
>>
>> There are various reasons for that and they're not to do with the
>> Treasury.
>>
> I would be interested to know what they were.

One of them was the prevention of certain types of council from
continuing to carpet their cities / boroughs with council housing as a
political manoeuvre.

Between the second world war and the end of the 1970s, for instance,
almost no housing for sale was built in the larger cities of the north
(hence the flight of would-be owner-occupiers and "improver"
owner-occupiers out of the cities and into nearby urban and rural
districts where local authorities weren't into gerrymandering).

> The only reason I can think of is the mistaken belief that if everybody
> renting a council house owned it there would be no requirement for
> further council housing and a gradual reduction in maintenance costs.

Certainly, owner-occupation does not lead to revenue costs for local
authorities (if that's what you meant), no adverse implications arising
out of mortgage arrears and less adverse implications arising out of
rate arrears (and water rate arrears when that was a local council
issue, which it was in some areas).

> The "affordable housing" concept is a dismal failure.

What is the "affordable housing concept"?

All housing is affordable, by very definition.

It can and will only sell to someone who can afford it.

But not everyone can afford to buy. T'was ever thus.

On 25/10/2021 12:13, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 25/10/2021 11:38, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> On 24/10/2021 10:23 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>
>>> Afraid all you are doing is showing that ye have nae clue about systems
>>> like the Scottish one. You really *do* need to learn about them before
>>> dismissing them.
>>
>> Systems which elect one of the losers and fail to elect the winner are a
>> form of vote-rigging.
>
> That is my view too.  I would be happy with a PR system that represented
> everybody's first choice, but the referendum I answered NO to was one
> that had the second choices counted.  That isn't true PR, it is a fudge
> to give "also rans" another bite of the cherry.

No, as usual JNugent has supplied no rational argument, merely an
emotive derogatory opinion stated as if it were fact. The purpose of an
election is to represent the views of the people, and, as has already
been linked multiple times in this thread, it's easy to show that almost
any form of PR is more representative of the wishes of a greater number
of people than FPTP.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 25/10/2021 01:11 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 25/10/2021 11:35, JNugent wrote:
>> On 24/10/2021 10:10 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> In article <itfmc8Fcel0U3@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>>> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>> On 22/10/2021 10:05 am, MB wrote:
>>>>> On 20/10/2021 10:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>>> Erm the 'little support' gives a proportion to the number. If the
>>>>>> 'support' is 'little' so are the number of elected MSPs. And there is
>>>>>> nothing to stop 'opposition' MSPs voting with the main 'government'
>>>>>> party on issues where they agree with them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But with the SNP unable to get a majority, the Greenies have much more
>>>>> power than they should from the number of supporters they have.  That
>>>>> is typical of what happens under PR.
>>>
>>>> Exactly so.
>>>
>>> Is it?
>>>
>>>> PR would mean the LDs permanently in some sort of power via coalition.
>>>
>>> OSAF
>>
>> ?????
>
> (Your personal) opinion stated as (if it were) fact.

Oh.

Is that your opinion?

On 25/10/2021 01:14 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 25/10/2021 11:38, JNugent wrote:
>
>> Systems which elect one of the losers and fail to elect the winner are
>> a form of vote-rigging.
>
> No more than is FPTP, which by your definition becomes a worse 'form of
> vote-rigging', because it is less representative of the wishes of the
> people.

The candidate voted for by most people wins.

No "creative" counting is necessary.

On 25/10/2021 01:19 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 25/10/2021 12:13, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 25/10/2021 11:38, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 24/10/2021 10:23 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>>>> Afraid all you are doing is showing that ye have nae clue about systems
>>>> like the Scottish one. You really *do* need to learn about them before
>>>> dismissing them.
>
>>> Systems which elect one of the losers and fail to elect the winner are a
>>> form of vote-rigging.
>
>> That is my view too.  I would be happy with a PR system that
>> represented everybody's first choice, but the referendum I answered NO
>> to was one that had the second choices counted.  That isn't true PR,
>> it is a fudge to give "also rans" another bite of the cherry.
>
> No, as usual JNugent has supplied no rational argument, merely an
> emotive derogatory opinion stated as if it were fact.  The purpose of an
> election is to represent the views of the people, and, as has already
> been linked multiple times in this thread, it's easy to show that almost
> any form of PR is more representative of the wishes of a greater number
> of people than FPTP.

[Voice-over sotto voce: This has been a party political broadcast on
behalf of all minor parties who cannot win on their own merits and in
any case, dare not spell out the plans they have for reductions in
living standards of the people of the United Kingdom. Party political
broadcasts can also be seen on iPlayer.]

On 25/10/2021 12:57, JNugent wrote:
>
> It isn't only that. The system would have refused a "second vote" to
> anyone who nominated the same candidate as their first and second choices.
>
> Three choices and three rounds (for argument's sake):
>
> Voter A: 1. Conservative 2. Conservative 3. Conservative

As Jim so rightly said and obligingly you prove immediately, you don't
understand how PR works. The above would be a spoilt paper, because
it's not a multiple vote system, but a *SINGLE* *TRANSFERRABLE* Vote,
that's what STV stands for. Therefore you cannot vote for the same
party twice or more.

[Snip the rest based on ignorance]

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 25/10/2021 11:37, JNugent wrote:
> On 24/10/2021 10:12 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> In article <itfs4gFdfr3U4@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>> But that would have meant voting for someone whom one didn't want to
>>>> elect.
>>
>>> And?
>>
>>> It happens all the time.
>>
>> ...under FPTP  :-)
>
> It happens under any system. That's because not every candidate can win.

But less so under PR, because it allows *MORE* people get a *MORE*
acceptable candidate.

> This is not Alice in Wonderland.

Then stop making criticisms of PR based on ignorance, just like Alice In
Wonderland.

>> The problem then arises where those who vote 'tactically' or simply
>> fail to vote at all skew the staistics everyone then sees as the
>> level of 'support' for the various parties.
>>
>> e.g. in an area where a given party only ever gets a small vote,
>> you can end up with a much bigger number *wanting* to vote for
>> them, but never giving any sign of this. This then deters others
>> from voting for them. Thus confirming the presumption and
>> forming a feedback process against them every reaching electability.
>
> Isn't it odd that this doesn't happen to Labour and the Conservatives

It does in Scotland!

>> PR can help avoid that so the votes show what people *actually*
>> would prefer, and we can then all know that a vote might not
>> be 'wasted'.
>
> There are other ways of communicating with other voters.

That doesn't answer Jim's argument, so I presume that you can't answer it.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk