On 25/10/2021 11:35, JNugent wrote:
>
> 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".

Let him finish his argument uninterrupted.

>> 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.

His vote made no substantive difference to the result, so it was
irrelevant. One of the dangers of FPTP is that people who want to vote
for a minority party tend to get disillusioned and not bother to vote,
so turnouts get lower and lower, until the election becomes little
better than a rubber-stamping exercise.

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

Exactly.

>>>> 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.

No system is perfect, but, as has already been linked, the Scottish
system is provably better, in other words more representative of the
wishes of the people, than FPTP, and that's the point!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 25/10/2021 13:21, JNugent wrote:
>
> 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:
>>>>
>>>> OSAF
>>>
>>> ?????
>>
>> (Your personal) opinion stated as (if it were) fact.
>
> Is that your opinion?

I'm merely explaining what the acronym stands for and consequently how
it is commonly used. Do you have a problem with that?

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 25/10/2021 13:25, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 25/10/2021 01:19 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> 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.]

So you have no rational reply and have to resort to impotent innuendo.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 25/10/2021 13:22, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 25/10/2021 01:14 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 25/10/2021 11:38, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> 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.

Not necessarily, because your are ignoring the second preferences of
voters by not recording them.

> No "creative" counting is necessary.

No, because "destructive" counting is being employed; in not allowing
people to state their preferences more completely, potentially useful
information for obtaining the best candidate is being thrown away.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 25/10/2021 13:14, JNugent wrote:
> 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.
>
Affordable housing was intended to be cheaper housing for first time
buyers. It covers houses built with a planning condition that they meet
the "affordable" definition in the planning guidance, or are rented at
80% of the normal rental rate.

The "affordable" definition covers houses sold at 80% of the normal
market value, or allowed the purchase of part of the house (in
financial, not physical terms) with the remainder being in the
developer's ownership for which "affordable" rent is paid. This was
extended later to include "rent to buy" where the purchaser rented at
above the market rent and the excess gradually purchased more and more
of the property.

The expectation was that in a significantly sized development, 10% of
the houses should be affordable. Affordable purchases retain the
affordable discount requirement when sold (to prevent anyone buying a
affordable house and immediately selling it at full price to make a profit).

When this was introduced, the typical house price was met by a mortgage
of 3-5 times the buyer's gross income. The situation has changed
drastically, and now a typical mortgage is nearer 10 times the gross
income, and many baulk at that level of financial commitment. Even 80%
of the normal rent can be a struggle, but that is the only fallback for
those who cannot afford to buy.

There was an unintended outcome to the introduction of affordable
housing. Although social housing (aka council houses which were rented
at 50% of the normal commercial rent) could have continued to be built,
councils were short of money and couldn't see why they should invest
scarce funds into building their own housing stock when they could
require developers to build affordable housing instead. The number of
new council housing being built has plummeted.

That is why the idea which started off as a bright idea has turned into
a dismal failure. Firstly, the normal house price has increased at a
far higher rate than incomes such that "affordable" houses are not
affordable for the part of society they were aimed at, and secondly
there was a change in the legislation a few years ago that introduced
the idea of "viability" for house builders, and those who could fiddle
the figures sufficiently could be allowed to provide a smaller quantity
of affordable houses to achieve a minimum profit level. Thus the number
of affordable houses coming onto the market has dropped dramatically.

A 2020 report led to a briefing paper to the House of Commons in April
2021 where it was noted that the report "concluded that 'many' of these
products 'are clearly unaffordable to those on mid to lower incomes.'"

Unfortunately, all the options for repairing the situation had drawbacks
and nothing significant has changed since.

Jim

On 25/10/2021 13:55, Java Jive wrote:
> On 25/10/2021 13:22, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> On 25/10/2021 01:14 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>
> Not necessarily, because you are ignoring the second preferences of
> voters by not recording them.

That is the bit I disagree with. If the first choice gives a 35% share
of the vote, then I believe proportional representation should provide
35% of the Government (with some agreed rounding formula for fractions).

The transferable vote forces people to make the decision "I want A and
can't stand B so I either put C down as an alternative though I really
don't want them to win, just to make sure that it will be harder for B
to win".
>
>> No "creative" counting is necessary.
>
> No, because "destructive" counting is being employed; in not allowing
> people to state their preferences more completely, potentially useful
> information for obtaining the best candidate is being thrown away.
>
See my comment above. I don't believe that the majority of voters do
have an "I don't mind if it is X or Y" mindset. That is why I rejected
the STV option in the referendum and will continue to do so.

Jim

On 25/10/2021 03:30 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:

> On 25/10/2021 13:14, JNugent wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Affordable housing was intended to be cheaper housing for first time
> buyers.

I haven't heard that before.

> It covers houses built with a planning condition that they meet
> the "affordable" definition in the planning guidance, or are rented at
> 80% of the normal rental rate.

I *have* heard of the 80% "rule", however it may apply. How the "normal
rental rate" is set would be a mystery.

> The "affordable" definition covers houses sold at 80% of the normal
> market value, or allowed the purchase of part of the house (in
> financial, not physical terms) with the remainder being in the
> developer's ownership for which "affordable" rent is paid. This was
> extended later to include "rent to buy" where the purchaser rented at
> above the market rent and the excess gradually purchased more and more
> of the property.

The word (because that is all it is - it certainly isn't a definition)
applies to all housing at all prices.

> The expectation was that in a significantly sized development, 10% of
> the houses should be affordable.  Affordable purchases retain the
> affordable discount requirement when sold (to prevent anyone buying a
> affordable house and immediately selling it at full price to make a
> profit).

Good news...

*All* housing in new developments is "affordable". Not 10%. The full
*100%*. For every "unit", there is someone who can afford it at the
asking price. Maybe more than one applicant who can afford it.

> When this was introduced, the typical house price was met by a mortgage
> of 3-5 times the buyer's gross income. The situation has changed
> drastically, and now a typical mortgage is nearer 10 times the gross
> income, and many baulk at that level of financial commitment.

Even at near-negative interest rates (when inflation is TIA)?

> Even 80%
> of the normal rent can be a struggle, but that is the only fallback for
> those who cannot afford to buy.
>
> There was an unintended outcome to the introduction of affordable
> housing.  Although social housing (aka council houses which were rented
> at 50% of the normal commercial rent) could have continued to be built,
> councils were short of money and couldn't see why they should invest
> scarce funds into building their own housing stock when they could
> require developers to build affordable housing instead. The number of
> new council housing being built has plummeted.
>
> That is why the idea which started off as a bright idea has turned into
> a dismal failure.  Firstly, the normal house price has increased at a
> far higher rate than incomes such that "affordable" houses are not
> affordable for the part of society they were aimed at, and secondly
> there was a change in the legislation a few years ago that introduced
> the idea of "viability" for house builders, and those who could fiddle
> the figures sufficiently could be allowed to provide a smaller quantity
> of affordable houses to achieve a minimum profit level.  Thus the number
> of affordable houses coming onto the market has dropped dramatically.

Do you know who is to "blame" for the increase in house-prices since the
halcyon days when every plumber's mate could afford to buy a 3-bed semi
without working any overtime?

That's right: the people who have demanded housing by buying it at the
increased prices! No-one else!

Certainly not people like me, who last moved thirty years ago at a
purchase price of £50K. I have not added one iota to the effective
demand for house-purchasing since 1991 or 1992.

> A 2020 report led to a briefing paper to the House of Commons in April
> 2021 where it was noted that the report "concluded that 'many' of these
> products 'are clearly unaffordable to those on mid to lower incomes.'"

Was this news?

None of my grandparents could afford to buy. My parents couldn't afford
to buy (at least, not while my siblings and I were growing up). We were
the first this side of the family to be home-buyers.

> Unfortunately, all the options for repairing the situation had drawbacks
> and nothing significant has changed since.

The only realistic method for reducing house-prices is to act against
the supply side by undermining the demand side's ability to over-bid. It
means just one thing: increase interest rates to the same sort of rates
seen in the late 1980s. That certainly worked: house prices reduced (in
1990 and 1992, I consecutively sold twice at a loss, and counted myself
lucky to have been able to sell. It would work again.

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

> 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.

Why ISN'T a voter allowed to nominate the same candidate in each round?

Why must a voter be forced into voting for a party or candidate they do
not prefer?

On 25/10/2021 01:31 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> 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.

Not every candidate can win.

>> This is not Alice in Wonderland.

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

You aren't a very literary-minded person, are you?

>>> 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!

Who cares?
>
>>> 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.

There is no reason why it should be indulged.

The winner wins. The loser(s) lose.

What's not to like?

On 25/10/2021 01:40 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 25/10/2021 11:35, JNugent wrote:
>> 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".
>
> Let him finish his argument uninterrupted.

You aren't familiar with the way that usenet works, then?

You are ignorant of it, in fact.
>
>>> 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.
>
> His vote made no substantive difference to the result, so it was
> irrelevant.

As it happens, my vote in 2019 "made no substantive difference to the
result" either. *Should* it have?

> One of the dangers of FPTP is that people who want to vote
> for a minority party tend to get disillusioned and not bother to vote,
> so turnouts get lower and lower, until the election becomes little
> better than a rubber-stamping exercise.

That has an effect (as I pointed out a long way above ^).

>>> However under the Scottish system my votes *do* have an effect via the
>>> list.
>
> Exactly.
>
>>>>> 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
>>> statistical 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.
>
> No system is perfect, but, as has already been linked, the Scottish
> system is provably better, in other words more representative of the
> wishes of the people, than FPTP, and that's the point!

TRANSLATION:

"My party gets more seats after a bit of creative counting".

On 25/10/2021 01:50 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 25/10/2021 13:21, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>> OSAF
>>>>
>>>> ?????
>>>
>>> (Your personal) opinion stated as (if it were) fact.
>>
>> Is that your opinion?
>
> I'm merely explaining what the acronym stands for and consequently how
> it is commonly used.  Do you have a problem with that?

Is that your opinion?

On 25/10/2021 16:35, JNugent wrote:
> On 25/10/2021 01:50 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 25/10/2021 13:21, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> 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:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OSAF
>>>>>
>>>>> ?????
>>>>
>>>> (Your personal) opinion stated as (if it were) fact.
>>>
>>> Is that your opinion?
>>
>> I'm merely explaining what the acronym stands for and consequently how
>> it is commonly used.  Do you have a problem with that?
>
> Is that your opinion?

What is it about the answers given above that you have such difficulty with?

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 25/10/2021 16:28, JNugent wrote:
> On 25/10/2021 01:25 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>
>> 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* *TRANSFERABLE* Vote,
>> that's what STV stands for.  Therefore you cannot vote for the same
>> party twice or more.
>
> Why ISN'T a voter allowed to nominate the same candidate in each round?
>
> Why must a voter be forced into voting for a party or candidate they do
> not prefer?

Again, you are showing your ignorance about how the system works. Just
as they don't have to vote in the first place, they don't have to make a
second or subsequent choice either, though IMO they would be unwise to
do that, because they have nothing to lose and possibly something to
gain by doing so by expressing their choices fully.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 25/10/2021 15:51, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 25/10/2021 13:55, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 25/10/2021 13:22, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> Not necessarily, because you are ignoring the second preferences of
>> voters by not recording them.
>
> That is the bit I disagree with. If the first choice gives a 35% share
> of the vote, then I believe proportional representation should provide
> 35% of the Government (with some agreed rounding formula for fractions).

Which is *EXACTLY* what it tries to do, but in calculating share of the
vote, you need to include all the choices that people express, not
simply the first one.

> The transferable vote forces

.... no-one is forced to do anything, they are not forced to vote, and
they are not forced to express a second choice when they do so ...

> people to make the decision "I want A and
> can't stand B so I either put C down as an alternative though I really
> don't want them to win, just to make sure that it will be harder for B
> to win".

Exactly, it makes them think carefully about how they vote, as befits
the importance of a democratic election.

>>> No "creative" counting is necessary.
>>
>> No, because "destructive" counting is being employed; in not allowing
>> people to state their preferences more completely, potentially useful
>> information for obtaining the best candidate is being thrown away.
>
> See my comment above.  I don't believe that the majority of voters do
> have an "I don't mind if it is X or Y" mindset.  That is why I rejected
> the STV option in the referendum and will continue to do so.

Which is your choice, and you could still continue to vote that way in a
PR system if you wanted, but your vote in the referendum deprived others
of a greater choice for which there was no good reason to deny them.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 25/10/2021 16:30, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 25/10/2021 01:31 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>>[quote missing]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>
> Not every candidate can win.

That is not an answer to the point being made above, so I presume you
have no answer to it.

>>> This is not Alice in Wonderland.
>>
>> Then stop making criticisms of PR based on ignorance, just like Alice
>> In Wonderland.
>
> You aren't a very literary-minded person, are you?

That is not an answer to the point being made above, so again I presume
you have no answer to it.

>>>> 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!
>
> Who cares?

They do, that's why members of those parties in Scotland tend to support PR!

>>>> 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.
>
> There is no reason why it should be indulged.
>
> The winner wins. The loser(s) lose.
>
> What's not to like?

That still doesn't answer Jim's argument, so again I presume that you
have no answer to it.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 25/10/2021 16:35, JNugent wrote:
> On 25/10/2021 01:40 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>
>> On 25/10/2021 11:35, JNugent wrote:
>>> 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".
>>
>> Let him finish his argument uninterrupted.
>
> You aren't familiar with the way that usenet works, then?
>
> You are ignorant of it, in fact.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> His vote made no substantive difference to the result, so it was
>> irrelevant.
>
> As it happens, my vote in 2019 "made no substantive difference to the
> result" either. *Should* it have?
>
>> One of the dangers of FPTP is that people who want to vote for a
>> minority party tend to get disillusioned and not bother to vote, so
>> turnouts get lower and lower, until the election becomes little better
>> than a rubber-stamping exercise.
>
> That has an effect (as I pointed out a long way above ^).
>
>>>> However under the Scottish system my votes *do* have an effect via the
>>>> list.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>> statistical 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.
>>
>> No system is perfect, but, as has already been linked, the Scottish
>> system is provably better, in other words more representative of the
>> wishes of the people, than FPTP, and that's the point!
>
> TRANSLATION:
>
> "My party gets more seats after a bit of creative counting".

FALSE! The party I voted for would have an overwhelming overall
majority if there was no PR!

TRANSLATION OF YOUR REPLY ABOVE:

I've lost the rational argument but can't bring myself to admit it, so I
make derogatory remarks instead.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 25/10/2021 06:49 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 25/10/2021 16:28, JNugent wrote:
>> On 25/10/2021 01:25 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>> 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*
>>> *TRANSFERABLE* Vote, that's what STV stands for.  Therefore you
>>> cannot vote for the same party twice or more.
>
>> Why ISN'T a voter allowed to nominate the same candidate in each round?
>> Why must a voter be forced into voting for a party or candidate they
>> do not prefer?

> Again, you are showing your ignorance about how the system works.  Just
> as they don't have to vote in the first place, they don't have to make a
> second or subsequent choice either, though IMO they would be unwise to
> do that, because they have nothing to lose and possibly something to
> gain by doing so by expressing their choices fully.

*Why* aren't they allowed to cast their vote for the candidate they
really want in every round?

Please answer that question.

Or if you can't, you can always try to change the subject again.

On 25/10/2021 07:05 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 25/10/2021 16:30, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> On 25/10/2021 01:31 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> 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:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [quote missing]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Not every candidate can win.
>
> That is not an answer to the point being made above, so I presume you
> have no answer to it.
>
>>>> This is not Alice in Wonderland.
>>>
>>> Then stop making criticisms of PR based on ignorance, just like Alice
>>> In Wonderland.
>>
>> You aren't a very literary-minded person, are you?
>
> That is not an answer to the point being made above, so again I presume
> you have no answer to it.
>
>>>>> 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!
>>
>> Who cares?
>
> They do, that's why members of those parties in Scotland tend to support
> PR!
>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> There is no reason why it should be indulged.
>>
>> The winner wins. The loser(s) lose.
>>
>> What's not to like?
>
> That still doesn't answer Jim's argument, so again I presume that you
> have no answer to it.

Under the only fair vote counting system, the winner (the candidate with
most votes) wins. The loser(s) lose.

What's not to like?
>

On 25/10/2021 19:40, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 25/10/2021 06:49 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Again, you are showing your ignorance about how the system works.
>> Just as they don't have to vote in the first place, they don't have to
>> make a second or subsequent choice either, though IMO they would be
>> unwise to do that, because they have nothing to lose and possibly
>> something to gain by doing so by expressing their choices fully.
>
> *Why* aren't they allowed to cast their vote for the candidate they
> really want in every round?

Because by definition it wouldn't be PR, just an unnecessarily
complicated method of FPTP!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 25/10/2021 19:42, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 25/10/2021 07:05 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> That still doesn't answer Jim's argument, so again I presume that you
>> have no answer to it.
>
> Under the only fair vote counting system, the winner (the candidate with
> most votes) wins. The loser(s) lose.

That happens under PR as well, what's not to like?

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 25/10/2021 19:39, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 25/10/2021 06:45 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> What is it about the answers given above that you have such difficulty
>> with?
>
> The fact they you seem to "think" (if that's an appropriate word) that
> your opinions are paramount whilst those of others don't count at all.
>
> People usually call that "hypocrisy".
>
> Of course, it's only their opinion, so you will dismiss it out of hand.

The problem with your opinions is that commonly, as in this case, they
run counter to known facts.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 25/10/2021 07:52 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 25/10/2021 19:40, JNugent wrote:
>> On 25/10/2021 06:49 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>
>>> Again, you are showing your ignorance about how the system works.
>>> Just as they don't have to vote in the first place, they don't have
>>> to make a second or subsequent choice either, though IMO they would
>>> be unwise to do that, because they have nothing to lose and possibly
>>> something to gain by doing so by expressing their choices fully.
>
>> *Why* aren't they allowed to cast their vote for the candidate they
>> really want in every round?
>
> Because by definition it wouldn't be PR, just an unnecessarily
> complicated method of FPTP!

You are failing to explain why a voter may not vote for the same
candidate at every creative-counting stage.

One suspects that this is simply because you know that if every voter
were allowed to vote for the candidate they really want at every stage,
the result wouldn't come out bent, as PR supporters want it to be.

So, if you can, please explain why those who only want one candidate to
win and who do not wish to be forced into voting for a candidate they
don't want, only get one vote, which is counted only once, whereas
other, less particular, less committed voters get as many votes as there
are rounds of creative counting.

Whatever happened to "one man, one vote"?

On 25/10/2021 07:53 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 25/10/2021 19:42, JNugent wrote:
>> On 25/10/2021 07:05 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>
>>> That still doesn't answer Jim's argument, so again I presume that you
>>> have no answer to it.
>
>> Under the only fair vote counting system, the winner (the candidate
>> with most votes) wins. The loser(s) lose.
>
Under PR, the leading candidate, the one with the most votes, is hobbled
in the second and subsequent rounds by his supporters not being allowed
to vote in those second and subsequent rounds unless they are prepared
to vote for one of the losers. And why on Earth would they want to do
that? [We know what the point of it is; it's to stop the winner from
winning, according to the creative counting at least).

On 25/10/2021 07:55 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 25/10/2021 19:39, JNugent wrote:
>> On 25/10/2021 06:45 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> What is it about the answers given above that you have such
>>> difficulty with?
>>
>> The fact they you seem to "think" (if that's an appropriate word) that
>> your opinions are paramount whilst those of others don't count at all.
>>
>> People usually call that "hypocrisy".
>>
>> Of course, it's only their opinion, so you will dismiss it out of hand.
>
> The problem with your opinions is that commonly, as in this case, they
> run counter to known facts.

That's your opinion.

You know how much I value it.

On 25/10/2021 18:57, Java Jive wrote:
> On 25/10/2021 15:51, Indy Jess John wrote:

>> That is the bit I disagree with. If the first choice gives a 35% share
>> of the vote, then I believe proportional representation should provide
>> 35% of the Government (with some agreed rounding formula for fractions).
>
> Which is *EXACTLY* what it tries to do, but in calculating share of the
> vote, you need to include all the choices that people express, not
> simply the first one.

No, you have missed my point. I want the proportion of *votes* to be
the decider on how the voters are represented in Government, not the
number of *seats*. When the aggregate first votes are the controlling
factor there would be no need for second and third options.

Jim