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

> 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).

Is it not possible to simply refrain from selecting a second; third;
etc.; candidate? I believe that it is permissible in e.g. the Usenet
uk.hierarchy committee elections, which I think use the Condorcet
method of proportional representation.

--
^Ï^ <https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

My pet rock Gordon just is.

On 25/10/2021 16:26, JNugent wrote:
> The word (because that is all it is - it certainly isn't a definition)
> applies to all housing at all prices.
>

You are wrong. The word has a specific legal definition.
See the National Planning Policy Framework, Annex 2 if you really want
to know exactly what that is.

Jim

On 25/10/2021 20:20, JNugent wrote:
> 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.

No, it's been proven elsewhere in this thread already that you know
little about PR and understand even less, and that consequently your
opinions run counter to known facts, and this has also been shown
previously in other threads.

> You know how much I value it.

That's your problem, you personalise things, instead of sticking to facts.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 25/10/2021 20:17, JNugent wrote:
>
> 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.

See above! Elsewhere you were childish enough to mention my knowledge
of English literature, which is probably better than yours anyway, so I
will retaliate here by bringing up your inability to understand simple
English language: what is it about the phrase "SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE"
that you alone here seem to have such monumental difficulty in
understanding? By definition, your absurd example wouldn't be
*PROPORTIONAL* *REPRESENTATION*, just an unnecessarily complicated
method of FPTP!

> 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.

Again, the use of emotively loaded language instead of rational
argument, presumably because you have got any rational argument to make.
Your suggestion wouldn't be PR, just an unnecessarily complicated form
of FPTP.

> 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"?

STV PR *IS* one man one vote, whereas your absurd and illogical example
would be one man multiple votes!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 25/10/2021 20:58, Indy Jess John wrote:
> 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*.

Self-contradiction: how are you going to represent voters in government
*EXCEPT* by numbers of seats?

> When the aggregate first votes are the controlling
> factor there would be no need for second and third options.

You have missed my point. Again, you need to get your facts right, in
both the current Scottish systems in use the seats won represent the
share of the vote more closely than does FPTP. Take the Scottish
Parliament:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-57047907

Constituencies Seats
SNP 62 64
Con 5 31
LD 4 4
Lab 2 22
Green 0 8

Note that without the extra PR list seats, the SNP would have had an
overwhelming majority of 51, but with the PR list seats, they are one
short of a majority and consequently have to compromise with others to
get legislation through.

Considering how anti fringe parties, in which grouping they usually
include the SNP, are so many supporters of FPTP, there is a wide
disconnect between such opinions and reality!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 25/10/2021 21:02, Sn!pe wrote:
> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> 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).

The purpose of any election system is to apportion seats in government
to represent the views of the public as closely as possible, if your
suggestion were allowed, it would be just another form of FPTP, which
has been shown to be inferior to PR in this respect.

> Is it not possible to simply refrain from selecting a second; third;
> etc.; candidate? I believe that it is permissible in e.g. the Usenet
> uk.hierarchy committee elections, which I think use the Condorcet
> method of proportional representation.

Yes, of course that would be possible, unwise, but possible. In the
absence of rational argument, JNugent is just trying to clutch at straws.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 25/10/2021 21:59, Java Jive wrote:
> On 25/10/2021 20:58, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> 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*.
>
> Self-contradiction: how are you going to represent voters in government
> *EXCEPT* by numbers of seats?

There is a difference between each seat being determined by the local
vote for that seat, and the aggregate of seats being determined by the
national vote.

Think of the Ancient Greek approach to democracy and you will see where
I am coming from.
>
>> When the aggregate first votes are the controlling
>> factor there would be no need for second and third options.
>
> You have missed my point. Again, you need to get your facts right, in
> both the current Scottish systems in use the seats won represent the
> share of the vote more closely than does FPTP. Take the Scottish
> Parliament:
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-57047907
>
> Constituencies Seats
> SNP 62 64
> Con 5 31
> LD 4 4
> Lab 2 22
> Green 0 8
>
> Note that without the extra PR list seats, the SNP would have had an
> overwhelming majority of 51, but with the PR list seats, they are one
> short of a majority and consequently have to compromise with others to
> get legislation through.

I read the article you referenced, and that adds the confusion of
Constituencies (a Westminster requirement) to the Seats (a Holyrood
arrangement) which muddies the water a bit. The article doesn't make it
clear exactly how the voter sees the ballot paper, or exactly what seat
a vote refers to. I found myself looking at the output without a real
appreciation of the input or the logic between input and output.

That said, the STV still looks to be a political device for minimising
the disgruntled reactions of the electorate than a true attempt at being
proportional to the sum of the voter's real preferences.

Jim

On 25/10/2021 09:05 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:

> On 25/10/2021 16:26, JNugent wrote:

>> The word (because that is all it is - it certainly isn't a definition)
>> applies to all housing at all prices.
>
> You are wrong. The word has a specific legal definition.
> See the National Planning Policy Framework, Annex 2 if you really want
> to know exactly what that is.

Planning Policy Frameworks - whatever they are - do not change the
meaning of ordinary English words. They might provide a quasi-definition
which allows the operation of the policy the document supports, but they
have no life beyond that.

All homes are affordable, by definition and inescapable necessary
implication.

No matter how high the price, someone can afford it. If absolutely
no-one chooses to buy at a given price, the price will come down so that
someone will choose to buy it.

On 25/10/2021 09:02 pm, Sn!pe wrote:
> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> 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).
>
> Is it not possible to simply refrain from selecting a second; third;
> etc.; candidate?

It is. But that does harm to the chances of the candidate(s) who would
have been chosen by the voter. And why should that be?

The point is that in what is effectively a second election, the winner
of the first one is prohibited from receiving any votes from the voters
who supported them in the first stage.

There is no reason why that should be so.

> I believe that it is permissible in e.g. the Usenet
> uk.hierarchy committee elections, which I think use the Condorcet
> method of proportional representation.

On 25/10/2021 09:26 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 25/10/2021 20:20, JNugent wrote:
>> 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.
>
> No, it's been proven elsewhere in this thread already that you know
> little about PR and understand even less, and that consequently your
> opinions run counter to known facts, and this has also been shown
> previously in other threads.
>
>> You know how much I value it.
>
> That's your problem, you personalise things, instead of sticking to facts.

You obviously don't understand the irony of that remark. You are
actually describing yourself.

On 25/10/2021 09:41 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 25/10/2021 20:17, JNugent wrote:
>> 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.
>
> See above!  Elsewhere you were childish enough to mention my knowledge
> of English literature, which is probably better than yours anyway, so I
> will retaliate here by bringing up your inability to understand simple
> English language: what is it about the phrase "SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE"
> that you alone here seem to have such monumental difficulty in
> understanding?  By definition, your absurd example wouldn't be
> *PROPORTIONAL* *REPRESENTATION*, just an unnecessarily complicated
> method of FPTP!

What has any of that to do with your failure to recognise very ordinary
references to commonly-quoted works of literature?

If everyone has a single vote, the first count is the last count.

But that isn't the way that PR works. It "works" by giving some voters
more than one vote, but giving supporters of the clear winner only one vote.
>
>> 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.
>
> Again, the use of emotively loaded language instead of rational
> argument, presumably because you have got any rational argument to make.
> Your suggestion wouldn't be PR, just an unnecessarily complicated form
> of FPTP.

What you are admitting there is that in order to "work", PR has to be
bent and corrupt, giving more representation to some voters than to others.

>> 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"?
>
> STV PR *IS* one man one vote, whereas your absurd and illogical example
> would be one man multiple votes!

Either everyone gets a second and third vote (and is allowed to choose
for whom they cast them), or no-one does.

That's democracy.

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

[...]

> >> 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).
> >
> > Is it not possible to simply refrain from selecting a second; third;
> > etc.; candidate?
>
> It is. But that does harm to the chances of the candidate(s) who would
> have been chosen by the voter. And why should that be?
>
> The point is that in what is effectively a second election, the winner
> of the first one is prohibited from receiving any votes from the voters
> who supported them in the first stage.
>
> There is no reason why that should be so.

[...]

OTOH, it does deny the non-favoured candidates the benefit of
a transferred vote.

[Subject amended]

--
^Ï^ <https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

My pet rock Gordon just is.

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

[...]

> > Is it not possible to simply refrain from selecting a second; third;
> > etc.; candidate? I believe that it is permissible in e.g. the Usenet
> > uk.hierarchy committee elections, which I think use the Condorcet
> > method of proportional representation.
>
> Yes, of course that would be possible, unwise, but possible. In the
> absence of rational argument, JNugent is just trying to clutch at straws.

In what way is it unwise?

[Subject amended]

--
^Ï^ <https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

My pet rock Gordon just is.

On 25/10/2021 23:40, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 25/10/2021 21:59, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 25/10/2021 20:58, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> 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*.
>>
>> Self-contradiction: how are you going to represent voters in government
>> *EXCEPT* by numbers of seats?
>
> There is a difference between each seat being determined by the local
> vote for that seat, and the aggregate of seats being determined by the
> national vote.
>
> Think of the Ancient Greek approach to democracy and you will see where
> I am coming from.

Well, not really, you can use PR or FPTP with either.

>>> When the aggregate first votes are the controlling
>>> factor there would be no need for second and third options.
>>
>> You have missed my point.  Again, you need to get your facts right, in
>> both the current Scottish systems in use the seats won represent the
>> share of the vote more closely than does FPTP.  Take the Scottish
>> Parliament:
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-57047907
>>
>>           Constituencies    Seats
>> SNP          62            64
>> Con           5            31
>> LD            4             4
>> Lab           2            22
>> Green         0             8
>>
>> Note that without the extra PR list seats, the SNP would have had an
>> overwhelming majority of 51, but with the PR list seats, they are one
>> short of a majority and consequently have to compromise with others to
>> get legislation through.
>
> I read the article you referenced, and that adds the confusion of
> Constituencies (a Westminster requirement) to the Seats (a Holyrood
> arrangement) which muddies the water a bit. The article doesn't make it
> clear exactly how the voter sees the ballot paper, or exactly what seat
> a vote refers to. I found myself looking at the output without a real
> appreciation of the input or the logic between input and output.

No, there is no confusion at all, the table above concerns the election
of MSPs, who are different people from MPs. There are 73 Scottish
Parliament constituencies, and the SNP won 62 of them, so if it wasn't
for PR they would have a majority of 51.

> That said, the STV still looks to be a political device for minimising
> the disgruntled reactions of the electorate than a true attempt at being
> proportional to the sum of the voter's real preferences.

Firstly, FFS, how many times must you be told? The above is *NOT* STV,
as I've posted before:

"I think you are misunderstanding how PR works, or perhaps conflating
different possible systems of it. In Scotland, there are two systems in
use:

1) Local Council elections use Single Transferable Vote where
voters rank candidates in order of preference. This operates very
differently to how you describe above, and is the Electoral Reform
Society's preferred option.

2) MSPs are elected via a different system, the Additional Member
System, aka Mixed Member Proportional, and may be what you are
describing above, but your criticisms of it seem ill-founded and do not
reflect how it works in practice."

Secondly, the list vote is also done on on the basis of eight regional
lists, to reflect more fairly the percentage of votes cast in each
region, so, directly contrary to what you claim above, it does attempt
to reflect the voter's preferences in each region. Let me remind you again:

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/is-there-proportional-representation-in-scotland/

"How proportional is the system in Scotland?

A way of measuring the proportionality of electoral outcomes is via the
Deviation from Proportionality (DV) Index. The DV Index is calculated by
adding up the difference between each party’s vote share and their seat
share in each electoral area and dividing by two, giving a ‘total
deviation’ score. The higher the score, the more disproportionate the
result.

Westminster election results in recent years were in the 20s (2015: 24,
2010: 22.7, 2005: 20.7), the Scottish parliament has never had a result
worse than 12.1."

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 26/10/2021 00:36, Sn!pe wrote:
>
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Is it not possible to simply refrain from selecting a second; third;
>>> etc.; candidate? I believe that it is permissible in e.g. the Usenet
>>> uk.hierarchy committee elections, which I think use the Condorcet
>>> method of proportional representation.
>>
>> Yes, of course that would be possible, unwise, but possible. In the
>> absence of rational argument, JNugent is just trying to clutch at straws.
>
> In what way is it unwise?

Because, as with not bothering to vote at all, it's throwing away a
chance to make your views count.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 26/10/2021 00:08, JNugent wrote:
> On 25/10/2021 09:26 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 25/10/2021 20:20, JNugent wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> No, it's been proven elsewhere in this thread already that you know
>> little about PR and understand even less, and that consequently your
>> opinions run counter to known facts, and this has also been shown
>> previously in other threads.

Stet!

>>> You know how much I value it.
>>
>> That's your problem, you personalise things, instead of sticking to
>> facts.
>
> You obviously don't understand the irony of that remark. You are
> actually describing yourself.

I'm the one who has linked to external provenance for facts in this
thread, whereas you have linked to none that I can recall, so it's
obviously you that is merely posting personal opinions.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 26/10/2021 00:12, JNugent wrote:
> On 25/10/2021 09:41 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>
>> On 25/10/2021 20:17, JNugent wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> See above!  Elsewhere you were childish enough to mention my knowledge
>> of English literature, which is probably better than yours anyway, so
>> I will retaliate here by bringing up your inability to understand
>> simple English language: what is it about the phrase "SINGLE
>> TRANSFERABLE VOTE" that you alone here seem to have such monumental
>> difficulty in understanding?  By definition, your absurd example
>> wouldn't be *PROPORTIONAL* *REPRESENTATION*, just an unnecessarily
>> complicated method of FPTP!
>
> What has any of that to do with your failure to recognise very ordinary
> references to commonly-quoted works of literature?

FALSE! I recognised it and turned it against you. Now it's my turn
again, what has the above remark about English literature got to do with
you failing to understand the meaning of the simple English phrase
"Single Transferable Vote"?

> If everyone has a single vote, the first count is the last count.

FALSE! With various forms of PR, second and subsequent preferences are
also counted.

> But that isn't the way that PR works. It "works" by giving some voters
> more than one vote, but giving supporters of the clear winner only one
> vote.

FALSE! The winner's voters are free to express a second preference just
like everyone else.

>>> 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.
>>
>> Again, the use of emotively loaded language instead of rational
>> argument, presumably because you have got any rational argument to
>> make. Your suggestion wouldn't be PR, just an unnecessarily
>> complicated form of FPTP.
>
> What you are admitting there is that in order to "work", PR has to be
> bent and corrupt, giving more representation to some voters than to others.

FALSE! Every voter has the same potential representation.

>>> 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"?
>>
>> STV PR *IS* one man one vote, whereas your absurd and illogical
>> example would be one man multiple votes!
>
> Either everyone gets a second and third vote (and is allowed to choose
> for whom they cast them), or no-one does.

Everyone does get second and subsequent preference, but they must be
different from the first preference, otherwise they're not expressing a
second preference, merely restating their first, which is known already.

> That's democracy.

FALSE! Your example system above is not how democracy works in this
country under FPTP, and isn't PR either, so I don't know why you are
obsessing about it, except that it's a convenient distraction from the
by now obvious fact that you have no useful and valid criticism of PR.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 26/10/2021 01:21, Java Jive wrote:
> A way of measuring the proportionality of electoral outcomes is via the
> Deviation from Proportionality (DV) Index. The DV Index is calculated by
> adding up the difference between each party’s vote share and their seat
> share in each electoral area and dividing by two, giving a ‘total
> deviation’ score. The higher the score, the more disproportionate the
> result.

I get it. You are convinced that the Scottish system is good (or at
least better than what went before) and you like it. I see it as a
mathematical fudge to stop people complaining about it, and various
indexes have been invented to reinforce the public satisfaction.

It is not what I would call "Proportional", but you do. We will have to
agree to differ.

Jim

On 26/10/2021 00:04, JNugent wrote:
> On 25/10/2021 09:05 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
>> On 25/10/2021 16:26, JNugent wrote:
>
>>> The word (because that is all it is - it certainly isn't a definition)
>>> applies to all housing at all prices.
>>
>> You are wrong. The word has a specific legal definition.
>> See the National Planning Policy Framework, Annex 2 if you really want
>> to know exactly what that is.
>
> Planning Policy Frameworks - whatever they are - do not change the
> meaning of ordinary English words.

So you didn't bother to look it up. I didn't think you would.

Affordable on its own is a normal English word. It means "believed to be
within one's financial means". Note that it is a personal view. If
something is not within an interested person's financial means, to that
person it is not affordable, even if there is somebody out there
somewhere who could afford it. Someone has just bought a Picasso
painting for £29Million. They could afford it, a lot of people couldn't.

But "Affordable Housing" is a phrase, and there is a specific legal
definition of what the phrase means, whether you agree with that idea or
not.

Jim

In article <sl0mr5$5r0$1@dont-email.me>, tim... <timsnews99@gmail.com>
wrote:

> improving "Other lines" is not "starting HS2 from Leeds"

> I agree with you, the money would be better spent on improving other
> lines in the regions

> but the question "how does starting HS2 from Leeds help anyone" still
> remains

Possibly the idea is that people can also use it 'locally'. i.e. for trips
over in the region around Leeds. Helps people get to/from work, brings in
money for shops, theatres, etc, etc, from more people having easier access.
Takes some of the strain off buses, etc. i.e. much the same arguments used
for spending more in and around the SE of E and London.

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 <itielaFscd7U11@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 22/10/2021 10:14 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > In article <itaosiFe5rbU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> > <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >>> And to counter that, the money Government spent as
> >>> investment/support in various areas tends to 'weighted' in accord
> >>> with the level of 'return' that Whitehall thinks investment will
> >>> generate. This means that they regard money spent in the SE of
> >>> England as more 'worthwhile'. And as a result, have rather invested
> >>> more per head there, and given it special treatments of various
> >>> kinds.
> >
> >> Fancy regarding investment as more worthwhile when the prospective
> >> returns are higher!
> >
> >> I wonder where they get that idea from?
> >
> > Basically, from a religion passed down as fact. :-)

> So is it not true that it's better to get a higher return on an
> investment than a lower return (let alone a nil return or a loss)?

> It's acceptable for an investment to realise a very low return or even a
> loss? Is that what you're saying?

Its is better to realise when an investment increases the return you can
get by a more significant amount.

For Government this also includes things like a drop in costs like benefits
because people can now find a job. For employers, better public transport
also means employees can travel from further away at a lower cost, thus
easing the cost and difficulty of finding employees. Similarly, shops find
delivery costs may fall, and more people can come and spend more, etc.

The point is that the way these things are 'estimated' by Westminster are
rigged on a basis of some assumptions that don't delve beyond the 'first
step'. Thus fail to reflect what would happen in reality.

> Are we even defining "investment" in the same way?

> It doesn't mean "spending".

Agreed, but may mean "spending" initially. The problem here is that
*Government* fails to correctly understand the difference.

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 <sl1um2$f1v$1@dont-email.me>,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> God is irrelevant, and see above.

That made me think "It's not irrelevant, its a hypopotamous"... :-)

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 <sl1615$q7$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> On 23/10/2021 13:59, JNugent wrote:
> >
> > The LibDems didn't *have* to go into coalition.
> >
> > They could have offered "confidence and supply".
> >
> > They could even have offered nothing and dared the Conservatives to
> > form a minority government.
> >
> > They did what they wanted to do.

> They did what they thought was best for the country.

....on the presumption that *they* were what was "best". 8-]

The basic problem, though, is that people may well have voted differently
in the first place if it had been a PR vote and voters had more confidence
that they could vote for a (locally) smaller party and have more effect on
the results. As it is FPTP skews who people vote for in the first place as
they filter what they'd prefer though a "what's the point?" and then give
no-one else any sign of what they'd *really* like - thus causing others to
do the same because they have no idea how many people also would prefer onf
of the parties/candidates that *apparently* few like.

Thus FPTP misleads everyone wrt what people might really prefer, and
distorts the outcome under cover.

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 25/10/2021 09:50 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

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

>>>>> And to counter that, the money Government spent as
>>>>> investment/support in various areas tends to 'weighted' in accord
>>>>> with the level of 'return' that Whitehall thinks investment will
>>>>> generate. This means that they regard money spent in the SE of
>>>>> England as more 'worthwhile'. And as a result, have rather invested
>>>>> more per head there, and given it special treatments of various
>>>>> kinds.
>
>>>> Fancy regarding investment as more worthwhile when the prospective
>>>> returns are higher!
>>>> I wonder where they get that idea from?
>
>>> Basically, from a religion passed down as fact. :-)
>
>> So is it not true that it's better to get a higher return on an
>> investment than a lower return (let alone a nil return or a loss)?
>> It's acceptable for an investment to realise a very low return or even a
>> loss? Is that what you're saying?

> Its is better to realise when an investment increases the return you can
> get by a more significant amount.

I woudn't disagree with that as a principle, but does it answer the
question I asked And is it different from what I implied?

> For Government this also includes things like a drop in costs like benefits
> because people can now find a job. For employers, better public transport
> also means employees can travel from further away at a lower cost, thus
> easing the cost and difficulty of finding employees. Similarly, shops find
> delivery costs may fall, and more people can come and spend more, etc.
>
> The point is that the way these things are 'estimated' by Westminster are
> rigged on a basis of some assumptions that don't delve beyond the 'first
> step'. Thus fail to reflect what would happen in reality.

So why aren't employers and retailers who perceive these things as to
their advantage willing to assist with the cost of it?

For instance, I have long believed that the cost of subsidising commuter
rail traffic into Central London should absolutely *not* fall on
taxpayers in Kendal, Stirling, Welshpool or Newry. It should be charged
up to the employers who huddle together in inaccessible* places like the
City of London and the West End. They gain from the location, they
should bear the externalities of the location too.

[* "Inaccessible", as used here, merely means that it is awkward,
time-consuming, expensive and near-impossible to get to for the typical
target employment recruit. You have to be a millionaire before you start
to live anywhere near the place.]
>
>> Are we even defining "investment" in the same way?
>
>> It doesn't mean "spending".
>
> Agreed, but may mean "spending" initially. The problem here is that
> *Government* fails to correctly understand the difference.

The differences are pretty plain and self-explanatory.

Building a new road would be an investment for the government /
taxpayer. That's because not only is travel be made easier on the new
and older routes, but new provision, to the extent that it frees pent-up
demand for travel, would increase the number of journeys and the amount
of mileage done. As long as we're not talking electric cars, that's a
big ker-ching for the Treasury in both capital and revenue terms. That's
investment. Spend, and get a positive return.

OTOH, new railway lines would never cover construction costs, let alone
provide a return (which is why they are rarely to never built).

Providing subsidy in order to hold down fares is spending. There is no
return for the taxpayer from it. It's a dead loss. It cannot possibly be
described as an investment without abusing the definition of that word.

On 26/10/2021 07:45, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 26/10/2021 01:21, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> A way of measuring the proportionality of electoral outcomes is via the
>> Deviation from Proportionality (DV) Index. The DV Index is calculated by
>> adding up the difference between each party’s vote share and their seat
>> share in each electoral area and dividing by two, giving a ‘total
>> deviation’ score. The higher the score, the more disproportionate the
>> result.
>
> I get it.  You are convinced that the Scottish system is good (or at
> least better than what went before) and you like it.

It's certainly better than FPTP, and had cross-party agreement to that
effect prior to the Scottish Parliament even being created, but for
myself I'd prefer to use STV for the national elections to the Scottish
Parliament, just as we do already for the local council elections, as
apart from anything else it's a simpler system.

> I see it as a
> mathematical fudge to stop people complaining about it, and various
> indexes have been invented to reinforce the public satisfaction.

Nonsense, the figures above come from an independent and long
pre-existing organisation that has nothing to do with the Scottish
Parliament.

> It is not what I would call "Proportional", but you do.  We will have to
> agree to differ.

As above, I think STV would be preferable, but certainly the current
system is fairer than FPTP.

--

Fake news kills!

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