|
Socoder -> Off Topic -> AV voting system, or just one? |
|
| Wed, 04 May 2011, 23:48 | |
Jayenkai
|
In the last elections, Labour actually won, but because of the "Majority" rule, two parties had to merge to earn the majority. We didn't get to pick it, they did, and we ended up with TWO parties that we didn't vote for! With AV, we pick a winner, but we also get to pick that bit, too, just incase..
-=-=- ''Load, Next List!'' 
|
| Wed, 04 May 2011, 23:48 | |
JL235
|
how are people planning to vote on AV? I’m still undecided
|
| Wed, 04 May 2011, 23:51 | |
shroom_monk
|
Didn't the Tories get more votes that Labour at the last election though? Cos as far as I remember, for the Tories to get power, they needed to merge with just the LibDems (which they did), but for Labour they would need to merge with the LibDems, the Greens, and various other minor parties.
-=-=- A mushroom a day keeps the doctor away... Keep It Simple, Shroom! |
| Thu, 05 May 2011, 00:08 | |
|
Jayenkai
|
Oh, indeed you're right. (fuck it, I never pay attention to this crap) Still, point still stands.. WE get to pick the outcome after the main-loss, not them. -=-=- ''Load, Next List!''
|
| Fri, 06 May 2011, 13:06 | |
|
Jayenkai
|
So...... That was a total waste of time, then.... Balls -=-=- ''Load, Next List!''
|
| Fri, 06 May 2011, 14:44 | |
spinal
|
But, that way would be unfair, it's like saying, if your first choice doesn't get it, you get another try. It wouldn't be fair to Mr 'I only chose who I want to win' when Mr 'I don't care, I'll vote for everyone' ticks every box on the paper. The only way to make it fair to the voters, would be to force everyone to vote for all parties and place them in order of preference, and most of them would cancel each other out.
-=-=- Check out my excellent homepage!
|
| Fri, 06 May 2011, 15:14 | |
|
Jayenkai
|
It's all about the smaller parties. Imagine you're the type of person who prefers a little party, like Monster Raving, or something. You'd normally not vote for them, though, 'cos you know they'd never sodding well win, and would be wasting your vote. So, instead you vote Con/Lab/Lib, and the single little vote that the Monsters would've got, no longer happens. Monster's get 3 votes! If instead, you use AV, you might think "I'll stick them at number one, but it won't happen so my Con/Lab/Lib will be number two." Now Monsters get a fair few more votes. They're still going to get feck all, but at least they get a proper count, this time. For someone like Monsters, it won't matter. But for someone like Libs, it could be the difference between people bothering to vote for them, or not... -=-=- ''Load, Next List!''
|
| Fri, 06 May 2011, 15:53 | |
|
JL235
|
For me it came down to this. AV favors the MP; it gives them a stronger mandate to be elected (since they get the same or higher). First past the post however favors parties; it gives them a stronger mandate to be in power. I'm still undecided which is more important; a strong MP or a strong governing party. |
| Mon, 09 May 2011, 00:19 | |
Dabz
|
I always use my vote, though, with elections, I know that 'manifestos' are'nt worth the paper they are written on. I just do a protest vote and tend to vote for a small party, such as the greens or UKIP. I could go on a major rant about it all, but in fact, the big plan is to jump this island eventually... I've had enough trying to get somewhere and always having to hand a large chunk to the taxman... I'm getting tired of reading about "My benefits bought my new boobs" and "My kids had a great christmas, thank you tax payers" articles. It actually gets me right down and the quicker I jump, the better!  Dabz -=-=- Intel Core i5 6400 2.7GHz, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (8GB), 8Gig DDR4 RAM, 256GB SSD, 1TB HDD, Windows 10 64bit
|
| Mon, 09 May 2011, 01:56 | |
|
JL235
|
Right on! I recommend Hong Kong. Lots of ex-pats, dirt cheap prices, excellent night life, an efficient transport system that doesn't cost up to £100s, constant hot weather and always within 30 minutes from a well kept beach!
|
| Mon, 09 May 2011, 04:27 | |
steve_ancell
|
@Dabz Screw the Green Party, those prats want to ramp-up the price of fuel even further. That in turn will ramp-up the price of goods, due to the higher cost of transporting them! |
| Mon, 09 May 2011, 07:08 | |
HoboBen
|
The more sensible Greens argue for massive investment in public transport. Imagine affordable trains, or imagine buses more frequent than two per hour, that don't cost £4 (return) for the privilege of a ten minute journey! I fully agree with you though; ordinary people shouldn't pay any more. Fuel tax is high enough as it is without adding to it. -=-=- blog | work | code | more code |
| Mon, 09 May 2011, 07:57 | |
|
JL235
|
HoboBen  The more sensible Greens argue for massive investment in public transport. Imagine affordable trains, or imagine buses more frequent than two per hour, that don't cost £4 (return) for the privilege of a ten minute journey! Trains are dirt cheap and efficient in HK and Tokyo because it's so urban (they simply have tonnes of customers). It has nothing to do with socialist policies or public spending. In fact in HK the government encouraged a monopoly for the transport system (MTR), who unified the train/tram network to improve their profits, and as a result public transport is bliss. We need to find ways to make public transport more profitable. Then companies will bend over backwards to invest and improve the service. No public spending needed. |
| Mon, 09 May 2011, 08:17 | |
Afr0
|
We need to find ways to make public transport more profitable. This is wrong. Profits are bad. Not in and of themselves, but generally, more state control is always good. -=-=- Afr0 Games Project Dollhouse on Github - Please fork!
|
| Mon, 09 May 2011, 12:12 | |
|
steve_ancell
|
HoboBen I fully agree with you though; ordinary people shouldn't pay any more. Fuel tax is high enough as it is without adding to it.We shouldn't be paying the current prices either. Somebody somewhere, is becomming a very fat-cat indeed. I often get crusties dictating to me, telling me to scrap my car and take the bus, a bit of a problem there though... 1) I have an anxiety/Bi-Polar issue, so the bus is a no-no for me. I get aggitated on those things and would want to get off again before the next stop. 2) I have Arthritis, so walking the six miles to the supermarket and back again would render me almost dead, not to mention that nearly all my friends and family live miles away frome me. 3) My hobby (RC Planes) also requires the use of a car. There is no such service that would stop outside my house, pickup my gear, drive to the countryside and then do the same again in reverse! So the bottom line is, they can take their public transport and shove-it up there fat-cat backsides! |edit| COOL! I just typed all of that and not a swear word in sight! |edit| |
| Mon, 09 May 2011, 15:58 | |
|
JL235
|
Afr0 This is wrong. Profits are bad. Not in and of themselves, but generally, more state control is always good.The reality doesn't back you up. Hong Kong's system is better then Cuba's, Japan's is better then Russia's, South Korea's is better then North Korea's. Look at supermarkets, PCs, cars, TVs, online stores and thousands of other items. Companies want to sell us more, so all of those have been invested in and improved over the last few decades. Go to a soviet style supermarket and it just plain sucks. |
| Tue, 10 May 2011, 00:04 | |
|
Afr0
|
Russia, unfortunately, isn't communistic anymore. Not that it ever was in any broad sense under Stalin, but that's another matter. If you come to Oslo, you'll find that the subway system is just as good as in Hong Kong. It is owned by the state and the municipality. No private investors needed! -=-=- Afr0 Games Project Dollhouse on Github - Please fork!
|
| Tue, 10 May 2011, 02:14 | |
|
HoboBen
|
@JL, you're right of course about HK and Tokyo being more urbanised. The underground in London is also brilliant (though could stand to be cheaper). How would you suggest making transport more profitable around smaller cities though? They're subsidised as it is, and the cuts implemented by the city councils means that several routes are vanishing. I think good public transport in these places would probably always run at a loss, but one that would have massive indirect benefits. -=-=- blog | work | code | more code |
|
|
| |||
|
| ||||