tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2072226399526991149.post4344179152951141470..comments2023-06-29T12:07:43.973+01:00Comments on Program Your Own Mind 2: Ignorance or lies? Or both?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03109951687667398737noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2072226399526991149.post-29907393595534341692011-01-25T09:39:04.997+00:002011-01-25T09:39:04.997+00:00The fact that you're basically railing against...The fact that you're basically railing against FPTP (tactical voting, voting for someone you don't like as much as someone else to stop someone you don't like more) while talking about the benefits of an AV system (not having to vote for someone you don't like, but voting for exactly who you like), while supporting the former and hating on the latter is pretty amusing though.<br /><br />BTW, learn what donkey voting means before bringing it randomly in to a discussion.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03109951687667398737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2072226399526991149.post-41782849147984516722011-01-25T09:35:54.636+00:002011-01-25T09:35:54.636+00:00DBirkin: We've already ascertained you have a ...DBirkin: We've already ascertained you have a very shallow and basic view of what constitutes democracy, your comment here further show your lack of understanding about the depth of people's opinions and their right to be against someone's policies, and to vote with that in mind.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03109951687667398737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2072226399526991149.post-39317702622174418232011-01-25T00:22:25.494+00:002011-01-25T00:22:25.494+00:00Your first sentence says it all, you believe in an...Your first sentence says it all, you believe in anti votes. I don't care who gets in as long as " x " doesn't. Firstly, to block someone else's true preference out of egotistical arrogance is pretty appalling. Secondly to elect someone you didn't want doesn't help anyone and is a lie.<br /><br />I am completely in favour of anyone voting for who they WANT. What I do not find acceptable is donkey voting. <br />The result is not what I care about as long as vote is equal and fair. AV is neither.D Birkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17392312677270890379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2072226399526991149.post-87670044611593124422011-01-20T09:28:36.535+00:002011-01-20T09:28:36.535+00:00It's not voting for someone else you don't...It's not voting for someone else you don't want, it's voting for someone else you're happy to see represent you, because you feel your first choice won't also achieve the result of helping keep out the candidate you hate.<br /><br />I can totally see your issue here, you've got an absolutely two dimensional perspective on why people vote and why people should vote, and rather than accept people have legitimate various opinions and a need to express them in their own way, you'd rather limit their voice because it doesn't conform to your own.<br /><br />I get what you're saying. Just don't pretend it's democratic.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03109951687667398737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2072226399526991149.post-33627221735058454472011-01-20T00:38:05.080+00:002011-01-20T00:38:05.080+00:00I have a different view, 'voting against' ...I have a different view, 'voting against' a candidate is voting for someone else you don't want, in order to cancel out the vote of someone who voted for who they actually thought would be best.<br /><br />How is that democratic? That is a manipulation. If enough people wanted your candidate, they would win if people didn't resort to this type of underhanded deedD Birkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17392312677270890379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2072226399526991149.post-38351165982480893182011-01-19T09:37:29.354+00:002011-01-19T09:37:29.354+00:00But it's the SYSTEM that measures the candidat...But it's the SYSTEM that measures the candidate having most support when it doesn't necessarily in the first instance. The system is so flat that it can't distinguish individual preferences like AV, and can lead to a false result.<br /><br />It's not the people, the people have chosen to play it "safe" and vote against a candidate they dislike rather than for the one they most like. They have done this because they care MORE about not getting (for example) Lib Dems than they care about getting Labour. This is a perfectly legitimate democratic choice, but the system doesn't allow them to vote both for Labour, and then against the Lib Dems. AV does.<br /><br />FPTP is the only dishonesty here...or perhaps more accurately, obfuscation of reality.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03109951687667398737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2072226399526991149.post-5471736988632589082011-01-18T19:20:44.444+00:002011-01-18T19:20:44.444+00:00OK, it is claiming that is has the most support wh...OK, it is claiming that is has the most support when it doesn't, slight difference I grant you (can't believe I didn't put that :os ) but still the same thing. DishonestyD Birkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17392312677270890379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2072226399526991149.post-87441613954257050032011-01-18T16:17:58.345+00:002011-01-18T16:17:58.345+00:00You've misunderstood, I was saying "no it...You've misunderstood, I was saying "no it's not" to your claim that "Tactical voting" is wrong, and to your assertion that tactical voting is claiming someone else represents your views when they don't. <br /><br />Tactical voting is voting for someone who does represent your views, but may not represent them as much as someone else. You've got your definitions completely wrong.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03109951687667398737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2072226399526991149.post-14679269181016021842011-01-18T16:09:44.923+00:002011-01-18T16:09:44.923+00:00"
"Tactical voting I.E. , claiming someo..."<br />"Tactical voting I.E. , claiming someone represents your views when they don't is wrong."<br /><br />No it's not<br /><br />it's exactly the same as putting down a second preference under AV."<br /><br />...yes it is,..was actually my point.<br /><br />Believe it or not, and i can't believe I am even writing this as it is SO obvious. Lies about your feelings lead to inaccurate measurements of your feelings.<br /><br />And to show you support this i can think of no better way but to quote you<br /><br /><b>"claiming someone represents your views when they don't is wrong."<br /><br />No it's not" </b>D Birkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17392312677270890379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2072226399526991149.post-72999296881399787442011-01-18T15:37:48.292+00:002011-01-18T15:37:48.292+00:00Some fantastic juggling of numbers that mean nothi...Some fantastic juggling of numbers that mean nothing by yourself there. You can of course call what I'm saying an assumption. It is, though it's more accurately a hypothetical example actually. Can you disprove that it happens? No, of course not, because we don't know why or how people vote...we have no information about the realities of people's preferences. We do know, however, from the way vote preference has changed in the polls as well as anecdotal evidence on the social web that plenty of Labour voters turned to vote Lib Dem to keep out the Tories in certain constituencies, and have since returned to Labour.<br /><br />"Tactical voting I.E. claiming someone represents your views when they don't is wrong."<br /><br />No it's not, it's exactly the same as putting down a second preference under AV.<br /><br />"PS the person who tells the lie is the liar, not the person that hears it."<br /><br />Well then in that case AV isn't a system that lies is it? The system takes a systematic round by round approach at weeding out the weakest candidate. Each round people are asked who would they most support out of the remaining candidates, and the weakest is removed. That's not a "lie", it's a result which systematically ensures that popular preferences are left in the competition...something that FPTP cannot guarantee.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03109951687667398737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2072226399526991149.post-32866991006998619232011-01-18T15:27:57.811+00:002011-01-18T15:27:57.811+00:00Assumptions again. You can't presume with FPTP...Assumptions again. You can't presume with FPTP what preferences the voters have. They have one choice, if they decide to lie, that is up to them. <br /><br />It is dishonest and it manipulates the system, but the dishonest vote is considered to be 9% across the ENTIRE range of voters.<br /><br />If you apply this figure (widely agreed to be the higher end of the tactical voting figure, but by all means research yourself) it makes NO difference.<br /><br />20 is more than 9% bigger than 15. 15 is more than 9% bigger than 10.<br /><br />The same goes for the General election (add 9% to any parties vote number and it does NOTHING to change their rank).<br /><br />Tactical voting I.E. claiming someone represents your views when they don't is wrong. Agreed. However under fptp where this happens once for 9% of people, under AV your 'this person represents me best' vote transfers for around 40% of people, some times 2 or 3 times.<br /><br />PS the person who tells the lie is the liar, not the person that hears it.D Birkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17392312677270890379noreply@blogger.com