Re: [LU] Non-LU AV
On 02/05/2011 15:44, Graham White wrote: Been catching up on the backlog of e-mails on electoral reform but am rather dissappointed at how timid the proposals are. I mean in this post-modern, post-industrial, globalised, we're all in it together society is it really right and proper that some knuckle-dragging Milwall supporter should have as much say in the governance of this great Monarchy of ours as David Beckham or Sir Fred Goodwin? My proposal is this: every British subject will have one vote (to keep things fair) but then (and this is the brilliant bit) anyone can buy as many extra votes as they like! I've got an even simpler one: you can't vote unless you've passed GCSE at grade C or above in English and maths. The country pays to educate every child beyond this level, so if you can't demonstrate basic numeracy and literacy after more than 10 years of state funded education, then you clearly can't understand any of the issues you're being asked to vote on. Or, link the number of votes you get to the amount of tax you pais in the previous year. Get all your money put in an off shore company based in the British Virgin Islands? No vote then. ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
Re: [LU] Non-LU AV
Like your thinking Graham but should have taken your ideas to their logical conclusion. You would then have seen that your basic premise is almost Leveller and they are a downright Socialist grab at redistribution. No - we can't take the money that has been hard-earned over many generations, even in the name of better democracy. However there are mechanisisms we can use to get the same effect without adding to the burden of our most respectable citizens (that parvenu Thatcher has a lot to answer for!). I suggest additionnal votes for business interests (and we can add seats for long standing Corporations such as the City), and for those who's interests are more landed we can create extra seats (and votes) for sompe of the more exclusive clubs such as the Oxbridge universities. Then our democracy will truly be representative for the great men of our nation, and by bearing the cost from general taxation the little man can also be a full participant in our great Commonwealth. Damian (call me Winnie) On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Graham White gcwhite2...@yahoo.com wrote: Been catching up on the backlog of e-mails on electoral reform but am rather dissappointed at how timid the proposals are. I mean in this post-modern, post-industrial, globalised, we're all in it together society is it really right and proper that some knuckle-dragging Milwall supporter should have as much say in the governance of this great Monarchy of ours as David Beckham or Sir Fred Goodwin? My proposal is this: every British subject will have one vote (to keep things fair) but then (and this is the brilliant bit) anyone can buy as many extra votes as they like! This will ensure that the people who have the most stake in society: bankers, hedge fund traders, professional footballers, Jonathan Ross, Bullingdon Club members, Bernie Ecclestone etc will quite rightly have more say than those with no stake in society: single mothers, benefits scroungers, disability malingerers, scousers, economic migrants etc. I need help in firming up this idea a bit as I'm not sure if we should have a fixed price vote, say £1,000 per vote, which would mean that a fine upstanding member of society such as John Terry would be able to buy 100 votes with a weeks wages. Would we have different price bands for different elections? Say £1,000 for a general election, £500 for local elections and 5p for a Euro Election (as no-one votes in these anyway). Betty what would be a reasonable price for a vote in the Scottish MSP elections? Or should there be a market in votes? We could call it the vote exchange. Think of all the valuable wealth creating activities the clever financial people could come up with - secondary vote trading, vote shorting, collateralised vote trading. Just think you could borrow money to buy thousands of votes all backed up by valuable US mortgage debts or Irish property. Also should there be an upper limit to the number of votes available or should the Government just print as many votes as required. Clearly it wouldn't be fair to ask council staff to count all these extra votes so we would have bloc votes, say 1000 votes per ballot paper. To save time the ballot papers could also be filled in in advance as anyone buying votes is going to be voting for the right party. Obviously, as we live in a globalised world, non-British subjects would be able to buy votes for use in British elections, as I'm sure that Russian oligarchs or the Bahraini royal family would use their votes wisely for the benefit of our Monarchy. And Ken Bates would be able to vote, God bless the saviour of Leeds United! All the money raised from this could go to cutting the deficit. Simples Graham White ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it) ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
Re: [LU] Non-LU AV
Which one, or both? QPR I could see, but would not have thought Norwich would have done this well. From: barbaravi...@gmail.com barbaravi...@gmail.com To: leedslist@gn.apc.org Sent: Monday, May 2, 2011 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [LU] Non-LU AV On 02/05/2011 15:57, Sean Emmott wrote: = Or, link the number of votes you get to the amount of tax you paid in the previous year. Get all your money put in an off shore company based in the British Virgin Islands? No vote then. I'm not sure this would work Sean. Some years I pay no tax because I'm so piss poor at repairing and selling computers :-) Other than that fine posting. We need more irony. Speaking of which how many listers had a wager on QPR or Norwich getting promoted? Step forward my good self and Rogerre Goodair :-) Betty LMOTL (Loss Maker On the List) ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it) ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
Re: [LU] Non-LU AV
On 02/05/2011 17:39, Nicholas Armit wrote: Which one, or both? QPR I could see, but would not have thought Norwich would have done this well. Rog had one I had the other Betty ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
Re: [LU] Non-LU AV
On 02/05/2011 16:21, barbaravi...@gmail.com wrote: On 02/05/2011 15:57, Sean Emmott wrote: = Or, link the number of votes you get to the amount of tax you paid in the previous year. Get all your money put in an off shore company based in the British Virgin Islands? No vote then. I'm not sure this would work Sean. Some years I pay no tax because I'm so piss poor at repairing and selling computers :-) Well there you go Betty, not only does it address the issue of off-shore tax havens, it's an incentive for them work-shy buggers north of the border ;) Other than that fine posting. We need more irony. I've got a huge pile of it; it's been a good drying day today. ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
Re: [LU] non LU AV
Bollox. Name 1 libdem who isn't for it. -Original Message- From: Paul Cundell [mailto:p...@cundell.com] Sent: 29 April 2011 08:38 To: Mark Humphries Cc: leedslist Subject: Re: [LU] non LU AV On 29 Apr 2011, at 08:12, Mark Humphries mark.humphr...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: The fact all libdems are for it should tell you more. In your words - bollox - it's cross party in both camps Here is my view on it all; 1. It is more complicated, therefore will be more expensive to administer. Government already costs too much. More bollox - in fact it's a lie put about by the no group 2. It is more representative as the winner would need 50% of the vote. Total bollocks. Consider this scenario. First round vote Labour 49%, Conservative 49%, Libdem 2%. Second choice for all conservative/ labour voters = libdem as they don't want the other lot in. Libdem get voted in despite only 2% actually wanting them in originally. Bollox - facts right time Mark, only the 2nd choice of the losers (in your scenario Libdem) would be counted. A better scenario would be 10 friends are trying to decide where to drink tonight - Red Lion gets 2 votes Queens Head gets 2 votes Con Club gets 1 vote Three Legs gets 2 votes Starbucks gets 3 votes Using first past the post they end up going for a coffee despite 7 of them wanting a beer! That's democracy in action. Vote yes to av and let's have a beer :-) http://i.imgur.com/Zb9tj.png cheers Paul ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
Re: [LU] non LU AV
Even more bollox. The lie put about was that they would have to buy counting machines, which cost money. Whether or not that is true (I saw that 3 councils were looking at it), the fact remains it is more complicated, therefore it costs more to administer. How can it NOT cost more, you count all the votes as you do now, and then if no one gets 50% you count some more votes? -Original Message- From: Paul Cundell [mailto:p...@cundell.com] Sent: 29 April 2011 08:38 To: Mark Humphries Cc: leedslist Subject: Re: [LU] non LU AV Here is my view on it all; 1. It is more complicated, therefore will be more expensive to administer. Government already costs too much. More bollox - in fact it's a lie put about by the no group ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
Re: [LU] non LU AV
On 30/04/2011 07:54, Mark Humphries wrote: All teams will vote for themselves, we'd have by far the most votes, but we wouldn't get more than 50% of the votes cast. Just here in Scotland I find more people consider Leeds their second team than any other. It has been a constant source of joy for me over the past 20 years to know that my team is so highly regarded here in LOTSA. As for the increased cost of a different voting system. It's not an increased cost as such and here I have first hand knowledge. The continuing cost of recruiting, training and employing polling clerks for the count is far more expensive than the capital costs and operating costs of counting machinery, especially when the count can be centralised, yet still scrutinised by the interested parties. In Scotland the 2008 elections cost an enormous £40million pounds however there were £12.5 million worth of one off costs involved in introducing an STV system for local council elections alongside the election for the Scottish Parliament. The aftermath proved that the extra costs of the election were not the cost of running the system but a) holding two massive votes on the same day which confused the electorate and resulted in 150,000 discarded votes and b) the large number of changes brought into the system at the last minute by the then coalition government. The conclusion (now in place) was to separate the two elections and to stabilise the rules for the elections with less government interference in the process, especially at the last minute. The current Scottish Parliament elections are now under way and it will be interesting to see the results. Aside from all this having more elections - local, National, UK and Europe has produced a heightened political awareness here in Scotland, the likes of which I don't see South of the border. The only thing holding back participation is the continued shenanigans of politicians in Westminster parliament bringing the system into disrepute. The biggest complainers about our system here tend to be English incomers who want some kind of Brigadoon/Caravan and camping Club regime to prevail :-) Betty ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
Re: [LU] non LU AV
On 30/04/2011 07:34, Mark Humphries wrote: How can it NOT cost more, you count all the votes as you do now, and then if no one gets 50% you count some more votes? Mark have you ever been to an election count? Every vote HAS to be counted. You can't come to a decision without that whatever the system (unless you live in some tinpot third world state run by Robert Mugabe of course, which we don't). Once they have all been counted the entire data set exists. This data set is then analysed by computer to show the results. Having been involved in an STV election here I can tell you it is frighteningly quick. One elections officer and a laptop verified by the returning officer shown to the candidates, announcement made, Boocock not elected. Betty ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
Re: [LU] non LU AV
Mark, you're funny, you never cease to make statements of fact with little or no proof whilst completely avoiding the real crux of any argument you haven't a chance of winning. Here's some 'facts' for you: - 1 You won't vote for AV because the LibDems want it, regardless of how flawed the current system is. The LibDems want it so it must be sh*t 2. You won't vote for AV because it will be more expensive to administer. You have no proof of this fact so we'll just have to believe you. Are you saying then that any governmental policy that costs more to operate must be vetoed or just this one? Imagine how much it must cost to count the votes of all those horrible working class!!! Gladstone and Disraeli must have cost us a fortune. 3. You won't vote for AV because you don't understand it. According to the toryboys down your local its a load of liberal bollox so that's good enough to balance your argument on. You'll condemn AV based on scaremongering and misinformation without once stopping to consider if the current voting system is actually working or if AV is a step in the right direction. Point 3 is such an integral part of your decision it ought to be your one and only point but you try to bury this fact under a smokescreen of bluff and bluster. Your analogies are eternally flawed and not worth debating. You don't want change. You are a luddite for all intent and purpose. Your beloved David Cameron was elected to Tory leader through AV. If AV is so wrong for the country why was it right then? Paul ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
Re: [LU] non LU AV
I don't know how the extra votes are proposed to be counted, I didn't even think it had gotten that far, however.. In the olden days ballot slips were put into piles, and the piles counted. If you are voting for your local mp, you put an X by their name, these are looked at and put into their pile. With AV you rank candidates - you have more than 1 vote on the same bit of paper. Either you have more votes to count (3+ per ballot paper = 3x the number of votes to count potentially), or you put them into the same piles based on 1st preference.. then if there is not 50%+ for the winner, the last place candidates papers are collected up and their second choices are noted and distributed accordingly. The latter is as I believe it works (based on what I heard John Reid explain). Now, either that happens manually, and will require extra work, both in checking the 2nd preference, moving them to the other piles then re-calculating the totals. Or it happens electronically, which will require these mythical counting machines? Of course, one could expect the volunteers who do the manual process to do this for nowt, but it is still more expensive, whether that is significant or not. (more to do, takes longer, more electricity, more heating, more tea and biscuits...) No? But anyhow, as I said before, I voted no purely and simply because I believe democracy was all about every person having an equal say, 1 person 1 vote. Or even everyone has 23.5 votes, the number of votes is irrelevant, apart from the increased cost ;-), its that I get as many bites at the cherry as that BNP voter down the road. -Original Message- From: leedslist-boun...@gn.apc.org [mailto:leedslist-boun...@gn.apc.org] On Behalf Of barbaravi...@gmail.com Sent: 30 April 2011 08:24 To: leedslist@gn.apc.org Subject: Re: [LU] non LU AV On 30/04/2011 07:34, Mark Humphries wrote: How can it NOT cost more, you count all the votes as you do now, and then if no one gets 50% you count some more votes? Mark have you ever been to an election count? Every vote HAS to be counted. You can't come to a decision without that whatever the system (unless you live in some tinpot third world state run by Robert Mugabe of course, which we don't). Once they have all been counted the entire data set exists. This data set is then analysed by computer to show the results. Having been involved in an STV election here I can tell you it is frighteningly quick. One elections officer and a laptop verified by the returning officer shown to the candidates, announcement made, Boocock not elected. Betty ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it) ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
Re: [LU] non LU AV
I actually found this interesting from the Electoral Commission's reports on pilots it has carried out on voting in 2007. It strikes me that for anyone to comment on the issue rather than using a broad brush approach they need to have a very clear understanding of ALL the issues rather than that which might be displayed by the man on the number 19 bus on Putney Bridge or down the Dog and Duck. The failure to do this could result in what we north of the highland line call a burrach! As someone with a more than passing interest in things electoral, I think the problem really arises in the way that the UK approaches citizenship which is more about control of society rather than participation in society. Just look at all the numerous laws and restrictions introduced by New Labour in the name of creating a better society. Not one of them was about teaching young people about how the world actually works. If I ruled the world there would only be three things taught in any primary school - Music, Philosophy and Dance. Betty Previous evaluations by the Commission have concluded that e-counting has the potential to increase the efficiency and accuracy of the counting process. Despite the failures this year, this conclusion remains valid. However, the experiences of 2007 have once again highlighted the fact that the implementation needs to be carried out in an appropriate fashion. There was insufficient time available to implement and plan the pilots, and we consider that the quality assurance and testing was undertaken too late and lacked sufficient depth. A number of elements of best practice that have been learned on previous occasions were not taken into account and concerns were raised regarding the transparency of the e-counting solutions deployed, which undermined stakeholder confidence. There was also an issue related to the ability of Returning Officers and suppliers to cope with the project management involved in implementing e-counting. We have previously highlighted many of these issues. The Commission believes that the piloting process has largely achieved its objective for e-counting. The circumstances and practices that lead to successful e-counting have already been learned, although many of these were not applied for this round of pilots. Any further e-counting projects – both pilots and others – need to take full account of these. In particular: • Substantial testing must be undertaken, either through an accreditation and certification process or through a detailed and thorough procurement process. • Sufficient time must be allowed for the development of e-counting projects. The amount of time needed will depend on a number of factors, including the experience of the local authority and the suppliers, whether there is an accreditation scheme in place and the nature of any procurement. But we recommend a minimum lead-in time of six months. • Measures must be in place to ensure that current best practice is adopted. The Commission questions the value of undertaking further small-scale pilots of the kind that were run at the May 2007 elections and would not recommend their further implementation. Issues related to the transparency of the e-counting process continue to be important. While some of the concerns raised can be addressed through the deployment of best practice, there is nevertheless scope for innovations to increase transparency. ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
Re: [LU] non LU AV
The fact all libdems are for it should tell you more. Here is my view on it all; 1. It is more complicated, therefore will be more expensive to administer. Government already costs too much. 2. It is more representative as the winner would need 50% of the vote. Total bollocks. Consider this scenario. First round vote Labour 49%, Conservative 49%, Libdem 2%. Second choice for all conservative/labour voters = libdem as they don't want the other lot in. Libdem get voted in despite only 2% actually wanting them in originally. 3. It makes our mps work harder. What? If the constituency is a 'normal' town, you will have a set amount of died in the wool party voters, lets say 25% labour, 25% tory, 15% libdem. It doesn't matter what the mp for that place does, those 50% others will not vote for them regardless, and most vote for the colour, not local issues. I don't want my MP spending half his term going round trying to woo concessions out of voters, I want them to be representing me in parliament. If they aren't concentrated on that then lets get rid of all MPs and be done with it. I understand the libdem desire for PR, and that makes sense democratically however impractical it actually is. AV however is NOT PR, and not even a step on the road to PR. A situation where an MP is not elected despite getting 49% of the popular vote, where all the others only get 15% each max but 51% amongst them is not more representative. A situation where some numbskull who votes BNP can influence/decide the local MP on their second vote is equally objectionable. Apart from anything else, why do they get 2 votes, and the rest of us just 1? Put it in football terms, teams wouldn't get promoted based on league position, they would get promoted based on points gained compared with all the other teams in the league. So Leeds finish second in the league next season, on goal difference vs Cardiff (wouldn't that be sweet!), but we don't get promoted because we need to finish at least 5 points ahead of 3rd place. It was a NO for me! -Original Message- From: leedslist-boun...@gn.apc.org [mailto:leedslist-boun...@gn.apc.org] On Behalf Of Simon Hart Sent: 29 April 2011 00:21 To: 'Damian Walsh'; 'leedslist' Subject: Re: [LU] non LU AV It appears all the politicians are against it, which tells me it must be a good thing. Si. -Original Message- From: leedslist-boun...@gn.apc.org [mailto:leedslist-boun...@gn.apc.org] On Behalf Of Damian Walsh Sent: 28 April 2011 23:25 To: leedslist Subject: [LU] non LU AV I know that the list was neutered a long time ago and LPC sensibilities means we can only openly discuss RW's will he _ wont he homoerotic love-in with our Argy striker. But I actually enjoyed those heady days when the list was just like a conversation in a pub and we could opinionate to our hearts consent. Tant pis, c'est comme ca Are any of you going to vote in the referendum? Do you care? Should we care? Obviously answers on a postcard please because my lesbian Aunt Fanny (Uncle John if she had balls...) would be terribly upset at a publically expressed opinion. Damian Ireland for the Irish Palestine for the Palestinians Combrailles for the Auvergnats and fck the Montluconois I think I should have put a simely somewhere but I dropped it and it got all muddy ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it) ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it) ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
Re: [LU] non LU AV
On 29 Apr 2011, at 08:12, Mark Humphries mark.humphr...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: The fact all libdems are for it should tell you more. In your words - bollox - it's cross party in both camps Here is my view on it all; 1. It is more complicated, therefore will be more expensive to administer. Government already costs too much. More bollox - in fact it's a lie put about by the no group 2. It is more representative as the winner would need 50% of the vote. Total bollocks. Consider this scenario. First round vote Labour 49%, Conservative 49%, Libdem 2%. Second choice for all conservative/ labour voters = libdem as they don't want the other lot in. Libdem get voted in despite only 2% actually wanting them in originally. Bollox - facts right time Mark, only the 2nd choice of the losers (in your scenario Libdem) would be counted. A better scenario would be 10 friends are trying to decide where to drink tonight - Red Lion gets 2 votes Queens Head gets 2 votes Con Club gets 1 vote Three Legs gets 2 votes Starbucks gets 3 votes Using first past the post they end up going for a coffee despite 7 of them wanting a beer! That's democracy in action. Vote yes to av and let's have a beer :-) http://i.imgur.com/Zb9tj.png cheers Paul ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
Re: [LU] non LU AV
snip I don't want my MP spending half his term going round trying to woo concessions out of voters, I want them to be representing me in parliament. snip But in the current system your MP does not represent you, even if you voted for him/her. The MP represents and, unless he/she is an unruly type without any aspirations for advancement, votes the way the party whips tell them to. The first past the post system was set up so that Ideally the voters of a given constituency - for this exercise lets say the whole city of Leeds - send to Westminster someone who represents their views, and votes that way, despite the party or what other members may think or vote. This does not happen of course because now, the only way (with minor exceptions) to get elected in the first place is to become a member of one of the parties and dance to their tune. So, if for instance the voters of Leeds were deeply in support of capital punishment (or choose any other issue), the MP would vote the way his party tells him to, not his constituents viewpoint. Tell me, how is this democratic? AV is by no means perfect, far from it, but is a might fairer than what we have now. Oh, and they spend a great deal less time in Parliament than you give them credit for.. ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
Re: [LU] non LU AV
Also, relies on everyone actually giving a second preference. If you don't want the Lib Dem candidate then don't give a 2nd preference. On 29 April 2011 09:22, Ed Morrish edmorr...@gmail.com wrote: Mark, I think your point about the Lib Dem who wins on 2% of the vote raises an interesting question: how polarising are the other two candidates? If not even 4% of the other side's voters rate you over the Lib Dem guy, aren't you doing something wrong? To have 51% of the electorate say, anyone but HIM... Ed. ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
Re: [LU] non LU AV
And there, in a nutshell is the best argument for AV - you are NOT forced to offer a second option if you don't want to. However, if your constituency has as one of the candidates, Nick Griffin, then you may wish to rank the rest in the order of your choice, playing the anyone but him game -Original Message- From: leedslist-boun...@gn.apc.org [mailto:leedslist-boun...@gn.apc.org] On Behalf Of Jim Moran Sent: 29 April 2011 09:26 To: e...@morrish.org Cc: leedslist; Simon Hart Subject: Re: [LU] non LU AV Also, relies on everyone actually giving a second preference. If you don't want the Lib Dem candidate then don't give a 2nd preference. ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
Re: [LU] non LU AV
Only true democratic vote for me in a NATIONAL election is to get rid of all this Leeds Central, Leeds West constituency nonesense and have a straight vote for legitimate parties (would need some sensible guidelines in place fir that bit) then have a true one man one vote open election. Tough though it may be to stomach for most of us (as in it would elect a handful of far left and far right members of parliament and probably mean a permanent coalition!) but wouldn't that be the only true representation of the people of the uk?The politics of the people and not the current politics of ego that we have to endure? The civil servants make the country run anyway, the politicians just posture most of the time anyway! On 29 Apr 2011, at 09:49, Steve Gillen steve.gil...@ntlworld.com wrote: And there, in a nutshell is the best argument for AV - you are NOT forced to offer a second option if you don't want to. However, if your constituency has as one of the candidates, Nick Griffin, then you may wish to rank the rest in the order of your choice, playing the anyone but him game -Original Message- From: leedslist-boun...@gn.apc.org [mailto:leedslist- boun...@gn.apc.org] On Behalf Of Jim Moran Sent: 29 April 2011 09:26 To: e...@morrish.org Cc: leedslist; Simon Hart Subject: Re: [LU] non LU AV Also, relies on everyone actually giving a second preference. If you don't want the Lib Dem candidate then don't give a 2nd preference. ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it) ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
Re: [LU] non LU AV
I'm trying to work out what your angle is given you've picked just about the one issue that has always (post-war) been a free vote :0 Damian On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Steve Gillen steve.gil...@ntlworld.comwrote: ... So, if for instance the voters of Leeds were deeply in support of capital punishment ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
Re: [LU] non LU AV
And I thought that Bagehot was incapable of spinning anymore in his grave ;) What's wrong with getting rid of the partys instead as we live in a post-ideologic world nowadays (don't we? ) Damian This is a local representative for local people ;) On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Tim Leslie t...@3leafieldvillas.co.ukwrote: Only true democratic vote for me in a NATIONAL election is to get rid of all this Leeds Central, Leeds West constituency nonesense and have a straight vote for legitimate parties ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
Re: [LU] non LU AV
Looked up Bagehot in wiki. I still don't follow your Bon mot. As this is a rivetingly boring day ( sat with a dozing nigh on ninety Year old mother watching the wedding. For this I came to the UK ?) please be kind and explain yourself. Anything to stop me from topping myself in despair. Sent from my iPad Dr. Michael Benjamin Community Psychiatrist On Apr 29, 2011, at 1:05 PM, Damian Walsh pussaydam...@gmail.com wrote: And I thought that Bagehot was incapable of spinning anymore in his grave ;) What's wrong with getting rid of the partys instead as we live in a post-ideologic world nowadays (don't we? ) Damian This is a local representative for local people ;) On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Tim Leslie t...@3leafieldvillas.co.ukwrote: Only true democratic vote for me in a NATIONAL election is to get rid of all this Leeds Central, Leeds West constituency nonesense and have a straight vote for legitimate parties ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it) ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
Re: [LU] non LU AV
Yeah I realised that after I wrote it, but too late then... The point is the same though -Original Message- From: leedslist-boun...@gn.apc.org [mailto:leedslist-boun...@gn.apc.org] On Behalf Of Damian Walsh Sent: 29 April 2011 12:58 To: leedslist Subject: Re: [LU] non LU AV I'm trying to work out what your angle is given you've picked just about the one issue that has always (post-war) been a free vote :0 Damian On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Steve Gillen steve.gil...@ntlworld.comwrote: ... So, if for instance the voters of Leeds were deeply in support of capital punishment ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it) ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
Re: [LU] non LU AV
To try and tie the thread back together again - given that our politics have followed a traditional Buck house govt. v Carlton house opposition since the Hannovarians took us over (Symbiosis or Parasitism depending on yr POV ;)) are we entering into a world analogous to the dotage of Georg III with the arrival of the D of Cantab on the scene? Does this explain the Lib Dems rise to power? Am I just bored completely out of my skull waiting for a plane that's still 3 hrs away :( Damian PS on my way to a veterans tournament in Montpelier, case full of Slivovitz and Pilsner Urquell after a week in Praha - expecting to lose about 6kg this weekend (the case, not me...). Was my mistake forgetting to tell the wife face to face and doing it by phone from the hotel? ;) ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
Re: [LU] non LU AV
On 28/04/2011 23:25, Damian Walsh wrote: I know that the list was neutered a long time ago Opre Roma! I say! Betty ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
Re: [LU] non LU AV
What the f... Do explain. Please. Opre Roma as a non-governmental organization was set up by the Roma (Gypsy) residents of the Domokos Marton Kert settlement in Debrecen (eastern Hungary) The NGO aims at the improvement of the health and life of its members and Roma people in general. Our priorities include to implement a housing project along with community and cultural development, education, training and employment. Sent from my iPad Dr. Michael Benjamin Community Psychiatrist On Apr 29, 2011, at 4:09 PM, barbaravi...@gmail.com wrote: On 28/04/2011 23:25, Damian Walsh wrote: I know that the list was neutered a long time ago Opre Roma! I say! Betty ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it) ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
Re: [LU] non LU AV
Yeah, I already voted, both for the local council and for the AV vote (I get a postal vote) Yes I do care and yes you should care Me? I voted yes -Original Message- From: leedslist-boun...@gn.apc.org [mailto:leedslist-boun...@gn.apc.org] On Behalf Of Damian Walsh Sent: 28 April 2011 23:25 To: leedslist Subject: [LU] non LU AV I know that the list was neutered a long time ago and LPC sensibilities means we can only openly discuss RW's will he _ wont he homoerotic love-in with our Argy striker. But I actually enjoyed those heady days when the list was just like a conversation in a pub and we could opinionate to our hearts consent. Tant pis, c'est comme ca Are any of you going to vote in the referendum? Do you care? Should we care? ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
Re: [LU] non LU AV
It appears all the politicians are against it, which tells me it must be a good thing. Si. -Original Message- From: leedslist-boun...@gn.apc.org [mailto:leedslist-boun...@gn.apc.org] On Behalf Of Damian Walsh Sent: 28 April 2011 23:25 To: leedslist Subject: [LU] non LU AV I know that the list was neutered a long time ago and LPC sensibilities means we can only openly discuss RW's will he _ wont he homoerotic love-in with our Argy striker. But I actually enjoyed those heady days when the list was just like a conversation in a pub and we could opinionate to our hearts consent. Tant pis, c'est comme ca Are any of you going to vote in the referendum? Do you care? Should we care? Obviously answers on a postcard please because my lesbian Aunt Fanny (Uncle John if she had balls...) would be terribly upset at a publically expressed opinion. Damian Ireland for the Irish Palestine for the Palestinians Combrailles for the Auvergnats and fck the Montluconois I think I should have put a simely somewhere but I dropped it and it got all muddy ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it) ___ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
