Sy_Accursed

Why is it stupid? Because people don't want to HAVE to rank/vote for a party they strongly oppose.

the distinction capes then i shuld guess. Reckon the museum one is gotta be the master cape thingie and/or an in-game teaser for the 10 yr cape (which they said we cant get til nxt yr; ppl guessing pre-membership no creation record was kept which would postpone accounting 10 yr record til nxt yr stead of this yr)

On a date that is not a saturday, sunday or british bank holiday between around 9am and 5pm UK time on a date that is sometime between yesterday and the end of the world. Edit: Though the teaser pic of next week update they just put on facebook does look like it *might* be the capes; or atleast something cape related see here: http://forum.tip.it/topic/273056-discussion-update-teasers/page__st__1120__gopid__4836570#entry4836568

If you can't see how its ridiculous to be annoyed that your vote hasn't had to go to second choice as it means your party is doing well it can't be explained any simpler than that. Afterall if you WERE given the choice for each subsequent round if you are a true support and not voting tactically you'd stick with the same vote anyway until that party is knocked out. All AV does is speedily simulate several elections in order to achieve 50% majority. I bet if we kept FPTP but upped it to 50% needed to win and whenever a place didn't get that had a second, 3rd 4th or 5th vote a few days later (with the losing party eliminated) you wouldn't care half as much. All AV does is simulate this without the flaw of people tactically swapping their vote as rounds progress. After all if in a vote under FPTP requiring 50% to win: A got 33% B got 33% C got 10% D got 24% So a few days later it was re-run with only A B D. Assuming no-one tactically swapped votes you'd still get something like: A 40% B 35% D 25% The extra 10% being redistributed subject to how C supporters had re-voted. But of course doing it that way people would tactically vote swap and skew results. So you might actually get: A 42% B 56% D 2% As D supports don't mind B and know most C supports are likely to vote A In AV you get the same thing but all compiled into 1 ballot paper to speed up the process and avoid tactical vote swapping between rounds; so you can't get 1 party suddenly crashing out as voters swap votes to tactical oppose a party they dislike.

I still fail to see the logic in: My party is doing well and therefore my second choice is not counted its unfair. HOW is it "unfair" your party is winning? Also its NOT special treatment because the SAME rules are applied to all votes. I mean it's like university exams where if you're ill or grieving or fail you can do them in the later referral period. It's not "special treatment" if you do cause it's the rules everyone is under. Also it's not "unfair" if you don;t do exams in that period cause it means you done well in life/exams.

Actually 9 maple 6 coal is win. 9 maple and 10 give same number of nests when you collect weekly. And 1 workers worth of coal is worth more than 1 workers worth of maple logs.

This thread will go nowhere because people opposed to AV no matter what you say view it as fundamentally unfair that someone who did not get most in the first round might win. Despite the fact they ARE supported by 50% of people on some level. You can waffle on all you like about how 50% support from 2nd choices is not the same as 30% support from first choice; that is true. But thats where the views differ. As anti-Av you think it is fairer that someone with 30% first choice support can fairly speak for all 100% As pro-AV people think it is fairer that someone with 50% support, even if some is second choice support, speaks more fairly for the 100%. Everything has been debated and responded to properly, but the fact remains a fundamental difference in views exists. To me and all other AV supports an mp who has say 30% first choice votes and 30% second choice votes may not be the absolute perfect mp for all 60%. But it is still an mp all 60% approve of and support on some level. Opposed to a FPTP mp with just 30% vote where the other 70% can be strongly opposed to them, but be stuck with them. You can waffle on all you want about unfair and two votes; pro-AV supports do not see it that way; pro-AV supports believe it is far better to have mps elected with over 50% support to make sure it is an mp the majority of the people approve of opposed to an mp favoured by the largest minority. You say we haven't "debated the issues" yeah cause you have clearly done so much better what with just repeating the same "unfair" "two votes" they are the peoples "favourite" etc. Your argument has progressed as much as pro-AV. @Furah no wonder aussie wants rid if u r forced to rank everyone. Thats stupid!

Actually its mostly bad eggs plus a few democracies set up by uk and usa after wars and then countries tht use it out of long standing tradtion (eg uk); in-spite of the fact expert opinion has stated for years FPTP is pretty much the worst electoral system going.

Because everyone wants one of the many other voting systems? Av is by no means the best; but it is better than FPTP. Only 60 countries use FPTP and a lot of them aren't exactly top of the democratic world or barely install democracy. Like most African nations. Zimbabwe, North Korea, Ghana. Run-Off and Party List are the most widely used methods. And Run-Off is pretty much the same as AV.

FPTP is know for tactical voting. Heck 95% of the pre-election coverage is about tactical voting. To claim otherwise shows severe ignorance to the world we live in. At the end of the day AV is better; it ensures all elected mps represent over half their constituencies views and thus better represents them. Anyone who thinks an mp who only speaks for 30% of their people is fairer or better at representing peoples views has serious issues. It just promotes inequality, minority rule, tactical voting and voter disdain with the political system. You can arguetil your blue in the face; mps voted in by AV ARE more representative of the peoples views and thus the system is fairer to the voter. @rocco or its totally fair because EVERYONE has the same rules applied to them? And anyone who some how thinks its "unfair" their second choice isn't used because their party is winning is an utterly stupid; you're moaning that your party is doing well? Really? Also "knowing your first choice has lost" doesn't make that big an impact of your second choice. You can't judge how OTHER parties have done from this, it's not like you can say right my first choice was green and they will of lost therefore I should go labour to keep conservatives out; for all you know conservatives placed just above green. And of course its entirely possible for your later choices to be knocked out before you even get to them.

No. Your first thing is total bs. People don't vote randomly. They vote for people they support on varying levels. Second one is also bs; getting 30% =/= "most popular". Getting 50% is most popular. Both cases equally have grassroot support, the AV option more so as 50% support them. And all candidates have clear policies and direction.

Its not illogical in the slightest. You chose ALL your votes. You DO NOT include anyone you oppose. Therefore you SUPPORT all your choices to varying degrees. After that its essentially using FPTP with a require of 50%+ to win. Only difference is you cast 1 ballot one 1 day and all the tallys are done from this to avoid tactical vote swapping. So what if they got 5% in round one but won overall? If they go 50% in the end it means 50% support them in some capacity. Its FAR more logical and fair than giving power to a party with 30% of the vote that by no means have a majority support. Besides that's entirely unlikely; in AV whoever places first or 2nd in the first round usually wins. If they only got 5% they'd be eliminated. Also FPTP hugely promotes keeping a party out. Most voters with any common sense vote tactically. In FPTP it is FAR better to cast a vote for a party with a chance of winning that is not your first choice in order to keep the party you oppose out than it is to actually vote for the party you want. Voting for the party you actually want (unless it is labour or conservative) just means you increase the odds of the major party you oppose getting power. It all boils down plain and simple to: FPTP awards power to the minority that happens to be slightly larger than the other minorities and thus fails to voice the true opinion of the majority. AV ensures those given power speak for the majority.

The majority argument IS the argument. People want AV because it represents what the MAJORITY think. AV gives fairer representation to peoples views. End of debate.

Because FPTP doesn't represent the majority. FPTP elects mps that up to 70% may complete oppose. You can't represent a community if the majority don't support you. Av ensures mps have majority support. And yes some tactical voting is inevitable, but tactical voting is still far far worse under FPTP than any other system. Also note I didn't bring it up, I only spoke on it because Will_H claimed AV has more tactical voting than FPTP which is factually incorrect. FPTP has more.

Its nothing to do with voting due to dislike. Its to do with voting to ensure that the government choosen IS supported by the majority. A government elected by having 50%+ support via AV IS more widely supported than one elected by 30% support. Colation bs is totally irrelevant. Coalition government is no more or less likely in AV than in FPTP. AV has less tactical voting because you have your whole voice heard. Under FPTP you may hate con, support llb dem but also agree with most of labour policy. If in your area conservatives usually win and lib dems don;t do well; but labour do ok. You end up voting labour to keep conservatives out and get someone you agree with in; because lib dems are unlikely to win and voting for them just means labour are less likely to get the seat as opposition to conservatives is divided. Under Av: You put lib dems first choice, labour 2nd choice. You can afford to do this because if the lib dems DO lose you're voice is still heard in saying you'd prefer labour to conservatives. Ginger_Warrior - that is a clear example of POLITICIANS using tactics to secure their win, not voters voting tactically. Regardless of voting system politicians uses tactics to try and secure votes; tactically invented promises and pledges to appeal to specific groups etc. Yes some one party fanatics might follow such party issued voting orders, but some tactical voting is inevitable. It doesn't mean everyone would.

The point is: In FPTP the majority is not spoken for, many of them can strongly oppose the voice thrust upon them by the minority. In AV the voice is heard in full and it is 100% undeniable the people elected have overl 50% of the support. It's far better to have leaders we can categorically say over 50% of the population has chosen and in some way wanted and approve of opposed to leaders chosen by 30% of the population that 70% might strongly object to. It's not "treating them as a group who can form a government" its treating them as a group who makes up the MAJORITY of the population and have a RIGHT to have their voices heard and so no. We do not agree with that 30% who want party A. We oppose party A and would much rather see party C D or E who at least stand for some of what we believe if party B has lost outright and thus hearing the voice of the majority in who they really want to lead. Just cause you can win a slightly larger minority of the vote than someone else does not make you better qualified to speak for the majority. To speak for the majority you need to be elected by the majority. And FPTP IS the WORST electoral system for tactical voting. It's a fact, all other systems have far lower degrees of tactical voting.

But under AV its not based on lets keep x out. Thats what FPTP promotes. Under AV you get mps that over half the people support. Always. It's not fair to allow what only 1/3 of people vote for be representative of the entire community; because it doesn't represent the community.

But those 65% never laid out a coherent and stable alternative to the incumbent, which is an important part of politics. First Past the Post encourages is a positive "I support this party, I'll vote for them" approach, whereas AV encourages a negative and frankly unintelligent "I dislike that party, so I'll vote for the best way that I can see that will get them out of power" approach. Only when the opposition can unify themselves under a decisive and widely supported argument against the government, even if it is born of more than one party, do they have the legitimacy to become the government themselves. No it does not. FPTP is notorious for tactical voting; people vote for party x to keep party y out despite supporting party z. And just because that 65% don't all support 1 party as first chocie doesn't mean they aren't a majority, a majority who can be strong opposed to the winner. Av promotes more truthful voting as you can honestly pick your choices as you like and know that sure your first choice may not get it, but your later choices still can represent your voice opposed to being stamped out by a party you oppose just because they got a slightly larger minority of the vote. So now we're basing our politics on what we're opposed to, rather than what we actually support? No. Its all about support. AV ensures the majority get an mp they in some way support. Rather than a minority speaking for the majority.

Just because you can talk to an MP doesn't mean they represent you. If you are violently anti-conservative and conservative mp isn't going to support your views. And it's not fair if a conservative mp gets a seat as they have 30% of the vote if the other 70% are very anti-conservative. This isn't the same as a race where someone wins and thats it. This person is the peoples representative and voice in parliament; the winner needs to be someone who speaks for the majority of the people. And my bad I was thinking of local elections opposed to the general one. Point still stands though.

1) There's no "rounds of voting" you vote once. 2) Because the whole point is that person rarely has an overall majority and in many cases is some that the majority actually strongly opposes. Good examples are the few seats BNP won, won with just over 30% of the vote. There were protests enmass about it because that other ~70% were strongly opposed to the BNP, yet being spoken for by a BNP mp. It's pure and simple about ensuring MPs do speak for the majority of their constituency

It improves it because the majority choose it. It does not matter what choice level you put them at its still someone you choose; you don;t put people on your vote if you don;t want them. And its far far far better to have an mp who speaks, on some level, for over 50% of their voters. Than an mp is the first choice of a minority of their voters; who it is quite possible the majority are strongly opposed too. I don;t see how people can't grasp: the extra choices are STILL your choices, just because its not your first choice doesn't mean you did not pick it.

So what if its not their first choice? It's still someone the majority did choose. You don't have to vote for everyone, so every vote that made that party win was someone who wanted that candidate on some level. If your poll card had Conservative Labour Lib Dem Green BNP UKIP Monster Raving Loony Party you're allowed to do: 1) Lib Dem 2) Labour 3) Green 4) Monster raving loony and leave bnp, ukip and conservative blank. So its not like the party that gets the majority is just a procvess of elimination result. They did get chosen by the majority. Using my example ranking even if Green one I'd still of chosen Green and be glad green got it.

To be concise its: All votes are counted. Losing party is eliminated. All votes are recounted with the 2nd choice vote of those who backed the loser being counted opposed to first choice.

Yeah there this odd fixation with "changing your vote after seeing the result" This is not what occurs AT ALL. You get a voting card. Your number as few or many choices as you like 1,2,3 etc. You cast your vote. No-one in any way shape or form sees the outcome and then votes again you vote is already cast in its entirety before a single ballot is counted. And it still baffles me how people can think its unfair on them if their 2nd choice isn't used. If your second choice isn't used your party is winning, that's a good thing! I also don't see why allowing extra choices in ludicrous. Every other aspect of life allows it. University applications let you rank choices. If you order in a restaurant you are allowed a 2nd choice if they are out. If you go to see a movie you'll often have a list of choices and compromise on a film that everyone, or at least the majority, want to see using peoples 2nd and 3rd choices. When you go shopping you have brands/items that you want and 2nd choices if the shop doesn't have them. In this day and age its ridiculous to not allow choices in voting, since the vast majority have multiple parties they like/agree with and aren't strictly a 1 party person; its not like the US where everyone seems to be able to say "I am a republican" or "I am a democrat"

No, just no. Its spilts 45 35 20. Party c is wiped out, their 2nd chocies read. 9/10 put B so we have 47 53 spilt. The redistributed votes don;t count "twice as much" they are only counted once. Its again getting caught up in the fact the first round "winner" doesn't win. Placement in any given round means squat beyond not being last. Winning requires over 50% of the vote. That is the qualification of what winning is in AV. Party A may of been ahead in round 1, but they did not "win" Party C's votes in no way "count twice as much" they are still 1 vote per person. Av is essentially how things are done in day-to-day life anyway. I mean if a group of 10 friends deciding what to do 4 said go zoo, 3 said cinema, 3 said shopping. Everyone I know wouldnt say zoo won we'll go zoo, they'd see well sure zoo got 4, but that's not the majority of ppl here. They'd take that and ask if the 6 objected going to the zoo. Allowing them to say yes or no. Thereby creating a 2nd round Av style where u can end up with 8 saying yes to zoo and 2 saying no or w/e. Then overall majority and go with the plan.