Sy_Accursed

Why do Fiji and Australia want to get rid of it? I am in Canada; we keep getting a minority government that can call for an election at the drop of a budget. I'm not entirely sure, but I can infer from their wanting to get rid of it that it doesn't work. Not really. You can only infer that they want a better system. We have this referendum because people dont want FPTP, but as shown there's too strong sides. So you can't jsut outright infer FPTP does not work. Also from what I've read they don't want AV but they don;t want FPTP either, FPTP is deemed worse than AV, I think one of them even had a change to FPTP referendum and it came out as no. So they may not want AV, but they prefer it to FPTP

Banking is deffo best if you can. They are only 4xp less than d bones (so 12xp less when altaring) and they sell good.

No-one swaps votes AFTER seeing the result. All votes are cast blind. Heck the result isn't the result until all the rounds have taken place to acquire an overall majority. Oh and still using that example how is it fair that my constituency is led and spoken for by a party that ~66% of the voters do no approve of and did not want in power? Cause thats what FPTP does. I think the thing you most need to realise is while views differ, which is fair enough, no-ones gonna legitimately let an anti-Av argument have the last word in a pro-av thread; its an un-winnable battle. And my figures I fine yes I polished them off for simplicities sake in example terms. We had 5 (possibly 6) candidates, the other 3 got like 1% vote between them. Conservatives had 34% possibly a few decimal points over. Lib and lab both had 33%; maybe a few decimal points under.

Don't speak on mine and other Labour party members' behalves, please. I'm just as much opposed to the Liberal part of our coalition government as the Tory part. I said MOST not ALL And I was talking about MY constituency and thus my personal experience of local opinion.

Yes your favourite may go; but that does not mean you don't support others. The point is the ultimate winner is someone who the overall majority DOES support in some way or other even if not their first choice. An example being: My constituency 34% conservative, 33% lib dem, 33% labour. Most lib dem and labour people are anti-conservative, but not anti- the other party. Therefore in AV odds are finaly result would be (in the region of) lib dem or labour 66% vs conservative 34% That ~66% have an mp who speaks for their views and wants under AV. Under FPTP that ~66% have an mp who speaks th exact opposite of what they want. tl;dr - most people have 2nd and 3rd choices they would rather see win than some other parties and therefore this method ensures that overall majority speaks on some level for over half that group. Opposed to speaking for as little as 30% of them and quite possibly being the entire opposite of what the other 70% want/think. And you have explained your argument, but you jsut keep coming back with the same points again and again. So you get the same responses. No matter what way you word it you are saying AV gives some people 2 votes. It does not. You are saying its unfair as people get 2 votes. They don't and it is fairer as overall majority wins. And no matter how you spin it you seem to be arguing it is no fairer because the 51+% isn't tht 51% first choice, however no matter what way you spin it that person IS choosen on some level by 51%+ else they would not of got that percentage. You said it yourself uk politics is diverse, it's not like America or other countries where everyone is in camp A or camp B. We all mostly have a multitude of views and opinions about most of the parties, and a lot of voting is based no on "favourite party" but on "which party can I vote for to stop the one I hate winning this seat". Av gives voice to the multitude of views and stops so much tactical voting.

They get counted TWICE, you said so yourself. They are counted for your first choice, and then if your first choice loose, then they are added to the second choice. The fact that you can change your vote if your party looses is just being a bad loser. Its odd, unnecessary and extremely unfair to the party who places in first in the inital choices, seeing as they have a large chance to lose now. And then in the second and third rounds of voting, you loose because your rivals had loads of people who had them as their second choice. Thus the person who came first in the first round now come second or third. Ludicrous. Its not unfair at all, the system is about being fairer as the end result is am mp who got an overall majority. And so? Coming first in the first round without 51% =/= winning. The criteria to win in AV is getting 51% of the vote. People are too fixated on the wrong thing. Getting highest % in first round in no way meets the winning criteria. The "chance to loose" doesn't change. Everybody goes in knowing they need 51%+ of the vote to win. And again EVERYONES vote gets counted twice. It's not like in the 2nd round your vote is ignored if it hasn't changed. It's still validly counted. So you voted for the same party two rounds in a row opposed to those who vote 2 different parties. Also big whoop of you then lose, you still lost because the overall majority voted agaisnt your party; its just being a sore loser. People in the No camp seem to determined in my experience to apply things that do not fit to the system on it as arguments agaisnt it. Like the whole person who wins does not win. Bs AV stipulates 51%+ vote to win; until that's achieved no-one has won. End of the day regardless of how votes are tallied it boils down to: Which do you prefer a system where a party with under 1/3 of the votes can win. Despite the fact 2/3 did not vote for them. Or a system where the winner HAS to have an overall majority. When its about electing people to speak for the people I can't see how making sure the elected people speak for the overall majority is in anyway a bad thing.

No its not. Everyone gets counted ONCE. One person one vote. No-one gets 2 votes. If only your first choice gets counted you are WINNING its good. If you vote A and A stays in your vote still gets counted a 2nd time. It's just still a vote for A. If 500 ppl voted each round has 500 total votes. No-one is getting counted more or less than anyone else. no gets "more chocies" counted. Everyone has 1 choice counted. So what if its your third choice? That means your 1st and 2nd choice are eliminated and not counted. You've still been counted once and once only. Its perfectly fair. Everyone gets a chance to rank all candidates and the ultimate winner is someone 51%+ voted for. Its much fairer than FPTP where the winner does not gain an overall majority most of the time. And deadlocks are no more likely in AV than in FPTP. The statistical likelihood of a 5 way 20% split, 4 way 25% split or 2 way 50% are extremely slim.

This whole chance thing is bs. Everyone has equal chance. Everyone gets the same ppl to pick from and same chance to order their list as few or many as they like. Just cause your extra choices get counted doesn't mean you have "more chances" or "more of a voice" or "matter more" you still only get 1 vote under the exact same system as everyone else. And the whole what if you get 50/50 thing, is jsut as much an issue for FPTP. Any electoral system can reach a 50/50 deadlock. I personally fail to see any reason why someone would be legitimately agaisnt a system that ensures overall majority wins and thus overall majority get mps they wanted opposed to a system were a non overall majority speaks for everyone.

How is it unfair that you only got "one chance" because one chance means your party was no eliminated? Thats like complaining that you beat the cullinormancer in rs first try, but others got 2 or 3 tries. Again with PR, arguing about PR is irrelevant to AV. Yes some ppl see Av as a stepping stone to PR, doesn't mean everyone does. Most people pro-av are anti-pr. And what would happen under pr is a non issue in a chocie between fptp and av. Still with saying people didn't vote agaisnt. In a vote with 1 choice: you for FOR someone and AGAINST the rest as your vote counts against them. And semantics isn't the issue; the issue is simply put: in 2/3 of seats at least election were not won with a overall majority. Overall majority is fairer as it means over 1/2 the votes wanted them.

Its virtually impossible to not get a result from AV. They go down to 2 parties. Only way to not have a winner is if somehow both have 50% But the odds of this are as slim as they odds of not getting a winner with FPTP. And its not cheating at all. Or some peoples votes counting more. It pure and simple comes down to 1 person has 1 vote counted. It's not unfair on those who's vote is only counted one time; that means their first choice is doing well. And the 51% does mean peoples voice are better ehard. It means each mp is elected by 51% of the constituency, sure its not everyone's first choice; but 51% still registered them as a choice. And Yes 60% did not vote no to party A, by against I mean the opposite of for. Still doesn't change the fact however that the overall majority did not vote for party A.

Yeah Av is about as simialr to PR as pr is to fptp. FPTP: You vote for 1 party within you constituency. Whoever polls most in your constituency wins the seat regardless of overall majority. AV: You list in order preferred candidates within your constituency. As few or many as you like. If no party gets overall majority (51%+) party with fewest is completely eliminated and their voters next choice is counted. Whoever finally gets 51%+ first wins. PR: You get 1 vote for the national party. x% of vote relates to 1 seat in parliament.

Are you trying to tell me that if A gets 40%, B gets 35% and C gets 25%, then A is not in a majority? 40% is a majority. But its not an OVERALL majority. 60% voted agaisnt A. This goes against the fundamental ideas behind democracy. 1 person, 1 vote. You are simeltaniously saying (lower down in your post) that people don't get two votes, yet the way that AV works is that some votes are counted twice, three times or even four or five times. This means that one single person gets more than one vote. No it does not. You still get 1 vote and 1 vote only. When the vote is tallied if 1 party does not have 51%+ the party with fewest votes is knocked out. All votes for them are utterly discounted. All people who voted for them have their 2nd choice vote counted and so on. Nobodies vote gets counted twice in the final outcome, each person is still only having 1 vote counted in the final tally. Often, people have a strong allegiance to one party, and really don't care for any of the others. If someone picks candidate A, it means that they want candidate A to be MP. It doesn't mean they want either candidate A, B, or C to get in. This is true. But if someone wants ONLY candidate A they only mark 1 choice. If candidate a successfully gets 51% of the vote they get the seat, if they don't another person will and thus win. This relates to majority vs overall majority, the winning mp must have overall majority and therefore 51%+ of voters had them down as a choice. AV is a lot more complicated than FPTP, thus more expensive. With FPTP, votes have to be counted once and only once. Whichever candidate has a cross next to their name is the one with one extra vote. With AV, vote counters have to count up the first choices, and in the event that no candidate has over 50% (which is extremely likely), then some peoples votes have to be counted again, thus twice. TWICE. Thus some people get to vote twice. That is basically saying 'If you vote for a popular party, those who vote for less popular parties will have more voting power'. This is an unarguably more complex system than a simple FPTP vote. Nobody got twice the vote. If your second choice vote is counted it is because your first chocie party has been eliminated and all those votes invalidated. Nobody said it was a simpler system; only that is does not need £250mil of counting machines, it can still easily be done by hand. I don't know about AV, but a full PR system would benefit the BNP. A PR system is really what Cleggy wants - he himself called AV a 'miserable compromise'. Last election they got 563,743 votes out of 29,653,638, as a percentage 1.9%. Source. Out of 650 seats, the BNP thus would have got 12. I'm not saying this is a bad thing in theory - anyone has the right to stand. That's not to say I endorse the BNP in any way, shape or form. I'm just countering your point. Looking at those results, it appears minor parties got seats. This is because the majority of people in their area voted for them because they represent the feeling of the people the most. AV would destroy this concept. Yes full PR would help the BNP. But we are not talking about PR we are talking AV. In AV minority parties will be the first ones eliminated in the road to getting overall majority. So, in other words, you get more than one vote. Your vote has already been counted if you vote for a minority party, and it is being counted AGAIN once your vote is carried on. No. If party D gets least votes they are eliminated. Removed. No longer counted. Their votes are then redistributed to 2nd choices. Part D is no longer in the running at all and therefore has 0 votes. I'm not sure if you have noticed, but tensions are running high between Cameron and Cleggy because they have such differing views. Thats nothing to do with constituency link. Constituency link is about each constituencies voice being heard in parliament. If constituencies all have mps that got 51%+ vote the link is stronger as the mp speaks for over half of them. Until you give me any kind of proof for this, I'm going to go ahead and take this as your opinion. You can easily google last yrs election results, only around 1/3 seats were won with overall majority (51%+) People have 'actually voted' for the people who stand as MPs today. What you are saying that, by process of elimination, more people end up voting for the same person. This person can be someones third or fourth choice. This is not them voting for who they want, this is them voting for someone who they have low opinion of. Therefore they don't care about what they do, because to all intents and purposes, their choice of candidate has lost. The alternative vote system seems fundamentally wrong because the opinion of some people counts more than others. To me, it seems like a bunch of politicians whining that they don't get their own way, and I think this picture illustrates it beautifully: This is an utter fallacy. People can have as few choices as they like. If they have a low opinion of someone they do not include them in their choices.. Parties are eliminated before their votes are redistrubted (as I covered before). So no-ones vote counts more than once; in the final result 1 person has had 1 vote.

But they don't like FPTP enough to vote for it either. To be honest, If they don't care enough to vote they shouldn't get a voice. So you're happy with ending up with a result that isn't supported by 50% of the population. Uhhhh... I don;t see why some people have a hard time with this: People are given the choice to vote and use their voice. If they do not vote they do not care. Do not care cannot be taken as support for either side. 51%+ of those who DO care enough to vote will get the system they care about; all those who didn't vote still won't care. Also ppl anti AV banging on about less than 50% voting for something is kinda shooting yourself in the foot when in FPTP most seats are not won with 50% vote...

I don't know about your constituency but where I live voter turnout is around 75. The lowest turnout of ANY constituency in the whole of the UK at the 2010 elections was in Manchester Central where it was 44%. I don't think a turnout of 15% has EVER happened. And even if it was lets so some statistical analysis: An electoral division is made up of around 5500 people. If I was doing a survey based on a population and I got 832 back (15%) then I would give that a confidence interval of +/-3.13. I know things are a little different with elections but even if only 15% turnout in theory that's enough for a vote to be statistically valid. If anything with low turnouts AV is a better voting method. It is in low turnout areas that extremist parties get elected. Because under FPTP you can win an election with less than 30% of the vote the BNP for example get only 250 votes (based on your 15% turnout) and win the election. In my view that is a ridiculous system. Under AV you would need to get 416 votes in your hypothetical election. These numbers of of course hypothetical because voter turnout in the UK rarely falls below 45%, the UK average is 65% and the highest turnout was over 77%. Heck to further that the percentage you can "win" with in FPTP is entirely dependant on the number of parties running. In my constituency few years back (for local elections) we had 15 choices. Taking 5500 as average electoral division and 15% turn out that'd be a total of 825 votes. Between 15 parties that means in FPTP you could possibly win with as few as 56 votes aka under 6% of the vote. Though obviously we do have the 30% rule in place to avoid this. It still goes to show how fptp can be easily "won" on small numbers.

It's not ignoring anything. People who don;t want AV enough to vote for it equally don;t want FPTP enough to vote agaisnt AV. They DO NOT CARE is the whole point. If they cared either way they have the option to vote either way, the poll card has "Yes" and "No" options. Failing to vote means you're not yes or no. Again your logic is mental: "End of the day, if only 15% of the electorate votes, and two thirds of them vote 'Yes', then only 10% of the entire electorate has (or more to the point, 90% hasn't) but it would go through anyway. That's wrong in my eyes. " Ok reverse that: 15% vote. 2/3 vote no. How is it any more right that AV is not implemented when only 10% of the population voted agaisnt it? That's just as "wrong"

Exactly Abstaining =/= supporting. Abstaining = not caring. Not caring = irrelevant to final outcome. Your whole original point was: "If polls return 15%, 85% did not care enough to opposed the status quo" Which implies that 85% like the status quo, the status quo being FPTP Ergo that 85% are pro-FPTP All I'm saying is that's not the case. The 85% did not care and therefore did not vote. It doesn't make them pro-status quo (no AV) Or anti-status quo (yes av) And if its ignorant to ignore non-voter what do you propose should be done about it? You can't say non-voters support AV, they didn't vote to say that. You can't say non-voters support FPTP, they didn;t vote to say that. So this 85% who didn't care and didn't vote who you just can't ignore; what do you propose to do about it?

I just find it disingenuous to claim that under PR/AV, the majority always wins, when the majority of people in the UK will most likely not actually vote for AV to be introduced or not introduced come 5th May. I know I'm not the only one to think that. There is also the side issue that this referendum would not even be taking place had the third placed Lib Dems not used that as leverage for a coalition deal with the Conservatives, and we all know how the Lib Dems have kept to their pre-election promises on spending cuts and tuition fees don't we? I don't feel that lying point-blank to students in a desperate bid to gain votes and then using that false support to gain favours from your coalition partners is a particularly honourable way to behave in a democratic system, particularly when they more than anyone are lecturing people on the inadequacies of our current system. They frankly don't deserve it. How is it disingenuous? Under AV the vote system keeps going until 1 party has an overall majority. Therefore no matter what happens each seat will always be taken by someone 51%+ of the voters want to some degree. You can't factor in non-voters. If people care about the outcome they vote, they don't vote therefore they do not care about the outcome and cannot be considered in voting numbers. In speaking about voting language refers to those who voted. It's like when they do i dunno a breast cancer drug trial and report that the majority of women blah blah. You don't go oh its disingenuous because only 2% of the women in the world are in the study and it is not a majority therefore; language is relative to context. Sure the majority of the population won't vote for AV or agaisnt AV unless we have a surprise turn out because the majority never votes. But its those that DO vote that matter, if people don't vote they don't care. It'll come down to a majority vote of those that care. And the reason we are getting the referendum and the lib dems behaviour is a whole separate issue that is totally unrelated to voting on a yes or no referendum to the way we vote. Sure if we were voting in a new general election the lib dems behaviour would play a factor in deciding votes; but its irrelevant in this matter.

That's a totally illogical theory. In terms of an actually election: Not turning up to vote shows that you do not care who wins. In a referendum not voting shows you don;t care either way. If you care about the outcome you vote; if you don;t vote it can be assumed you do not care. So if 85% don;t turn up to vote, then those 85% do not care about the outcome either way and therefore cannot be validly used as a "85% like the way it is but dont vote" argument. If they ACTUALLY proactively liked FPTP they would turn out and vote agaisnt av, not jsut not bother to vote. There no rule saying it has to be a debate and the thread never claimed to be such. It claimed to be a thread promoting voting yes to av. Also its hardly using political propaganda "truth"; it doesn't even quote any of the propaganda lines used in the pro-av campaign. It just debunks no campaign propaganda that is based on totally made up rubbish with no statistical or factual support behind it.

I do hate a lot of the no campaign bs. As you covered 99% of their "arguments" are total myth or misleading wording. Like "AV means the winner doesn't win, but 2nd or 3rd place might" thats totally misleading wording as to win under AV requires an overall majority. So if you got that you won. and the "AV is a less fair representation of the people's voice".. really? Cause in my constituency (bk home not uni) [rounded this] the vote went 33% labour, 33% lib dems, 34% conservatives. Clearly FPTP isn't representing voices well when 66% did not want conservatives... Fair enough some people are genuinely agaisnt it, but the amount of misinformation and outright lies the no camp propaganda spout is awful. Conservatives just don't want it because they rarely win seats with overall majority. Where as labour and lib dems do and 'trial runs' in some places show tht AV would likely see lib dems and labour become the big 2, or possibly make a 4 party system with green gaining power.

Isn't a "no reporting clanmates" rule a bit iffy. As its basically saying you can break rs rules and openly discuss breaking rs rules, as long as you only do so within the clan as no-one can report you without being punished/booted from clan themselves; despite the fact they are clearly doing the right thing by reporting a cheat/rule breaker.

Inspite of what everyone else said i'd get king of the dwarves done. It unlocks a new gravestone tht has based time of 15minutes opposed to the 12minutes angel of death gives. Thoose extra 3 minutes are definitely worthwhile just in case

Well, assuming pauline becomes drained on average every 2 rounds and you ignore the randoms that would mean for every 2 rounds u need 6 x fertile soil 6 x cure plant 4 x plank make 2 x string jewellery 1 x energy transfer So in produce points thats 6x20 = 120 6x20 = 120 4x20 = 80 2x120=240 1x100=100 total = 660 663920 points needed for all the spells 663920/660 = 1006 (rounded up) So: 6036 Fertile Soil 6036 Cure plant 4024 Plank Make 2012 String Jewellery 1006 Energy Transfer

Credit where credits due: You've taken posting in the wrong forum to an whole new level. Scrolling past ALLLL the runescape forums, including help & advice where this belongs, to a forum that doesn't even relate to runescape.

godswords, spirit shield, the 3 sets of nex armour, the bow nex drops, bandos, armadyl, dfs(?) then your back down into like Sol whip barrows etc.

Them folks who like funny business with the animals, you see here uhmm, with the animals. Information fail. Business with an animal is beastiality. They ONLY sexual elemental of furries is finding anthropomorphic animals enjoyable. Anthropomorphic = human characteristics and form. So in the case of furries this means people in animal costumes. Oh and thou I agree with the sentiment of children need to be controlled online; its never gonna happen the internet is too widely available now and technology is still such a new feild in many ways that for the most part the childs are still > parents with it. so even if controls are in place they can bypass them through the parents failing on passcodes etc