On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Ian F. wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...

Well, not quite. But it's pointless using your *second* vote for anyone
other than Ken or Boris, or using it at all if your first vote is for
Ken or Boris

Got it.

To me, this seems elementary. I'm surprised to read comments that a lot
of people don't understand the system;

Well, I had no idea that that was the position - and I'm *really*,
*really* clever. ;-)

I don't doubt it! I think i may not have been properly accounting for the
fact that i am a huge electoral system nerd. Cloneproof Schwartz
sequential dropping, anyone?

But now I know...well then, it's just the one vote for me.

Hmm. Either you support Boris, in which case BOOOO!, or you prefer Ken to
both Brian and Sian, in which case, BOOOO!

tom

--
william gibson said that the future has already happened, it just isn't
evenly distributed. he was talking specifically about finsbury park. --
andy

In article
,
(John B) wrote:

[I assume the reason for Gilligan's hatchet-job is primarily that he's
worried people will vote for left-wing parties first and Ken second to
punish Labour while keeping Boris out. In fact, this is still a Very
Sensible Thing To Do if you're left-wing and dislike current Labour
policies, but don't want a right-wing buffoon in power...]

A possibly more effective tactic from that position would be Brian
Paddick 1, Ken Livingstone 2.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 16 Apr, 14:37, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
(John B) wrote:
[I assume the reason for Gilligan's hatchet-job is primarily that he's
worried people will vote for left-wing parties first and Ken second to
punish Labour while keeping Boris out. In fact, this is still a Very
Sensible Thing To Do if you're left-wing and dislike current Labour
policies, but don't want a right-wing buffoon in power...]

A possibly more effective tactic from that position would be Brian
Paddick 1, Ken Livingstone 2.

It depends on what sort of "left-wing" you are. That's precisely the
voting strategy I'm going to use, since I'm a free-market liberal, but
if someone is actually a socialist then voting for one of the
socialist parties as first choice is worth doing.

(there's no point in voting BNP as a working-class protest, since
that'll be taken as "I'm a bigot who wants to kick out the darkies"
even if - as I think it is in many areas where they've been successful
- it really means "I'm working-class and poor and fed up with being
completely ignored by the three middle-class mainstream parties". But
if the combined proper-socialist vote were to reach 10%, that's the
point where Labour would start worrying it could no longer bank on
working class support)

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:06:16 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

We should just have a complete ordered ballot and do Instant Runoff Voting
[1], really. That's actually much easier to understand from a voter's
point of view.

True enough, though we call it the Alternative Vote on this side of
the Pond...

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, John B wrote:

On 16 Apr, 14:37, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
(John B) wrote:

[I assume the reason for Gilligan's hatchet-job is primarily that he's
worried people will vote for left-wing parties first and Ken second to
punish Labour while keeping Boris out. In fact, this is still a Very
Sensible Thing To Do if you're left-wing and dislike current Labour
policies, but don't want a right-wing buffoon in power...]

A possibly more effective tactic from that position would be Brian
Paddick 1, Ken Livingstone 2.

Boris Johnson 0, Liverpool 1.

It depends on what sort of "left-wing" you are. That's precisely the
voting strategy I'm going to use,

Me too!

(there's no point in voting BNP as a working-class protest, since
that'll be taken as "I'm a bigot who wants to kick out the darkies" even
if - as I think it is in many areas where they've been successful - it
really means "I'm working-class and poor and fed up with being
completely ignored by the three middle-class mainstream parties". But if
the combined proper-socialist vote were to reach 10%, that's the point
where Labour would start worrying it could no longer bank on working
class support)

Do you think? I reckon that as long as the proper-socialist or whatever
vote is small enough that it doesn't threaten Ken's position in the top
two, Labour knows that they'll still pick up the second-preference votes
anyway, and don't need to worry. That's why Brian is a good left-wing
protest vote: he's got more of a chance of getting into the top two, at
which point he becomes something that Labour really do have to worry
about.

tom

--
Taking care of business

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, James Farrar wrote:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:06:16 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

We should just have a complete ordered ballot and do Instant Runoff Voting
[1], really. That's actually much easier to understand from a voter's
point of view.

True enough, though we call it the Alternative Vote on this side of the
Pond...

I think that's a terrible name, and i eschew it.

tom

--
Taking care of business

In article
,
(John B) wrote:

On 16 Apr, 14:37, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
(John B) wrote:
[I assume the reason for Gilligan's hatchet-job is primarily that
he's worried people will vote for left-wing parties first and Ken
second to punish Labour while keeping Boris out. In fact, this is
still a Very Sensible Thing To Do if you're left-wing and dislike
current Labour policies, but don't want a right-wing buffoon in
power...]

A possibly more effective tactic from that position would be
Paddick 1, Ken Livingstone 2.

It depends on what sort of "left-wing" you are. That's precisely the
voting strategy I'm going to use, since I'm a free-market liberal, but
if someone is actually a socialist then voting for one of the
socialist parties as first choice is worth doing.

The difference with the Brian Paddick 1, Ken Livingstone 2 tactic is that,
unlike the socialist fringe, there is a chance, even if small, that Brian
Paddick might even be elected.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Apr 17, 12:54*am, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article
,





(John B) wrote:
On 16 Apr, 14:37, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
(John B) wrote:
[I assume the reason for Gilligan's hatchet-job is primarily that
he's worried people will vote for left-wing parties first and Ken
second to punish Labour while keeping Boris out. In fact, this is
still a Very Sensible Thing To Do if you're left-wing and dislike
current Labour policies, but don't want a right-wing buffoon in
power...]

A possibly more effective tactic from that position would be
Paddick 1, Ken Livingstone 2.

It depends on what sort of "left-wing" you are. That's precisely the
voting strategy I'm going to use, since I'm a free-market liberal, but
if someone is actually a socialist then voting for one of the
socialist parties as first choice is worth doing.

The difference with the Brian Paddick 1, Ken Livingstone 2 tactic is that,
unlike the socialist fringe, there is a chance, even if small, that Brian
Paddick might even be elected.

Most people probably want to elect someone whose clear political
agenda they agree with, and will make do with someone who actually
knows about running London.

On that basis, the majority second preference votes would go to Ken
Livingstone (unless he got the majority of first preference). It's
not so clear for me how Brian Paddick meets the criteria for the first
preference votes, even if people think he's a nice chap.