MSE News: Dairy Milk is nation's favourite chocolate bar

geordie_joe

luvsnail wrote: »

The real travesty is that the same broken system is used to elect the "nation's favourite" government.

It's not a broken system, it works very well and is the only system that ever will work fairly.

Nobody ever calls the winner of an election "the nation's favourite government", they are simply the winner, the one that got the most votes.

luvsnail wrote: »

Thanks to an avalanche of idiocy on referendum day it seems it's going to stay that way for quite some time!

It wasn't an "avalanche of idiocy" it was the majority of the voters using common sense. You just happen to think that anyone who doesn't think like you is an idiot.

This country will never agree to a system where some people will get one vote while others may get more than one vote counted.

luvsnail wrote: »

Despite the deliberate misunderstanding of the "No" campaign, AV is not about letting people vote more than once -

yes it is, you get three votes, if your first vote is for the winner then none of your other votes are counted, but if your first vote was for the loser your second vote would get counted.

You don't seem to understand the difference between "letting people vote more than once" and "giving people more than one vote on the one occasion they cast their vote".

luvsnail wrote: »

A true AV poll would count the votes in such a way that the eventual winner would be the chocolate bar that at least 50% of the voters would be happy to describe as the "nation's favourite", even if it's not their personal first choice).

And they would do that by ignoring the second votes of those who voted for the winner, but counting the second votes of those who voted for the loser.

Only someone who continually loses would want the voting changed so the get a second chance of winning.

Mrs_Arcanum

ariba10 wrote: »

What do you think Chocolate is made from?

For me Cadburys fail to disguise it so always tastes powdery. :rotfl:

Old_Wrinkly

corbyboy wrote: »

No Mars Bar in the top 10, that's a bit of a surprise.

18th, but remember the rather odd way in which the poll was drafted ... :whistle:

krazykidskate

I could certainly eat some choc right now. Is this MSE's way of advertising lol?

Old_Wrinkly

geordie_joe wrote: »

They were an option, but the link in the first post only shows the top 10 results.

If you want to see them all, look here

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/poll/17-05-2011/-which-chocolate-bars-your-favourite

But was Blue Riband?
A chocolate wafer biscuit perhaps, rather than a chocolate bar, but then the list included a number of items I wouldn't class as chocolate 'bars'.
Surely Kit Kat (for example) is equally a chocolate wafer biscuit?

geordie_joe

Old_Wrinkly wrote: »

18th, but remember the rather odd way in which the poll was drafted ... :whistle:

I didn't see the poll, but I wouldn't class most of the items on the list as "chocolate bars".

To me, a chocolate bar is a bar of chocolate, a kit-kat is a chocolate covered biscuit, a curly wurly is chocolate covered toffee, a crunchie is chocolate covered cinder toffee etc. etc.

luvsnail

Firstly, I don't want to debate this too fiercly here, as I'm sure none of us want to let a thread about chocolate get bogged down in politics! I just wanted to address a few points...

geordie_joe wrote: »

Nobody ever calls the winner of an election "the nation's favourite government", they are simply the winner, the one that got the most votes.

You're quite right, of course. The only time this becomes a problem is when the one who gets the most votes is also the one the majority of people specifically voted against. If Dairy Milk wins with 15.5% it's possible that 84.5% of voters can't stand it and would rather die than see it take the top spot (unlikely, but just for demonstration). In this case, AV would keep it off the top spot and keep the majority happy. It's also possible that the majority of voters think that Dairy Milk isn't their favourite, but is still a reasonably acceptable compromise. In this case, Dairy Milk would still win under AV.

It wasn't an "avalanche of idiocy" it was the majority of the voters using common sense. You just happen to think that anyone who doesn't think like you is an idiot.

I apologise for my poor choice of words. Everyone is, of course, entitled to their opinion and a good, fair debate is always good for progress (and for intellectual stimulation).

yes it is, you get three votes, if your first vote is for the winner then none of your other votes are counted, but if your first vote was for the loser your second vote would get counted.

The point is that AV would eliminate "strategic voting". I've had so many flyers through my door saying, "Party X can't possibly win here. Voting for Party X will only let Party Z win. Party Y is your only alternative", and sadly it's true. People in my constituency are afraid to vote Labour because if they do it's a wasted vote, and they're "letting the Tories in". If I were to vote "Party X, but I'd rather have Party Z than Party Y" and you were to vote "Party Z or nothing", then yes - my vote would technically be counted twice whereas yours would be only once. But it's not unfair, because when the votes are counted the winner will be the most popular and the one that most people are happy with.

Only someone who continually loses would want the voting changed so the get a second chance of winning.

Well, yes. Those who are favoured by the current system are hardly going to want it changed.

geordie_joe

luvsnail wrote: »

Firstly, I don't want to debate this too fiercly here, as I'm sure none of us want to let a thread about chocolate get bogged down in politics! I just wanted to address a few points...

luvsnail wrote: »

You're quite right, of course. The only time this becomes a problem is when the one who gets the most votes is also the one the majority of people specifically voted against.

You can't specifically vote against something, not in an election and not in the vote for your favourite chocolate bar.

You get a vote, or in the case of chocolate 3 votes. You cast your vote and it is counted as a vote in favour of whatever you voted for. At no point do you EVER get to vote AGAINST something.

luvsnail wrote: »

If Dairy Milk wins with 15.5% it's possible that 84.5% of voters can't stand it and would rather die than see it take the top spot (unlikely, but just for demonstration).

It wouldn't matter, at no point do you ever get to say you vote against something. You vote for something, and all the other things are taken as things you didn't vote for.

It doesn't matter if you didn't vote for them because the one you did vote for was a tiny fraction better, or because you would die before you would vote for them. You didn't vote for them, they did not get your vote, and that is the only thing that counts.

luvsnail wrote: »

44057950]In this case, AV would keep it off the top spot and keep the majority happy.

If you had taken any notice of the referendum, you would know this is not true. The people voted, and showed the thing they want most is the first past the post to win.

They don't want the party they favour to win every time, they want a fair contest and the genuine winner to win.

luvsnail wrote: »

It's also possible that the majority of voters think that Dairy Milk isn't their favourite, but is still a reasonably acceptable compromise. In this case, Dairy Milk would still win under AV.

Well not if they didn't vote it as their second or third choice. They may have thought dairy milk was a good compromise, but voted for mars, twix and crunchie.

Even if they did vote dairy milk their second choice, and it won, they would know the winner is their second choice. They would know they have to settle for second best.

Only someone who is always second choice would want a system where the second choice wins.

luvsnail wrote: »

I apologise for my poor choice of words. Everyone is, of course, entitled to their opinion and a good, fair debate is always good for progress (and for intellectual stimulation).

Talking about a system that is dead in the water, always has been and always will be, is not progress, it's just the second best admitting that the only way they will be first is if they change the system so second best wins.

luvsnail wrote: »

The point is that AV would eliminate "strategic voting".

No it wouldn't, if people do vote for one party just to stop another party winning, giving them another two votes won't change anything. They will just vote for three parties just to stop one party winning.

luvsnail wrote: »

I've had so many flyers through my door saying, "Party X can't possibly win here. Voting for Party X will only let Party Z win. Party Y is your only alternative", and sadly it's true. People in my constituency are afraid to vote Labour because if they do it's a wasted vote, and they're "letting the Tories in".

That's complete rubbish, put about by the libdems to persuade people to vote for them instead of labour.

People know that NOT voting labour is the surest way to "let the tories in", they also know voting libdem is the surest way of letting the tories in. Giving them a second and third choice is not going to change the fact that they want labour to win. It's just to to make sure that if no party gets more than 50% of the votes, some of their votes will be given to the libdems.

luvsnail wrote: »

If I were to vote "Party X, but I'd rather have Party Z than Party Y" and you were to vote "Party Z or nothing", then yes - my vote would technically be counted twice whereas yours would be only once. But it's not unfair, because when the votes are counted the winner will be the most popular and the one that most people are happy with.

The winner won't be the most popular, because they will be many people's second choice. It will be unfair, because some people got two votes and others only got one.

One person, one vote. I don't ask to have more say in the choice of government than anyone else, and won't tolerate anyone else having more say than me. When it comes to voting for the government, we are all equal, and we won't have it any other way.

luvsnail wrote: »

Well, yes. Those who are favoured by the current system are hardly going to want it changed.

Everyone is favoured by the system equally, everybody gets one vote and the party that gets the most votes wins, every other party are losers.

Every party has the same opportunity to persuade people to vote for them. If they can't do that then tough, they aren't going to win. And it's not the systems fault, it's their's.

callum9999

luvsnail wrote: »

You should be thankful this is about something as trivial as chocolate bars. The real travesty is that the same broken system is used to elect the "nation's favourite" government. Thanks to an avalanche of idiocy on referendum day it seems it's going to stay that way for quite some time!

(And no, the chocolate bar poll was not done by AV. Despite the deliberate misunderstanding of the "No" campaign, AV is not about letting people vote more than once - effectively what happened here. A true AV poll would count the votes in such a way that the eventual winner would be the chocolate bar that at least 50% of the voters would be happy to describe as the "nation's favourite", even if it's not their personal first choice).

I have to agree with ariba10 though - Dairy Milk is probably better described as solidified sugary milk rather than chocolate!

OK, rant over - resume Bank Holiday chocolate consumption! :A

Yet another person who thinks they know what's best for everyone in a country full of idiots... Of course, it's not possible people just have different opinions to you, you must have the only right one... Why don't you do us all a favour and forcibly take power? We clearly need someone to tell us what we think.

And yes, saying the most popular is the nations favourite is perfectly valid. It doesn't have to be the favourite of the majority to be classed as the favourite. It would have more justification as a claim if it did, but there not being a majority doesn't remove it.

luvsnail

callum9999 wrote: »

Yet another person who thinks they know what's best for everyone in a country full of idiots... Of course, it's not possible people just have different opinions to you, you must have the only right one... Why don't you do us all a favour and forcibly take power? We clearly need someone to tell us what we think.

I believe we already have that.

In all seriousness though, nearly everyone who voted in the referendum - whether they voted yes or no - did so because they thought they knew what was best for the country. I know I did, and I'm willing to bet you did as well.

As geordie joe has already said, this is all moot now since the referendum is over and done with. I still believe that AV would have provided a fairer voting system for everyone (yes, even the people with different political opinions to my own), but I'm prepared to accept that it was naïve of me to think a fair system was a good idea.

Dairy Milk is the nation's favourite chocolate, David Cameron is the nation's favourite PM, and the rest of us (i.e. the majority) will just have to learn to live with it. :beer: