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

bylromarha

Can MSE team PLEASE remove the picture of the dairy milk from the side of the main forum site?

I've just chowed down on a Dairy Milk that I found in the cupboard that I would never have thought about if the picture wasn't there prompting the thought.

No good for my money nor my waistline!

geordie_joe

luvsnail wrote: »

I still believe that AV would have provided a fairer voting system for everyone

This is the one point I can't understand, how can counting some people's second choice, and not counting other people's second choice be fair.

If AV meant that, when nobody got more than 50% of the votes, they count EVERYONE'S second choice, I would think that was fair. But only counting the second choice of those who voted for the loser is just wrong.

All it is, is a bunch of losers trying desperately to change the system so they get a second chance.

If you can't run fast enough to win the race, don't campaign to change the rules so the loser wins, LEARN TO RUN FASTER!

luvsnail

geordie_joe wrote: »

This is the one point I can't understand, how can counting some people's second choice, and not counting other people's second choice be fair.

It's a compromise. Picture the scenario where we're voting between just three candidates - A, B and C. A fair majority hate Candidate C (his party has some extremely controversial policies), but within that majority some think Candidate A is the best alternative and some think Candidate B.

It's entirely possible they'll end up with roughly a third of the vote each. One third who actually like Candidate C, and the two thirds majority who can't stand him. Let's say the totals end up like this:

• Candidate A - 33%
• Candidate B - 32%
• Candidate C - 35%

Under FPtP, Candidate C is simply declared the winner, and 65% of the voters are utterly cheesed off (this is not far removed from what actually happened in my consituency at the last General Election).

Under AV, since there's no clear majority from the first choice votes, the second choices of those voting for B are counted. Since C is so hated, assume that most of them put A as their second choice. Now Candidate A is the winner, and the 65+% majority are either ecstatic or reasonably satisfied. Only the 35% minority is cheesed off. This is clearly a fairer representation of the voters' wishes.

The system still works if you love C, tolerate B and despise A, or any other combination. If you really love A but can't stand anyone else, then you can just vote A. Your vote still counts as much as anyone else's, and if it goes to a second round of counting then your vote is still helping A reach the majority mark.

If everyone's 2nd and 3rd choices are counted from the beginning, you wouldn't end up with a fair representation of opinion. You'd have a clusterfudge, much like the chocolate poll (see? we're not off-topic really), where everyone's second choices cancel out everyone else's, and you'd be unlikely to find a majority winner. The votes for the top 10 chocolate bars are so evenly distributed that the winner isn't really the winner at all. That's not fair, because if the majority of people voting for one of the chocolates that didn't make the top 10 think that Galaxy would be a better contender for the top spot, the poll result just doesn't reflect what people really wanted.

Sorry, I know this was long, and I'm not the best at explaining things, but I hope this goes some way towards explaining why AV supporters describe the system as "fair". Note that the above is a pretty extreme example. In many polls, there would simply be a majority in the first round of counting, and in others there may be many more rounds. The point is that AV fairly represents the views of everyone - whether you hate all candidates bar one or you'd be happy with any from a list of 5 - it keeps counting until a winner is found that the majority are happy with.

thor

Referendum this, AV that blahblah.....and I thought this thread was about chocolate;)
Anyway out of that list here is my league table:

1. Wispa
2. Flake
3. Galaxy
4. Twirl
5. Marathon

and I would put Aero and Fry's Peppermint cream in there as well.
Out of the chocos now extinct, I wish someone would bring back Cabana!

luvsnail

ariba10 wrote: »

Practically any continental chocolate is better than Cadbury.

There is not enough cocoa in it to warrant it to be called chocolate.

Come to think of it, how did Milky Bar make it onto the list?

I probably would have voted for one of the Lindt Excellence bars, given the choice!

JimmyTheWig

luvsnail wrote: »

The votes for the top 10 chocolate bars are so evenly distributed that the winner isn't really the winner at all. That's not fair, because if the majority of people voting for one of the chocolates that didn't make the top 10 think that Galaxy would be a better contender for the top spot, the poll result just doesn't reflect what people really wanted.

Sorry, I know this was long, and I'm not the best at explaining things, but I hope this goes some way towards explaining why AV supporters describe the system as "fair".

I think that this is a great way of explaining things.

I'd bet, for example, that Wispa would come above Snickers if Wispa Gold wasn't a seperate candidate to vote for.

[Deleted User]

geordie_joe wrote: »

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.

Isn't this logic how McVities dodged paying millions every year in VAT from sales of Jaffa Cakes, by saying they're a biscuit not a cake?

geordie_joe

billbennett wrote: »

Isn't this logic how McVities dodged paying millions every year in VAT from sales of Jaffa Cakes, by saying they're a biscuit not a cake?

Yes, but in the end they were proved wrong.

luvsnail

geordie_joe wrote: »

Yes, but in the end they were proved wrong.

I think calling them "Jaffa Cakes" might have been their first mistake.

JimmyTheWig

billbennett wrote: »

Isn't this logic how McVities dodged paying millions every year in VAT from sales of Jaffa Cakes, by saying they're a biscuit not a cake?

Other way round.
Chocolate biscuits attract VAT but chocolate cakes don't.
Jaffa Cakes are cakes and so they don't pay VAT.