MSE News: Dairy Milk is nation's favourite chocolate bar
Options
Comments
-
JimmyTheWig wrote: »Other way round.
Chocolate biscuits attract VAT but chocolate cakes don't.
Jaffa Cakes are cakes and so they don't pay VAT.
why don't they re-name bourbon biscuits to bourbon cakes?0 -
It's a compromise.
The problem with compromise is nobody gets what they voted for.
If everyone's 2nd and 3rd choices are counted from the beginning, you wouldn't end up with a fair representation of opinion.
Of course you would, it doesn't matter if you give everybody 1 vote, 2 votes, 3 votes or even 4 votes, as long as they are ALL counted.
Once you start giving some people more votes than others it becomes UNFAIR.
I don't care how you try to explain it, you still come across as a loser trying to change the system to give yourself a second chance.
You sound like a primary school teacher judging an egg and spoon race. Saying "Sorry Johnny, I know you ran the fastest, and you crossed the line first with your egg still in your spoon.........But James dropped his egg, so I am going to give him a second chance. If he makes it to the finish line, on his second chance, in a faster time than you did I will give him the prize instead of you. And if he doesn't, I'll give him a third chance".0 -
It's not just the name.why don't they re-name bourbon biscuits to bourbon cakes?
If I remember rightly the two important parts of the proof were...
1. They baked an extra large Jaffa Cake. People agreed that it looked like a cake.
2. Cakes go hard when old; biscuits go soft when old. Jaffa Cakes go hard when old and so are cakes.
An extra large Bourbon would look like a large biscuit.
An old Bourbon goes soft.
Therefore it's a biscuit.0 -
geordie_joe wrote: »The problem with compromise is nobody gets what they voted for.
That's not the case at all. The point of AV is that the winner will always be the one who has majority approval.geordie_joe wrote:Of course you would, it doesn't matter if you give everybody 1 vote, 2 votes, 3 votes or even 4 votes, as long as they are ALL counted.
Once you start giving some people more votes than others it becomes UNFAIR.
It's like you're trying not to understand (not terribly surprising, since every single claim made by the "No" campaign was either a deliberate misunderstanding or a truthless scare tactic). The main reason AV is a fairer system was highlighted by none other than yourself earlier in this thread:geordie_joe wrote:Here are the ten most popular chocolates that got a mention by users.- Dairy Milk 2,168 votes (15.5% of users)
How can you say it is the nations favourite when only 15.5% of people voted for it?
The way I see it is, 84.5% of voters didn't think it was their favourite.
You're absolutely spot on with this one and when I read your post I assumed you were an AV supporter, because this is exactly the problem that AV solves. Dairy Milk may well have "won the race", but if 84% of voters despise it then it would hardly be a fair choice for the top spot.
If Johnny runs the fastest and still has his egg intact, he's the winner - I have no problem with that.I don't care how you try to explain it, you still come across as a loser trying to change the system to give yourself a second chance.
You sound like a primary school teacher judging an egg and spoon race. Saying "Sorry Johnny, I know you ran the fastest, and you crossed the line first with your egg still in your spoon.........But James dropped his egg, so I am going to give him a second chance. If he makes it to the finish line, on his second chance, in a faster time than you did I will give him the prize instead of you. And if he doesn't, I'll give him a third chance".
The trouble is parliamentary elections are nothing like egg and spoon races. While I'm sure that irrelevant metaphors like this persuaded plenty of undecided voters to choose "no" on referendum day, they really don't hold any water.
AV doesn't give the loser a second chance, ever, so you can retire that broken record. The candidate with the least first-choice votes is immediately discounted and they don't get another chance until the next election. The candidate with the most first-choice votes is always at a significant advantage if counting goes to a second round (and rightly so).
Elections aren't about who can run the fastest or hold their egg the best - essentially they're a popularity contest. The winner shouldn't be the one who crosses an arbitrary line the soonest - it should be the one who the majority of voters are happy to have represent them in parliament. AV makes politicians work harder because they have to please a majority of their constituents in order to get elected (that's why it was the lazier politicians who spearheaded and funded the "No" campaign).0 -
That's not the case at all. The point of AV is that the winner will always be the one who has majority approval.
But he/she will still only be most people's second or third choice.It's like you're trying not to understand
No, it's like you're a loser and are desperately hanging onto a dead horse as you can see it's the only chance you have of not losing next time.(not terribly surprising, since every single claim made by the "No" campaign was either a deliberate misunderstanding or a truthless scare tactic). The main reason AV is a fairer system was highlighted by none other than yourself earlier in this thread:You're absolutely spot on with this one and when I read your post I assumed you were an AV supporter,
That's another thing you came second in then.because this is exactly the problem that AV solves.
Only if you twist the truth, which you are about to do.Dairy Milk may well have "won the race", but if 84% of voters despise it then it would hardly be a fair choice for the top spot.
Nobody said they despised it, they weren't even asked the question. It's perfectly possible to like dairy milk, but like another bar a little better so vote for that one.
One the one hand, you speak in favour of AV by saying people will get their second or third choice candidate as their MP.
But then you say, with first past the post people despise all the candidates that weren't their first choice.
You can't have it both way, either people will be happy with someone that wasn't their first choice, or they will despise all that weren't their first choice.If Johnny runs the fastest and still has his egg intact, he's the winner - I have no problem with that.
And what do we call all the other runners? Losers, they didn't win, therefore they lost.The trouble is parliamentary elections are nothing like egg and spoon races.
They are in the sense that the first past the post wins, and the losers don't get a second chance.While I'm sure that irrelevant metaphors like this persuaded plenty of undecided voters to choose "no" on referendum day, they really don't hold any water.
Yes they do hold water, elections are a first past the post race, that's what the majority voted for.AV doesn't give the loser a second chance, ever, so you can retire that broken record.
It's not a broken record, it's the truth. You have an election, one person wins and every other candidate loses. That is the end of it, the winner gets the prize and the other candidates go home with nothing.
Under AV, if the winner didn't get more than 50% of the votes the second choice votes would be counted, thus giving the losers a second chance.
So how the hell can you say "AV doesn't give the loser a second chance, ever"The candidate with the least first-choice votes is immediately discounted and they don't get another chance until the next election. The candidate with the most first-choice votes is always at a significant advantage if counting goes to a second round (and rightly so).
How can you say that, he was the winner, he had the prize in the bag, he had the job, the seat in parliament, he was the winner.
Then you say count more votes, and now he's not the winner, he's having to run the race again to defend his prize. How can you claim that is an advantage?Elections aren't about who can run the fastest or hold their egg the best - essentially they're a popularity contest. The winner shouldn't be the one who crosses an arbitrary line the soonest - it should be the one who the majority of voters are happy to have represent them in parliament.
But you said people despise all but their first choice under the current system, what makes you think they will stop despising them and start being happy with them under AV?AV makes politicians work harder because they have to please a majority of their constituents in order to get elected (that's why it was the lazier politicians who spearheaded and funded the "No" campaign).
No, under the present system they have to work to be their constituents first, and only choice. Under AV they would only need to work to get in their constituents top 3. They would only really need to get enough first choice votes to stop them being the candidate with the least number of votes, then they could pick up a lot of second choice votes and win.
But then again, why should we have the candidate with the most votes as an MP, you have already said the vast majority of people were wrong when they voted to keep first past the post.
You can't have it both ways, you can't argue for a way to get what the majority want by stating that the majority were wrong when they voted.0 -
geordie_joe wrote: »But he/she will still only be most people's second or third choice.
Chances are they'd have a big chunk of first-choice votes as well, after all they do get counted first (and are therefore most important).geordie_joe wrote:Nobody said they despised it, they weren't even asked the question.
Exactly, and if we don't ask the right questions we'll never truly know what people think.geordie_joe wrote:One the one hand, you speak in favour of AV by saying people will get their second or third choice candidate as their MP. But then you say, with first past the post people despise all the candidates that weren't their first choice.
The example of everyone or most people despising one or other of the candidates was - as I clearly called it in my first explanatory post - an "extreme example". This obviously won't be the case every time. Under AV, the winner would be some people's first choice, some people's second choice and maybe some people's third choice. The point is that eliminates the candidates that are the last choice for the majority of voters.geordie_joe wrote:You can't have it both way, either people will be happy with someone that wasn't their first choice, or they will despise all that weren't their first choice.
Correct, and both types of voter are fairly represented under AV.geordie_joe wrote:You have an election, one person wins and every other candidate loses. That is the end of it, the winner gets the prize and the other candidates go home with nothing.
This is true of both systems. The difference with AV is that it prevents the least popular candidates being declared "the winner". (Yes, the candidate with the most votes under FPtP can sometimes be the least popular overall. On the other hand, they could also be the most popular, and so using AV wouldn't change the result. It's exactly as you said above, we have no way of knowing if people aren't asked the question.)geordie_joe wrote:But you said people despise all but their first choice under the current system, what makes you think they will stop despising them and start being happy with them under AV?
No, most people probably don't think like that, but FPtP makes no distinction between "despised" and "an acceptable compromise". Don't ask, don't know.geordie_joe wrote:No, under the present system they have to work to be their constituents first, and only choice. Under AV they would only need to work to get in their constituents top 3.
The first choice is far, far more important than any others. If there's a clear majority, the 2nd and 3rd choices don't even need to be counted. But think about it - even if a candidate has only done enough to be either "best" or "better than the alternative" in most people's eyes, doesn't that still make them a good candidate?geordie_joe wrote:But then again, why should we have the candidate with the most votes as an MP, you have already said the vast majority of people were wrong when they voted to keep first past the post.
I wouldn't dare contest the result of the referendum. All along I've been fighting to make sure the majority are properly represented, and if it turned out the majority disagreed with my own views, that was the price I was willing to pay for a fairer democracy. Under AV I still might not have been happy with who ended up in power, but at least I'd know they got there because it's what the majority wanted.
In all honesty I accept that AV is a relatively complex system, but I don't think it's beyond the understanding of the British public. I think one of the biggest nails in AV's coffin was the public support from Nick Clegg. The Lib Dems' popularity must be at an all-time low (even amongst Lib Dem supporters), and since Clegg spoke out, people must be thinking, "This is a Lib Dem thing, I don't want to vote for anything that helps the Lib Dems". In truth, AV would only help the Lib Dems in constituencies where they still hold popularity (and let's face it, there can't be many of them left). But I suspect the feeling of "Lib Dems must votes yes, Tories and Labours must vote no" was at least partly responsible for the roughly 70/30 split, and we would probably have all been better off if all the politicians (for or against) had just shut up and let the people decide.
For me, this was never about loyalty to any specific party (I have none), but about ensuring that whoever was elected was elected for the right reasons. This probably wasn't true for everyone in the "Yes" campaign, and it certainly wasn't true for those in the "No" campaign. But it was for me.
Now AV is dead, there are still other changes that could help make UK politics a little bit fairer. An elected House of Lords seems a popular suggestion at the moment. Could that ever work?0 -
Chances are they'd have a big chunk of first-choice votes as well,
But not the biggest chunk. The whole point of voting is the person with the biggest chunk of votes wins.after all they do get counted first (and are therefore most important).
So, now you are saying some votes are more valuable than others. Sorry mate, I'm a free born Englishman, my vote is just as important as anyone else's, no more and no less.Exactly, and if we don't ask the right questions we'll never truly know what people think.
But we do ask the right question "Who do you want to give your vote to". It's a straight forward question and that is what we want.
We don't want to be asked "Who do you want to give your vote to, and if they don't win who do you want to give it to, and if they are bottom of the list and get dropped, who do you want to give it to them"?The example of everyone or most people despising one or other of the candidates was - as I clearly called it in my first explanatory post - an "extreme example".
So why keep using it, it is an extreme example and unlikely to happen.This obviously won't be the case every time.
I don't think it will be the case at any time. I can't see a time when voters will vote for one person and despise all the others.Under AV, the winner would be some people's first choice, some people's second choice and maybe some people's third choice.
But that's the way it is now, people vote for one party, but think if they couldn't vote for that party they would vote for another one (their second choice). If the other one wins then they just think "Oh well, my second choice won"The point is that eliminates the candidates that are the last choice for the majority of voters.
The current system does that, it eliminates the last choice, second last choice, third last choice, LibDems and all the rest. It eliminates everyone except the winner.Correct, and both types of voter are fairly represented under AV.
No voter is fairly represented under AV, some get one vote and others get more than one vote.This is true of both systems. The difference with AV is that it prevents the least popular candidates being declared "the winner".
No, the present system prevents the least popular from being the winner, in facts it prevents all but the most popular being the winner.(Yes, the candidate with the most votes under FPtP can sometimes be the least popular overall.
Don't be stupid, the person with the most votes can NEVER be the least popular, there will always be others who got less votes, and therefore are even less popular.On the other hand, they could also be the most popular,
There's no could about it, they got the most votes.and so using AV wouldn't change the result.
So why bother with it?It's exactly as you said above, we have no way of knowing if people aren't asked the question.)
We are asking the right question, we ask "Who do you want to represent you", no other question matters.No, most people probably don't think like that, but FPtP makes no distinction between "despised" and "an acceptable compromise". Don't ask, don't know.
And there should not be a comprise, the question is "who do you want", not "who do you NOT want" or "who do you like" or "who do you despise".
It's plain and simple, you got one vote to elect one candidate, who do you want to give your vote to?The first choice is far, far more important than any others.
It is the only choice that matters, a second choice is only for losers and !!!!!! that can't make up their mind.If there's a clear majority, the 2nd and 3rd choices don't even need to be counted.
No, if tyhere is a clear winner, and there always is, no other votes need to be caste, or counted.But think about it - even if a candidate has only done enough to be either "best" or "better than the alternative" in most people's eyes, doesn't that still make them a good candidate?
It makes them second best, and that is not good enough. Unless you happen to be second best, then youm have to shout that second best is good enough.I wouldn't dare contest the result of the referendum.
yet you are here telling people it was wrong!All along I've been fighting to make sure the majority are properly represented, and if it turned out the majority disagreed with my own views, that was the price I was willing to pay for a fairer democracy.
What do you mean "if it turned out the majority disagreed with my own views"? It has happened, the majority did disagree with your views.Under AV I still might not have been happy with who ended up in power, but at least I'd know they got there because it's what the majority wanted.
Hang on, aren't you the person that wanted AV and in post 18 described the vote against it as "Thanks to an avalanche of idiocy on referendum day"But the majority may have preferred another party, but have to settle for second best.
We don't want to settle for second best, we want the winner.In all honesty I accept that AV is a relatively complex system, but I don't think it's beyond the understanding of the British public.
We ALL understand it, what you don't understand is WE DON'T WANT IT.I think one of the biggest nails in AV's coffin was the public support from Nick Clegg. The Lib Dems' popularity must be at an all-time low (even amongst Lib Dem supporters), and since Clegg spoke out, people must be thinking, "This is a Lib Dem thing, I don't want to vote for anything that helps the Lib Dems". In truth, AV would only help the Lib Dems in constituencies where they still hold popularity (and let's face it, there can't be many of them left). But I suspect the feeling of "Lib Dems must votes yes, Tories and Labours must vote no" was at least partly responsible for the roughly 70/30 split, and we would probably have all been better off if all the politicians (for or against) had just shut up and let the people decide.
It had nothing to do with what party supported what, or which politician supported what. The people were asked how they would like to elect MP's and they gave their answer.
It was never about who do you support, it was about how do you want to indicate who you support.For me, this was never about loyalty to any specific party (I have none), but about ensuring that whoever was elected was elected for the right reasons.
Cobblers, if you were concerned about people getting elected for the right reasons then you would support one person, one votr, one winner.This probably wasn't true for everyone in the "Yes" campaign, and it certainly wasn't true for those in the "No" campaign. But it was for me.
There you go again, saying it was "certainly wasn't true for those in the "No" campaign".
People who voted in a different way to your were wrong, and you can't get past that.Now AV is dead,
At last! You voted in favour of AV, and lost, the majority of people voted the other way. Just leave it at that.there are still other changes that could help make UK politics a little bit fairer. An elected House of Lords seems a popular suggestion at the moment. Could that ever work?
No, if we had an elected house of lords we would just have two houses of commons. Both full of people who promised the people they would do something if they were elected, and had no intention of ever doing it if they did get elected.
If you want to make UK politics a little bit fairer, make it compulsory for everyone to vote.
The majority of people in this kingdom don't vote, so to take your example, if they don't vote for them they despise them. So obviously, whoever gets in the majority of people despise them.
Even under AV, the majority of people would despise whoever won.0 -
geordie_joe wrote: »But not the biggest chunk. The whole point of voting is the person with the biggest chunk of votes wins.
Quite possibly the biggest chunk. If you think about it, the candidate with the most first-choice votes is most likely to win, unless there is an overwhelming amount of opposition to them.geordie_joe wrote:So, now you are saying some votes are more valuable than others. Sorry mate, I'm a free born Englishman, my vote is just as important as anyone else's, no more and no less.
...
No voter is fairly represented under AV, some get one vote and others get more than one vote.
Under AV, nobody's vote is more important than anyone else's vote. What I said was that a particular person's first choice vote is more important than that same person's second choice. I don't know why you're obsessed with the idea that AV gives some people more votes than others. Everyone gets one ballot paper - the same ballot paper. Everyone can rank the candidates in their order of preference. Every ballot paper gets counted the same way. No-one's threatening your Englishness.geordie_joe wrote:So why keep using it, it is an extreme example and unlikely to happen.
It's a simplified example. It just helps to illustrate the benefits of AV without having to track a dozen candidates and a hundred thousand voters' varying preferences.geordie_joe wrote:I don't think it will be the case at any time. I can't see a time when voters will vote for one person and despise all the others.
No, me neither. That's why ranking the candidates is better than being forced to pick one. The "extreme example" had some voters despising one candidate and ranking the rest.geordie_joe wrote:But that's the way it is now, people vote for one party, but think if they couldn't vote for that party they would vote for another one (their second choice). If the other one wins then they just think "Oh well, my second choice won"
The current system does that, it eliminates the last choice, second last choice, third last choice, LibDems and all the rest. It eliminates everyone except the winner.
Not really. The "winner" in my constituency in the last General Election was probably bottom of the pile for most people. Obviously he only got a minority of votes, but because the majority of voters couldn't reach a consensus under FPtP, he still sits in Parliament claiming to represent us.geordie_joe wrote:What do you mean "if it turned out the majority disagreed with my own views"? It has happened, the majority did disagree with your views.
In the referendum, yes. In the part you quoted I was talking about parliamentary elections. I suspect the majority of people in my area agree with me when I say that our MP is not fit to represent us - but without a proper vote we can't really say either way.geordie_joe wrote:Hang on, aren't you the person that wanted AV and in post 18 described the vote against it as "Thanks to an avalanche of idiocy on referendum day"
I've already apologised for my bad choice of words there. If I thought you were a complete idiot I wouldn't be wasting my time trying to explain my point of view to you.geordie_joe wrote:We ALL understand it, what you don't understand is WE DON'T WANT IT.
The referendum proved that people don't want it, I understand that perfectly. All I'm trying to do is put forward the reasons why it would have been a good idea. As for everyone understanding it, I'm sure there are plenty who don't. And for every one who doesn't, I'm sure there are more who just don't care and would rather stick with the tried and tested (and arguably found wanting) system. They're not idiots. Let's be honest, AV is complicated! To those without some background in statistics I can understand that it seems pretty counterintuitive too.geordie_joe wrote:It was never about who do you support, it was about how do you want to indicate who you support.
And you speak for everyone? I'm sure plenty of people approached the referendum the same way as you and I, but it's not difficult to imagine others being swayed by the parties backing each side.geordie_joe wrote:At last! You voted in favour of AV, and lost, the majority of people voted the other way. Just leave it at that.
I'm a pretty optimistic guy, so I can always see the positive outcome. If UK democracy was fair, just and flawless, the satire industry would fall on its face!
So, moving on...geordie_joe wrote:No, if we had an elected house of lords we would just have two houses of commons. Both full of people who promised the people they would do something if they were elected, and had no intention of ever doing it if they did get elected.
There does seem to be a big problem of accountability, in that nothing's holding the politicians to account if they don't do as they promise. In my lifetime I've seen major promises broken by the Tories, by Labour and now finally by the Lib Dems as well, so if none of the Big Three can be trusted, maybe it's time we found a way to enforce it.
Of course, with the Lords not being elected they don't really have any commitment to the public anyway. In fact, you could let the Commons pick themselves as well - that way no-one would be breaking promises because they wouldn't even have to bother making any.geordie_joe wrote:If you want to make UK politics a little bit fairer, make it compulsory for everyone to vote.
The majority of people in this kingdom don't vote, so to take your example, if they don't vote for them they despise them. So obviously, whoever gets in the majority of people despise them.
Apathy could well be a bigger threat to politics than corruption. I think you're onto something - everyone despises politicians, whoever they are!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.8K Spending & Discounts
- 235.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards