so, in the runup to the may local elections and the referendum on AV, i'm here to write a political post, as i'm sure you'll really care about.
so yeah, i've been getting pretty irritated recently with people saying things like 'AV will give the BNP more power' and 'but the person who loses can win...?' these are obvious fallacies and their use in the no campain clips invoke this response:
this is for a number of reasons, i shall recount:
the BNP themselves are asking their supporters for a no vote, this is because while they are the first choice of a deluded few, this will never amount to 50% and they are the second choice of none. this is an obvious benefit of AV over both PR and first past the post.
and the idea that you can lose but still win is true, but only in the most narrow minded of senses. the loser does not win, instead the barrier is simply moved from the indistinct and unfair on the majority 'whoever is the most people's first preference' to the distinctly more representative 50%, meaning that at least half the population of an area must be happy with their rule to be elected, where before you could be elected on, say ~20%
rant over, tl;dr: no to av people are lieing to you. provably (see above ^)
if you have a valid point for disagreeing, or for that matter agreeing, post below ↓ discussion is good.
