Evening all
I'm going to be responding to a post on another blog, which can be found here.
Little Miss Giggles pointed me at this, knowing my views - so I've bitten, and I'm going to try and rationally debate the answers. Yes, on the internet. No, the other one does not have bells on.
It's a serious of questions, which Raggady Man put to the No to AV campaign and he wasn't happy with the answers. I can't blame him, I'm not either. But there are answers, which I'm going to attempt to give.
Now, question one - I don't see a need to respond to. The motivation to put "None of your taxes have been used to print this leaflet" could be almost anything - and it's not really a contentious point, really. A little dirty... but not one word that wasn't true. So let's leave that...
Question 2:...on the front page you claim that the current First Past The Post system gives one person one vote. However according to http://www.voterpower.org.uk/ with the First Past The Post system and the dominance of one party in my area I actually have around 0.25% of a vote. Can your further explain how, when my vote will be discounted if/when I don't vote for the local dominant party, I actually even have a vote worth casting in the next election.
Answer
Well, the official answer sucked - yes, the people who made the website are partisan. This does not allow you to ignore the point.
The point is in the current system, some votes aren't worth the same. Ignoring the strict, 1=1 point, this is to a degree, true. I've lived in areas that I couldn't change the outcome so much as a bean. However, does AV make this any better? Let us examine some cases in a hypothetical election...
Out right winner
1) If the majority party has more then 51% of the vote, under AV your vote matters exactly as much under FPTP as AV.
Your party won...
2) If you voted for the A party, and they win (and were the largest party) the value of your vote was the same.
3) If you voted for Party A and they won, and didn't have the most 1st priority votes cast, your vote is worth the MORE.
4) If you voted for Party B and they lost, but did have the most votes at stage 1, your vote is now worth LESS.
5) If you voted for party B and they lost and didn't have the most votes at stage 1, your vote is still the same.
Your n+1 choice won (not out right)
6) ...and your first choice was eliminated, your vote is worth more!
7) ...and your first choice is still in the running your vote is worth..less.
Someone you didn't vote for wins (not out right)
8) ...and they had the most in the first round, your vote is worth the same.
9) ...and they didn't win the first round, this just gets madly complicated. But probably balanced.
Now, my point here by listing all these possible outcomes is that the answer to the question of "Is my vote worth more with AV" the answer may be yes or no. It's complicated. But for every situation where your vote is "worth more", there is another where it is "worth less".
And for added fun, one of the most marginal seats in existence is Crawley. In 2005 there was a majority of 37. And in that seat, your vote is worth...according to http://www.voterpower.org.uk/crawley - 0.932, increasing to 0.952.
In a constituency where some voters have more pets then the winning candidate had majority voters your vote isn't worth 1.
The very metric that this site is using is flawed, because the only "perfect" situation is where there is only a majority of 1 - and that's you, alone, on an island.
According to the numbers on the page itself, swapping to AV increase the number of "marginal" seats by 6.4%.
So, really, 6.4% of people's votes are worth more.
And the people whose votes are worth the most are the minority parties - because they are the parties who will always get re-assigned.
The smaller the party, the more extreme, weird and odd the issues they consider important.
Are they the people we want to have the deciding vote?
The prank vote, the protest vote, the single issue parties?
---
Depending on response, may/may not continue with the rest of the questions - I'm out of time!
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Windows Server 2008, oh the pain
Morning all
How's this for infuriating. You're running windows server 2008 and you want to download linux. Not for the server, but because you're going to stick it on the netbook. Sounds reasonable, right?
Well, there's a slight catch. You see, Server has an "enhanced security configuration" for its built in internet explorer.
This means that every time you try and download something that's even vaguely risky - like, say, linux - it asks you to add the site to a list of exceptions. Fine, yes, you can add thee site.
But places like ubuntu have mirrors - that is, multiple sites that take it in turns to download the file to you - because they're fairly hefty files. But every time you click it gives you another, different mirror.
So I think fine, sod this - I'm downloading firefox. A browser that I can use. But.... no. Instead I get exactly the same problem. So I end up running my main machine overnight, when one of the explicit reasons I have it is to manage large downloads like this because it uses next to no power.
But no.
Server.
FAIL!
How's this for infuriating. You're running windows server 2008 and you want to download linux. Not for the server, but because you're going to stick it on the netbook. Sounds reasonable, right?
Well, there's a slight catch. You see, Server has an "enhanced security configuration" for its built in internet explorer.
This means that every time you try and download something that's even vaguely risky - like, say, linux - it asks you to add the site to a list of exceptions. Fine, yes, you can add thee site.
But places like ubuntu have mirrors - that is, multiple sites that take it in turns to download the file to you - because they're fairly hefty files. But every time you click it gives you another, different mirror.
So I think fine, sod this - I'm downloading firefox. A browser that I can use. But.... no. Instead I get exactly the same problem. So I end up running my main machine overnight, when one of the explicit reasons I have it is to manage large downloads like this because it uses next to no power.
But no.
Server.
FAIL!
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Telepathy - What would it really be like?
You see it in many science fiction stories, fantasy programs - heck, every now and again it makes it into mainstream fiction!
But what would it be like, to be with someone who could read your mind? And what if you could read theirs?
I don't have to guess. I know.
For, you see, I'd taken Little Miss Giggles to a games weekend at her parents place. And there was a gentleman by the name of Bester.
Now, I've never actually played with Bester before, except while approaching that point of tiredness during which I can fall asleep in the 30 seconds between someone starts shuffling cards and dealing them.
So we started playing a game of "God's Playground" with him. Now, there's a secret bidding mechanic in this game. And if you both bid the same amount, you have to bid again - and all the extra resources are lost.
This is a four round game. So, we should have had 4 silent bids - but we didn't.
We had more than 20.
Every single time the deadlock wasn't broken by one of us making a mistake, the other out thinking us or by some fluke. It was by the other person deciding this was getting silly and deliberately not playing.
This is different from the (3? 5?) times when we both decided, at the same time, to bid 0.
Still, eventually the game ended and we went onto another, called Carson City.
By this point we were firmly in each others heads. We knew what the other player was doing. What he was thinking. Why he was doing everything.
We had to waste actions not because we wanted to do something. But because we'd seen things the other player could not be allowed to do, so they had to be stopped. And we knew that they had seen this option - because they had.
Yes, that paragraph was confusing. It was confusing because we were thinking in lines so similar that the other player of the game just didn't know what we were talking about.
At the end we were talking about what his final moves should be in semi-code. Not because we wanted to be secretive, but because the other player already knew. All you had to do was mention that "The hidden four pointer was better".
That is, the 4 point move that was hidden because the 3rd player had covered it with their hand.
So I know what telepathy is like.
It's damned annoying.
But what would it be like, to be with someone who could read your mind? And what if you could read theirs?
I don't have to guess. I know.
For, you see, I'd taken Little Miss Giggles to a games weekend at her parents place. And there was a gentleman by the name of Bester.
Now, I've never actually played with Bester before, except while approaching that point of tiredness during which I can fall asleep in the 30 seconds between someone starts shuffling cards and dealing them.
So we started playing a game of "God's Playground" with him. Now, there's a secret bidding mechanic in this game. And if you both bid the same amount, you have to bid again - and all the extra resources are lost.
This is a four round game. So, we should have had 4 silent bids - but we didn't.
We had more than 20.
Every single time the deadlock wasn't broken by one of us making a mistake, the other out thinking us or by some fluke. It was by the other person deciding this was getting silly and deliberately not playing.
This is different from the (3? 5?) times when we both decided, at the same time, to bid 0.
Still, eventually the game ended and we went onto another, called Carson City.
By this point we were firmly in each others heads. We knew what the other player was doing. What he was thinking. Why he was doing everything.
We had to waste actions not because we wanted to do something. But because we'd seen things the other player could not be allowed to do, so they had to be stopped. And we knew that they had seen this option - because they had.
Yes, that paragraph was confusing. It was confusing because we were thinking in lines so similar that the other player of the game just didn't know what we were talking about.
At the end we were talking about what his final moves should be in semi-code. Not because we wanted to be secretive, but because the other player already knew. All you had to do was mention that "The hidden four pointer was better".
That is, the 4 point move that was hidden because the 3rd player had covered it with their hand.
So I know what telepathy is like.
It's damned annoying.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Rage at the Radio
I'm a huge fan of radio 4, any questions and any answers specificly. despite the rage that it causes me.
But I've just sat through both and, as far as I'm concerned, EVERY SINGLE PERSON managed to miss the point on an issue.
True, I normally disagree with most people about a lot of things. But maybe I just take a long view. But yes, xx number of years after a sex crime, yes, the culprit should have a chance to be removed from the sex offenders register.
Not because of "fundamental human rights". I'm not a huge fan of them, as currently implemented.
Not because of rehabilitation - the justice system may or may not rehabilitate. To rehabilitate there must be the acceptance that it's possible - but the point of the system varies from society to society.
Not even on the insanity of keeping people with dementia on the list.
No, but because things that are a sex crime change. Fifty years ag0 - within the lifetime of a decent part of the population, homosexuality was a crime. Now, it's not. So someone who was a sex criminal then wouldn't now warrant more then raised eyebrows.
Right now there are some serious oddities in our legal system. It's a crime to be *sent* a picture of naked girl less then 18 years old. That is, if a 17 year old girl sent a naked picture which she took herself to her boyfriend, he is committing a crime.
It's lunacy I expect to be fixed at some point. But people caught by this are by definition sex offenders.
Our definition of what is a sex crime changes; so we should review - if it's not still a crime, they don't need to be registered.
Muppets.
But I've just sat through both and, as far as I'm concerned, EVERY SINGLE PERSON managed to miss the point on an issue.
True, I normally disagree with most people about a lot of things. But maybe I just take a long view. But yes, xx number of years after a sex crime, yes, the culprit should have a chance to be removed from the sex offenders register.
Not because of "fundamental human rights". I'm not a huge fan of them, as currently implemented.
Not because of rehabilitation - the justice system may or may not rehabilitate. To rehabilitate there must be the acceptance that it's possible - but the point of the system varies from society to society.
Not even on the insanity of keeping people with dementia on the list.
No, but because things that are a sex crime change. Fifty years ag0 - within the lifetime of a decent part of the population, homosexuality was a crime. Now, it's not. So someone who was a sex criminal then wouldn't now warrant more then raised eyebrows.
Right now there are some serious oddities in our legal system. It's a crime to be *sent* a picture of naked girl less then 18 years old. That is, if a 17 year old girl sent a naked picture which she took herself to her boyfriend, he is committing a crime.
It's lunacy I expect to be fixed at some point. But people caught by this are by definition sex offenders.
Our definition of what is a sex crime changes; so we should review - if it's not still a crime, they don't need to be registered.
Muppets.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Jelly on radio 4
Now I'm grumpy.
Not only do I have to be up and alert on the morning after a bank holiday, but the BBC are giving air time away to a politician to lie.
Turn on the radio and we hear a labour politician being asked "What don't you like about the VAT rise?". His answer, paraphrased slightly, was:
1) Because they promised not to (but they and the lib dems were going to increase national insurance.
2) Because it's regressive
3) Because it's a tax on jobs
All this and the presenter didn't even query any of them. Now, I know the general election was last year and people might not rememebr it that well. So lets look at these claims.
1) The conservatives very clearly said (at some cost) "We have no plans to increase VAT". But they didn't promise it - they were amazingly clear on this.
2) Regressive. Define regressive. This term now seems to mean "any policy we don't like" - if it doesn't actually benefit the target groups a politician cares about, it's regressive. It's a meaningless word, and I'll show you why.
Lets say that you're going to increase tax in such a way that someone earning 10,000 a year pays an extra £10 but someone earning £30,000 pays £30 extra - that sounds progressive, right? Well.... no. You can still call it regressive. Or progressive.
Yes, the rich are paying more - but so are the poor. Indeed, if the £30K person paid £20 more then labour would be dancing up and down, it's regressive, regressive! Because as a percent, the rich are paying less of their income.
So to pass this test the poor both must pay less in absolute terms and as a percentage of income. Which makes virtually any cut you think of making regressive. Which is surprisingly difficult.
Oh, and the third point, about a tax on jobs? All taxes cost jobs. National Insurance is paid by both employers and employees. So, by definition, any increase is an actual tax on jobs.
VAT increases prices for everyone. So that's 2 actual lies and one meaningless statement - not even a follow up question.
An interview as hard of Jelly.
Not only do I have to be up and alert on the morning after a bank holiday, but the BBC are giving air time away to a politician to lie.
Turn on the radio and we hear a labour politician being asked "What don't you like about the VAT rise?". His answer, paraphrased slightly, was:
1) Because they promised not to (but they and the lib dems were going to increase national insurance.
2) Because it's regressive
3) Because it's a tax on jobs
All this and the presenter didn't even query any of them. Now, I know the general election was last year and people might not rememebr it that well. So lets look at these claims.
1) The conservatives very clearly said (at some cost) "We have no plans to increase VAT". But they didn't promise it - they were amazingly clear on this.
2) Regressive. Define regressive. This term now seems to mean "any policy we don't like" - if it doesn't actually benefit the target groups a politician cares about, it's regressive. It's a meaningless word, and I'll show you why.
Lets say that you're going to increase tax in such a way that someone earning 10,000 a year pays an extra £10 but someone earning £30,000 pays £30 extra - that sounds progressive, right? Well.... no. You can still call it regressive. Or progressive.
Yes, the rich are paying more - but so are the poor. Indeed, if the £30K person paid £20 more then labour would be dancing up and down, it's regressive, regressive! Because as a percent, the rich are paying less of their income.
So to pass this test the poor both must pay less in absolute terms and as a percentage of income. Which makes virtually any cut you think of making regressive. Which is surprisingly difficult.
Oh, and the third point, about a tax on jobs? All taxes cost jobs. National Insurance is paid by both employers and employees. So, by definition, any increase is an actual tax on jobs.
VAT increases prices for everyone. So that's 2 actual lies and one meaningless statement - not even a follow up question.
An interview as hard of Jelly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)