Yes, I've no doubt you can go away and find a webpage somewhere which has a couple of inaccurate claims, or refers to FPTP with an unkind description.
Sort of moves the goalposts, don'tcha think? First I respond to the specific page provided above, which you decide is unfair because "it's not official." Not that you tell me what you would consider an "official" site. So I picked the site the Lib Dems put up, which I would think is close. So now it's "can go away and find a webpage." Pray tell: what actual source can I point to that you will agree is both "official" and a yardstick against which the Pro-AV forces can be judged? One notes that you haven't provided anything like this in your examples: you have paraphrased the arguments of others (without citing sources), and it's impossible for me to tell if you've done so uncharitably or not.
This tendency to hold others to standards that one would not for a moment think of applying to one's allies or oneself is the attitude that I find galling in many of the official (and unofficial) supporters of the Yes campaign. Disagreement of opinion I find enjoyable. Sanctimony is not.
Maybe I'm biased because I have a point of view - but then, maybe you are too :)
Perhaps. Then again, I'm not particularly partisan for FPTP. When I was a TA, I had to teach an entire unit on voting theory. I'm fond of Arrow's theorum that roughly states that there is no perfect voting system: it's a matter of trade offs. I'm marginally more partial to FPTP, but I recognize that it has its weaknesses.
That said: any theory of political malfeasance that says (a) it's a horrible travesty to link AV to potentially higher spending, cuts in services, etc. (which I agree are not necessary outcomes of AV, although each falls in the "possible but unlikely" category) but (b) it is not equally morally bankrupt to link the adoption of AV to the relatively strong economic Australian performance after the financial crisis, or to state that the most populous democracy in the world is using a "discredited" system to chose its members is one that, if it is following a system of consistent principals at all, follows one that I cannot divine.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2011-04-18 10:32 pm (UTC)Sort of moves the goalposts, don'tcha think? First I respond to the specific page provided above, which you decide is unfair because "it's not official." Not that you tell me what you would consider an "official" site. So I picked the site the Lib Dems put up, which I would think is close. So now it's "can go away and find a webpage." Pray tell: what actual source can I point to that you will agree is both "official" and a yardstick against which the Pro-AV forces can be judged? One notes that you haven't provided anything like this in your examples: you have paraphrased the arguments of others (without citing sources), and it's impossible for me to tell if you've done so uncharitably or not.
This tendency to hold others to standards that one would not for a moment think of applying to one's allies or oneself is the attitude that I find galling in many of the official (and unofficial) supporters of the Yes campaign. Disagreement of opinion I find enjoyable. Sanctimony is not.
Maybe I'm biased because I have a point of view - but then, maybe you are too :)
Perhaps. Then again, I'm not particularly partisan for FPTP. When I was a TA, I had to teach an entire unit on voting theory. I'm fond of Arrow's theorum that roughly states that there is no perfect voting system: it's a matter of trade offs. I'm marginally more partial to FPTP, but I recognize that it has its weaknesses.
That said: any theory of political malfeasance that says (a) it's a horrible travesty to link AV to potentially higher spending, cuts in services, etc. (which I agree are not necessary outcomes of AV, although each falls in the "possible but unlikely" category) but (b) it is not equally morally bankrupt to link the adoption of AV to the relatively strong economic Australian performance after the financial crisis, or to state that the most populous democracy in the world is using a "discredited" system to chose its members is one that, if it is following a system of consistent principals at all, follows one that I cannot divine.