Re: Re: Re:Oh, how I laughed!

".... Ah, the same old arguments that were trotted out when we *DID* have a chance to change a broken electoral system...." Yes, because the "broken" system has been looked at before and recognised as not perfect, but no-one has come up with a solution that is good enough to persuade the general populance it is better. Hence we have old arguments. If AV cannot stand up to "old arguments" then it is simply not good enough either.

Let's say someone is wearing sandals and want to wade across a stream. They worry their feet are going to get wet. They have already considered wearing ballet pumps but reckon cloth will not be waterproof, hence their feet will still get wet. You propose trainers, flash sports ones, because you think they are really cool! But the wader points out they will be no more waterproof than sandals or ballet pumps. You don't think to suggest Wellies beacuse, in your mind, flash trainers are the ultimate footwear, all due to the advertising, so you simply lambast them for using "the same old arguments" in rejecting your trainers. You whine on and on about how your trainers are just SOOOOO cool, that you were cheated, etc, etc, and you insist that the wearer muct have been "scared" into not taking your trainers. The fact that the wader simply made a smart decision eludes you because you think THE TRAINERS ARE SO COOOOOOOOOL!!!! In short, the failure is yours, not the general public's.

Just because a system is imperfect, it does not mean replacing it with the trend au jour is going to be a better solution.