[StGeorge]

Er actually i dont, but you obviously miss my point.

A fanbase to hate is just as much a representative of the public as a fanbase to like.

This flies in the face of your assumptions as to what the WHOLE public want.

[Omen]

There should be no vote to save/win at all. The winner should be the least unpopular, most unnoticeable hm. That would be funny - it would be a shameful honour to be the winner. Lol.

[StGeorge]

As it happens Shiner, i agree that a VTE works exactly as you say, but only because it works in exactly the same as a VTS in that with multip;e HMs, the votes either way can be diluted.
ie: Corins fanbase would have to be so large to counter all the votes to evict her by voting for 4 more HMs to go than her.

Another example IMO is when Shabby picked Dave to go in the save & replace. This meant that Govan went up against the fans of two similar HMs and his fanbase just wasnt strong enough.
Again..ditto that with Sunshine against Shabby and Caoimhe.
Only two HM evictions give true reflection of the publics feeling.

Do you see my point now?

[Shiner]

Originally Posted by StGeorge

Er actually i dont, but you obviously miss my point.

A fanbase to hate is just as much a representative of the public as a fanbase to like.

This flies in the face of your assumptions as to what the WHOLE public want.

That's not my assumption at all. If a vote to evict (eliminate) was a fair way of doing it then we'd adopt it in general elections or other occasions where we need to know what consensus of the majority (not the entirety as you suggest) is.

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Shiner

That's not my assumption at all. If a vote to evict (eliminate) was a fair way of doing it then we'd adopt it in general elections or other occasions where we need to know what consensus of the majority (not the entirety as you suggest) is.

You said..and i quote:

"The disappointment is that last night's result is not representative of how the GBP feel "

I say that last nights result is a reflection of how the public felt in that more people voted out the likes of Corin than others like JJ2 etc. But that is because it was a VTE.

Elections have sod all to do with it. In a general election, the party with the most votes (fanbase) does not get to be in power as the last election showed. They have to have a majority yes vote over all the other parties yes votes combined, hence we have a coalition parliament.
In BB, with multiple HMs up for the vote, then VTE & VTS is unfair in one way or another to someone. Only a direct one on one contest can anyone truly ascertain the public feeling.
Its not hard.

[Shiner]

Ok to expand on my point...
Hypothetically, if this system was adopted for elections then you would have to put a vote in for each of the opposing parties to the one that you actually want to vote for. Which is a little bit of a waste of everyone's time but does no actual harm. Now factor in that you now must pay for each vote (thus eliminating people who have a sense of value of money and may not wish to waste it on something so intangible - it obviously also reduces the votes for poor people who can't afford to cast their vote more than once - the only people benefiting from this situation is the people that take the fee) and then further factor in the randomness of multiple votes per person.

Would you still be willing to accept this as a fair representation of the countries opinion?

The reason for the coalition is that someone set a limit of maximum votes that a party must achieve before getting full power.

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Shiner

The reason for the coalition is that someone set a limit of maximum votes that a party must achieve before getting full power.

Er yes correct....and that figure gives them an overall majority otherwise it becomes a hung parliament as you will have the potential situation where all the other parties vote the same and the governing party never manages to govern.
This is not what happens either way in a BB vote and so as i say they are chalk and cheese.

What im saying to you is that it doesnt matter if its a VTE or VTS, its always a diluted vote, and so not truly representative for some, if its a multiple eviction.

[Shiner]

Originally Posted by StGeorge

Er yes correct....and that figure gives them an overall majority otherwise it becomes a hung parliament as you will have the potential situation where all the other parties vote the same and the governing party never manages to govern.
This is not what happens either way in a BB vote and so as i say they are chalk and cheese.

What im saying to you is that it doesnt matter if its a VTE or VTS, its always a diluted vote, and so not truly representative for some, if its a multiple eviction.

Actually the limit isn't an overall majority. It's a sufficient majority.

Well it does matter because if last evictions had been VTS then the results would have been the opposite. The only situation where it doesn't matter is when you don't have all of them up in the first place.

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Shiner

Well it does matter because if last evictions had been VTS then the results would have been the opposite. The only situation where it doesn't matter is when you don't have all of them up in the first place.

I know it would of been different....but you fail to see that it would of been a different result, but for the same reason due to multiple HMs. Hence my disagreement with this:

"The disappointment is that last night's result is not representative of how the GBP feel "

Because only a vote for a 2-only eviction gives you the same vote whether VTS or VTE, due to it being a fight off between likes and hates either way.



It really is so simple..just basic maths.

Ill give you a hypothetical situatuion:

In wk2..Govan-Mario-Ben-Dave. Govan 40%fanbase the others 20% each.

With a VTS Govan stays. But with a VTE against a trio of mates..it was 40% v a possible 60%..Govan goes.
Which is fairer?
IMO the 60% of public give the true feeling of the public more than the 40% public.

Govan actually went with 72% of the vote.

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Shiner

Actually the limit isn't an overall majority. It's a sufficient majority.

.

Wrong again im afraid.

The parties go for votes over 650 constituencies. To get an outright win you need 326 seats....exactly half plus 1. That is known as an overall majority.

The Tories got 306 and so fell 20 short and needed the help of LibDems and their 57 to be able to have an outright government. Otherwise Labour with 258 would of been able to hold onto power even though they lost.
Its not the same at all.

[TheEchelonxRawr!KP]

Originally Posted by JustKaz

I dont get what all the fuss is about, this board was full of John James, Corin, Steve AND Sam hate.....and those are the ones that went.

Hardly any Andrew, JJ2 hate threadsand a few for Mario

People got sick of reading the same old Dave vid threads, guess he got off lightly.

So basically the right ones went.

It is very difficult to prove what out come was if it was vote to save.

I reaallyy disagree tbh!.. Of course Sam, John James and even Corin would have stayed if was a vote to save! They all have a big fanbase so people would have voted for them like crazy! And because JJ2, Andrew and Mario don't have many people who like them or hate them in particualr so arent really gonna be voted to be saved or evicted!.. So in a vote to save they probaly wouldnt have got many votes so would be evicted!.. ahh that would have been bliss!

So no they aren't the right ones at left because they weren't publics favourites from the lot. Sam, Corin and John James are. Along with Josie and John James

[Pato]

should have been vote to save now we got the 3 of the most dullest housemates this series it should have been sam john james and corin instead of JJ andrew and mario

[StGeorge]

IMO if its VTE in all those weeks leading up to the final, then it has to remain that way irrespective of it upsetting people due to their fav going.
BB have been accused of manipulation before, and even though it is now missing those that people like, it would be wrong to change the system just to save them.

If BB does survive elsewhere, then the producers need to set the rules at the beginning and stick to it so everyone knows where its at and going.

[Shiner]

Originally Posted by StGeorge

Wrong again im afraid.

The parties go for votes over 650 constituencies. To get an outright win you need 326 seats....exactly half plus 1. That is known as an overall majority.

The Tories got 306 and so fell 20 short and needed the help of LibDems and their 57 to be able to have an outright government. Otherwise Labour with 258 would of been able to hold onto power even though they lost.
Its not the same at all.

Seats are different to votes my friend. Thatch famously gained power with only 42% of the vote.
Let's not do this anymore I don't believe that this is the right place for constitutional debate.

[Shiner]

Originally Posted by StGeorge

I know it would of been different....but you fail to see that it would of been a different result, but for the same reason due to multiple HMs. Hence my disagreement with this:

"The disappointment is that last night's result is not representative of how the GBP feel "

Because only a vote for a 2-only eviction gives you the same vote whether VTS or VTE, due to it being a fight off between likes and hates either way.



It really is so simple..just basic maths.

Ill give you a hypothetical situatuion:

In wk2..Govan-Mario-Ben-Dave. Govan 40%fanbase the others 20% each.

With a VTS Govan stays. But with a VTE against a trio of mates..it was 40% v a possible 60%..Govan goes.
Which is fairer?
IMO the 60% of public give the true feeling of the public more than the 40% public.

Govan actually went with 72% of the vote.

Then for the sake of pedantism, allow me to adjust my statement - "The disappointment is that last night's result is less representative of how the GBP feel."

In your hypothetical model it would be unfair to have 60% of the voters disappointed and 40% of the voters winning. However the 60% is made from equally opposing factions, they are only unified in defeat. That is how you recognise a majority and that is how democracy works I'm afraid.

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Shiner

Then for the sake of pedantism, allow me to adjust my statement - "The disappointment is that last night's result is less representative of how the GBP feel."

In your hypothetical model it would be unfair to have 60% of the voters disappointed and 40% of the voters winning. However the 60% is made from equally opposing factions, they are only unified in defeat. That is how you recognise a majority and that is how democracy works I'm afraid.

And finally....you have got to the whole point of last nights show.

The public democratically voted out the people they dislike the most, irrespective of any individuals fanbase.

Well done.

BTW..finally recognising that BB voting and the general election system is not the same....well done again.
But agreed,,nuff said.

[Shiner]

The whole point of last night's show was to ensure that the least threatening HMs went through to join BB's favourite in the final.