Joensuu

Sorry, my crass assumption that you might want to avoid unnecessary offence. My bad.

Oh don't you worry, he'll keep it. People aren't questioning his avatar, moreso his intentions.

I'm well aware of what you say you were thinking, and haven't made any accusations. Nobody is being judgmental. Why then do you continue to play the 'victim'? If your intentions are truly innocent, might I suggest you switch the avatar for a different character from the same show? That would allow you to show you love of the comedy, but avoid any further unintentional offense and misunderstanding that you are now aware that your avatar will continue to cause. Obviously, now that you know your avatar can offend, and as that is not your intention, i assume you will be changing it as soon as possible?

So your reason to exist is to be popular on saintsweb? Really? You were innocent of the history of negative connotations of 'blackface' performance art, when you selected your avatar, and the thought that others might have initial negative thoughts didn't cross your mind eh? I find it hard to believe that anyone could be unaware of this, as it is the first association most of the population would make when viewing your avatar. Especially so for someone who seems to relish the controversial, and who deliberately tiptoes as close to the forum rules as possible. If one were more cynical, one might assume that the image were selected in an attempt to deliberate court controversy. NB, yes you can say black sheep and black board, these phrases were only banned by potty individuals probably egged on with the incentive of tabloid cash. Nobody will take offense to them if used in a neutral context.

As I suggested in my first post: paranoia? Where is this avatar assassination of which you speak?

I think that's what he's trying to say too. Of course what he fails to grasp is that had all the candidates been voted for by the MP's in a FPTP vote (without the members having a say) then Cameron wouldn't have won.

You're not very good at playing dumb.

Sorry Lord D, I don't think I can explain it any more simply. Have another gander at my above response. Seems to me your too focused on the membership vote, forget about that round and you might understand.

See above, and if you still don't undertand try google.

It means, replace all of the rounds of voting (which for the Tory 2005 leadership election were: the first ballot (MPs only), the second ballot (MP only), and the popular vote (all members)) with a straight FPTP vote (i.e. just with the results of the first ballot). It's basically just semantics. Both views are correct depending upon which rounds of voting you consider replacing with FPTP. If FPTP were to replace just the intial MP only ballots, you'd be correct; however if FPTP were to replace all three rounds, you'd be incorrect. As such, neither argument is incorrect, which invariably means that the point will both stand, but yet be debated, for as long as there is political capital to be made from it. Personally, I couldn't care either way, it's a minor point, that is at best only milding embarrassing for Cameron, and a worst a complete deviation from the real debate. Still, to emphatically say that FPTP definately would or wouldn't have elected Davis would be incorrect - it depends upon the interpretation.

You sir, are correct - ish. If you simply substitute the whittling down 'MP voting' rounds, for FPTP, but retain the 'membership' vote at the end, your spot on. However, if you replace all of the rounds including the 'membership' bit with FPTP, then Davis would have won. I guess it depends how you want to evaluate it... Ho, hum, pretty irrelevent in the scheme of things.

Hmm, I'm not sure how that works either. How about, having say, the Championship decided by a fan vote. Under FPTP, Leeds would almost certainly get promoted, simply by having so many fans. Under AV, Leeds (and Millwall) wouldn't stand a chance, as I doubt they'd pick up too many people's second or third options.. Now, that makes even less sense...

Simple. You can vote for the party you actually want to win, without the current knowledge that doing so is merely a wasted vote. Sure, it's not sexy, but it's a start. Oh, and AV doesn't mean you'll miss out on the the current election sideshows of Dimbleby and swingometers either. In fact you'll probably get to see more independent candidates (they might even stand a chance!), and Sunderland East declaring early might not be a formality. Essentially, all the fun of the first past the post fayre, with less of the undesirable biased bits. If AV is dull, my goodness, FPTP is horrendously tedious.

Absolutely, wish more people would assume the best of others, not the worst, and keep an open mind when it comes to seeing both sides of a story in the press, not jumping immediately to conclusions.

For anyone still undecided, Hazel Blears is voting no.

No, not if you are parodying an individual, and not an entire race. Obviously, the line is often thin, and easy to stray across. But in you above example I feel it would be fairly easy to avoid.

No, just like the civil rights movement, or the suffragettes, when you are campaigning for the greater good you don't give up just because the public are apathetic or misdirected.

Dressing yourself in anyway you chose isn't inheirently anything-ist - it becomes 'ist' when you, or others, associate negative connotations between the way you have dressed and the group of people you are portraying. Take for example Prince Harry, was he parodying Nazi's or empathising with them? Who knows? IMO, it would have been far more sensible for him to have chosen a different costume rather than risk being misunderstood.

The push for a more representative voting system will continue regardless of the outcome of this referendum. If the result is 'no', it won't relate to the voting system, it will be entirely because of the public apathy to politics that AV might help to resolve (that and the dirty tactics the no campaign have been running with).

Is that my official promotion?

Exactly, this could well be your rational. Only you know what you're actually thinking. We can merely form our own conclusions.

© beause the current system is so flawed, they have simply lost all faith in voting?

We all agree that voters are apathetic. IMO, this is because people perceive that voting doesn't seem to change anything, and generally many find politcs boring. FPTP has a lot to answer for. There is a sad irony in voters being so apathetic that they can't be bothered to vote for a system that will help re-enpower them. Guess it's like a patient giving up the will to live; even the offer of a possibly lifesaving drug doesn't seem to be tempting them.

I assume similar to what the 'D' stands for in Laos (LPDR)

Really? Are you really blissfully unaware of any negative connotation of this? Here's a little light reading to help bring you up to speed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface Of course, notice, I am not accusing you of anything, nor jumping to any conclusions, I'm simply assuming that your avatar is paroding racism (perhaps you are a dedicated follower of Ganguro?)