Alternative Vote Referendum - May 5th 2011

[growse]

No, but its better than Mr Greasy's fry up shop. My point being that if AV was so much better it would have risen in popularity over the past century and rival FPTP like Subway has come to this country and has risen up to rival MD, however it hasn't.







Although you didn't actually write anything to challenge my point ill qualify it, AV suffers greatly from tactical voting, Because most voters vote for the same party every year instead of looking at all the policys and choosing the one that will serve them best they form bias, i.e a person votes Tory, he doesn't want labour/libs in as their just as bad in his view so he has to choose a no hope party like UKIP/BNP as his alternative or leave it blank. Another person wants either Lab/Lib in so sets them as first and second vote. This system is unfair on the Tory party as they have no similar party in the UK to be a Tory voters AV whereas Lab/Libs are pretty similar in most voters eyes so putting them down is tantamount to a "not tory" vote.

Which is fine as this is a democracy, however letting people say "I want the libs in but if they don't get in id like to change my vote to labour to make sure the torys don't get in" is pretty unfair.

*Edit*

Just wanted to add I don't actually like the tories, I think Cameron is a ****** but I like democracy and I don't want to see the deck stacked against them like it would be with AV.

For the 17 millionth time, expressing a preference for UKIP over Labour on an AV ballot when the voter's views are that they'd prefer 'anyone but Labour', is not tactical voting. It's the system working as designed.

Tactical voting is when someone votes for a less preferred party over and above a more preferred party, thus having the ballot not accurately reflecting the actual wishes of the voter.

There's nothing unfair about an 'anyone but x' mentality, AV allows people to actually express that properly, unlike FPTP.

 

[krooton]

Although you didn't actually write anything to challenge my point ill qualify it, AV suffers greatly from tactical voting, Because most voters vote for the same party every year instead of looking at all the policys and choosing the one that will serve them best they form bias, i.e a person votes Tory, he doesn't want labour/libs in as their just as bad in his view so he has to choose a no hope party like UKIP/BNP as his alternative or leave it blank. Another person wants either Lab/Lib in so sets them as first and second vote. This system is unfair on the Tory party as they have no similar party in the UK to be a Tory voters AV whereas Lab/Libs are pretty similar in most voters eyes so putting them down is tantamount to a "not tory" vote.

Which is fine as this is a democracy, however letting people say "I want the libs in but if they don't get in id like to change my vote to labour to make sure the torys don't get in" is pretty unfair.

You'd like to assume that, but if I had been given AV at the last election, my first pref would have been Libs, 2nd Tory, and Lab wouldn't even feature on my list.

Due to the above, it's eas to see why I don't mind the current coalition.

 

[OriginalJonty]

"AV Better Suited to Increasingly 'promiscuous' British Voters

Report Link

Just going to read through that before I comment.

 

[PMKeates]

No, but its better than Mr Greasy's fry up shop. My point being that if AV was so much better it would have risen in popularity over the past century and rival FPTP like Subway has come to this country and has risen up to rival MD, however it hasn't.

Saying that if AV 'was any good it would have risen in popularity over the past century' is a big assumption. Does the fact that we had two giant wars that resulted in half the world being put in to emergency measures count for something? What about the fact that people desire control, even if for altruistic reasons? I am sure it's in the mindset of the Tory party that a system that may decrease their influence, and thus a reduction in the utilisation of their policies, will harm the country, and so opposing a change to a system that favours them less is justified?

Which is fine as this is a democracy, however letting people say "I want the libs in but if they don't get in id like to change my vote to labour to make sure the torys don't get in" is pretty unfair.

This is the crux of it really - it is fair. If 60% of the country would prefer a left-wing government, whether that be Labour or Lib Dem, surely a left-wing government is more representative of the will of the people than otherwise? Having such mechanisms adds complexities and issues over FPTP for sure, but it drives towards a more representative government.

*Edit*

Just wanted to add I don't actually like the tories, I think Cameron is a ****** but I like democracy and I don't want to see the deck stacked against them like it would be with AV.

If it's of any worth I am a full member of the Conservative party.

 

[avec]

I liked Cameron's piece in the Standard, it was a sensible and accurate argument brought forth in an easy to understand way.

You yes folk should really do some research and spend some time trying to understand the greater implications of this system and how bad it would be for us.

So many people I've spoken to in real life who were happy yes voters gave silly reasons for their intention to vote yes. A brief conversation with them on how the systems actually worked turned them around pretty quickly.

Don't assume AV is fairer or that it would result in a more stable government that better reflects what the population have voted for, because it doesn't necessarily offer that at all.

I simply do not want my vote to count for less and that is what AV will do. I don't want to have another week of the media going crazy as party upon party meet up behind closed doors to work out some kind of deal where a few policies are kept on one side and a few are kept on the other. This kind of thing will give the minor parties with extreme views an incredible amount of weight amongst the bigger parties and there's nothing good to come of that.

The AV supporters seem to think it will result in the voter having more power, with more votes counting, but in reality what they actually mean is more votes for the little guys will count in what is a confusing system which can result in losers winning, in what way is that remotely close to a useful form of voting? I know as I say this some will refer to recent general elections where Labour has won despite technically being the loser, well that's purely down to them rigging the constituency boundaries to such a degree that it became incredibly hard for them to lose.

I'd rather see our constituencies sorted out properly as the coalition intends to do over the coming years. This would make a far more worthwhile difference to our political situation than a fraudulent system such as AV.

If you genuinely believe in voting reform and changing the way this country elects a government for the better, then you need to look beyond AV because it's not the answer.

 

[Dr Jack]

FPTP works fine if people vote for candidates based on what they stand for, rather than based on what their local union rep/newspaper says.

No, it doesn't.

Let's say we have two candidate, Andy and Bob.

Andy's a conservative. He supports fiscal tightening and a reduction of the state
Bob's a socialist. He wants to tax the rich, and increase state influence.

60% of people vote Andy, 40% vote Bob. The system returns Andy.

Now let's suppose Cedric stands.

Cedric's also a conservative, but he wants slightly more fiscal tightening, limits on immigration and the privatisation of the NHS.

Now a significant proportion of Andy's voters given this new choice prefer to vote for Cedric feeling he better represents their opinions, now what happens:

35% vote Andy, 25% Cedric and 40% Bob.

FPTP now returns Bob, despite the fact that 60% of people would still much rather have Andy than Bob.

 

[RDM]

Voter 1 had only their second preference taken in to account. Their first preference was discarded. The first preference of all the other voters was still valid in the second round, and therefore they had no need to have their vote changed to a second preference vote. Every voter is treated exactly the same - if your first candidate is in the running, your first preference is counted. If not, then your second preference is counted instead. I cannot see any different treatment going on there.

Sorry but to me that means both preferences were taken in to account. The first round of voting/counting their first preference was counted, the second round of voting/counting their second preference was counted. Whereas for the other candidates only the first preferences were counted. Try your example again but with LibDem as voter 1s second preference and you can see why it could make a difference.

Is it really so hard to grasp that people may just have different opinions about things and in my opinion AV treats voters differently?

Saying voters are treated differently under this system is like saying you are treated differently if you ask for a Big Mac in McDonald's instead of a Cheeseburger, because you receive a Big Mac instead of a Cheeseburger.

I love utterly inappropriate analogies. Yes, the customers have indeed been treated differently, one has been given a Big Mac and the other has been given a Cheeseburger. How this relates to an election I have no idea as in elections all customers end up with the same burger...

 

[Dave M]

If you look at how people voted, surely that seems a reasonable conclusion? Notice how nobody had their voted counted more than once. It was simply converted because their candidate wasn't in the 2nd round!

Real results from last year with some reasonable assumptions

Labour 16,393 38.0%
Conservative 14,841 34%
Liberal Democrat 8,466 20%
UK Independence Party 3,491 8%

2nd round (assume all ukip votes are tory 2nd preference)

Labour 16,393 38%
Conservative 14,841 42%
Liberal Democrat 8,466 20%

3rd round (assume 2/3 of lib dem voters go Labour)
Labour 22,037 51%
Conservative 21,154 49%

This shows that yes, everybody's vote gets counted once (and the result is the same).

But if UKIP had got 8000 votes this wouldn't be the case because Conservatives would have over 50% at the 2nd round and so there would never be a chance for the lib dems votes to count towards labour. Some people would lose their vote. No different to how it is now I suppose but considering the ukip voters get counted why don't the lib dem?

Perhaps large 4th party votes are unusual but wouldn't it be fairer if instead of the lowest count being eliminated at each round only the top 2 go through and everybody elses 2nd votes get counted there and then. Isn't that how presidential selection happens in the US?

Also it is worth bearing in mind AV could well improve turnout during it's first general election and this extra turnout may well be for smaller (3rd, 4th or lower) parties so the above scenario could become more common.

 

[rypt]

No, it doesn't.

Let's say we have two candidate, Andy and Bob.

Andy's a conservative. He supports fiscal tightening and a reduction of the state
Bob's a socialist. He wants to tax the rich, and increase state influence.

60% of people vote Andy, 40% vote Bob. The system returns Andy.

Now let's suppose Cedric stands.

Cedric's also a conservative, but he wants slightly more fiscal tightening, limits on immigration and the privatisation of the NHS.

Now a significant proportion of Andy's voters given this new choice prefer to vote for Cedric feeling he better represents their opinions, now what happens:

35% vote Andy, 25% Cedric and 40% Bob.

FPTP now returns Bob, despite the fact that 60% of people would still much rather have Andy than Bob.

But in any election you tend to have an even number of people from both sides of the spectrum, if people did actually vote for who they preferred as a candidate the system would work fine.

But they don't

 

[ubersonic]

No, it doesn't.

Let's say we have two candidate, Andy and Bob.

Andy's a conservative. He supports fiscal tightening and a reduction of the state
Bob's a socialist. He wants to tax the rich, and increase state influence.

60% of people vote Andy, 40% vote Bob. The system returns Andy.

Now let's suppose Cedric stands.

Cedric's also a conservative, but he wants slightly more fiscal tightening, limits on immigration and the privatisation of the NHS.

Now a significant proportion of Andy's voters given this new choice prefer to vote for Cedric feeling he better represents their opinions, now what happens:

35% vote Andy, 25% Cedric and 40% Bob.

FPTP now returns Bob, despite the fact that 60% of people would still much rather have Andy than Bob.

I could be way off here but Bob wouldn't be able to take office with 40% of the vote surely? wouldn't that situation result in a Andy/Cedric coalition?

 

[Dr Jack]

But in any election you tend to have an even number of people from both sides of the spectrum, if people did actually vote for who they preferred as a candidate the system would work fine.

Er, no. As I demonstrate in my example, the conservative majority who'd prefer either Andy or Cedric over Bob get their least favoured candidate by voting for their first preference. FPTP is broken as a system*.

In general, people have opinions slightly more complex than left/right. FPTP severely penalises any "side" that ends up split between candidates. It's the number of candidates, not the number of voters that is the key factor if people vote for what they want.

The conservatives in my example are the majority but because two candidates run, thereby splitting the vote, the socialists win. Under AV Cedric's voters second preference would ensure that Andy still won and the less popular socialist candidate didn't. FPTP provides what most voters consider the wrong choice despite everyone voting for the most preferred candidate. This is the Spoiler Effect.

And it's because of the Spoiler Effect that people vote for candidates they don't want. A sensible FPTP conservative voter who prefers Cedric to Andy will still vote for Andy because only Andy can beat Bob.


* - So's AV to be fair. AV is just a little less bad.

 

[krooton]

Sorry but to me that means both preferences were taken in to account. The first round of voting/counting their first preference was counted, the second round of voting/counting their second preference was counted. Whereas for the other candidates only the first preferences were counted.

Yes, but their first preference was counted twice.

One person gets a single vote for 2 people, the other gets 2 votes for 1 person.

Same number of overall votes.

 

[Dr Jack]

I could be way off here but Bob wouldn't be able to take office with 40% of the vote surely? wouldn't that situation result in a Andy/Cedric coalition?

No.

We're talking about a constituency election here. It returns a single candidate. You can't have a Andy/Cedric coalition. That single candidate, under our current FPTP system, would be Bob.

 

[rypt]

Both sides have roughly an even number of candidates though

 

[Dr Jack]

Perhaps large 4th party votes are unusual but wouldn't it be fairer if instead of the lowest count being eliminated at each round only the top 2 go through and everybody elses 2nd votes get counted there and then.

That makes the system mathematically less effective.

Isn't that how presidential selection happens in the US?

No.

 

[krooton]

I could be way off here but Bob wouldn't be able to take office with 40% of the vote surely? wouldn't that situation result in a Andy/Cedric coalition?

2001 saw labour win with 40.7% of the votes using FPTP with no coalition formed.

 

[Dr Jack]

Both sides have roughly an even number of candidates though

What's this "both sides" rubbish? There are not only two sides.

 

[OriginalJonty]

I could be way off here but Bob wouldn't be able to take office with 40% of the vote surely? wouldn't that situation result in a Andy/Cedric coalition?

Not under FPTP in a constituency. Under the system Bob has the most votes even if that number is under 50%. You just need the highest percentage of votes, not the most under FPTP.

For example:

Bob gets 35%
Andy gets 33%
Cedric gets 32% of the vote.

Bob wins the seat and becomes an MP even though only 35% of the electorate voted for him.

 

[rypt]

What's this "both sides" rubbish? There are not only two sides.

I mean left/right in the simplified example above USED by you.

 

[PMKeates]

But if UKIP had got 8000 votes this wouldn't be the case because Conservatives would have over 50% at the 2nd round and so there would never be a chance for the lib dems votes to count towards labour. Some people would lose their vote. No different to how it is now I suppose but considering the ukip voters get counted why don't the lib dem?

You lose your vote in actual application, but you don't lose it in theory. Once it is at the stage where somebody has taken 50% of the vote, it doesn't matter if you then count everybody else's second votes as it won't change the outcome, because you'd have to remove an 'active' first preference to enable the second preference, and in doing so reduce the competing candidate's position.