Poll: F.P.T.P or A.V.. This Thursday

[RDM]

It doesn't harm them typically, and the conditions under which it might are never likely to come about in British politics.

If it can harm them at all then it is a bad thing surely? As to "never likely to come about" there is some dispute on that.

Can you explain how that could happen?

Example from the Wiki entry on monotonicity criterion.

Votes 1st Preference 2nd Preference
49 A B
25 B C
26 C A

The winner would be C. However if 5 people had voted B C instead of A B the winner would be A. So it was increased support for candidate A that led to them losing.

lol wut?

Bit heavy, no?

It is a direct quote from Nick Clegg and was his opinion of AV prior to the election.

 

[bam0]

Then I'd encourage you to spoil your ballot, as it is the only way I can see to say: 'this isn't what we want to be voting on - give us a better option for change'.

Well as it's being conducted under FPTP I would say he'd have to vote tactically and go for AV, it may not be what he really wants, but a spoiled ballot has virtually no chance of making an impact and he really doesn't want FPTP.

 

[krooton]

If it can harm them at all then it is a bad thing surely? As to "never likely to come about" there is some dispute on that.



Example from the Wiki entry on monotonicity criterion.

Votes 1st Preference 2nd Preference
49 A B
25 B C
26 C A

The winner would be C. However if 5 people had voted B C instead of A B the winner would be A. So it was increased support for candidate A that led to them losing.

All well and good, but these hypothetical situation always involve really low numbers when compared to even a 30% turnout of voters in a country. It is VERY unlikely to happen in real-world application.

 

[nydryl]

All well and good, but these hypothetical situation always involve really low numbers when compared to even a 30% turnout of voters in a country. It is VERY unlikely to happen in real-world application.

Would it not scale up the same way?

 

[Vonhelmet]

Example from the Wiki entry on monotonicity criterion.

Votes 1st Preference 2nd Preference
49 A B
25 B C
26 C A

The winner would be C. However if 5 people had voted B C instead of A B the winner would be A. So it was increased support for candidate A that led to them losing.

Interesting, though that is a very specific situation in which a system of circular preference appears to exist, if you see what I mean. I'm not sure how often that would occur in real life?

 

[RDM]

Interesting, though that is a very specific situation in which a system of circular preference appears to exist, if you see what I mean. I'm not sure how often that would occur in real life?

It shouldn't be able to happen at all to be honest, regardless of the frequency of it occuring. There should be no situation where voting for your preferred candidate actually harms their chances of getting in. While the circular preferences are unlikely in the first round of voting they may get more likely in the second and third rounds.

 

[div0]

Example from the Wiki entry on monotonicity criterion.

Votes 1st Preference 2nd Preference
49 A B
25 B C
26 C A

The winner would be C. However if 5 people had voted B C instead of A B the winner would be A. So it was increased support for candidate A that led to them losing.

It's a nice mathematical example to show a counter-intuitive effect, but it's not very realistic.

For example: no-one in that example has voted, BA, CB, or AC, which are all likely combinations.

But it is an interesting effect, even if not entirely likely to occur.

 

[Vonhelmet]

It shouldn't be able to happen at all to be honest, regardless of the frequency of it occuring. There should be no situation where voting for your preferred candidate actually harms their chances of getting in. While the circular preferences are unlikely in the first round of voting they may get more likely in the second and third rounds.

Is there another voting system that doesn't suffer from this flaw?

 

[RDM]

It's a nice mathematical example to show a counter-intuitive effect, but it's not very realistic.

For example: no-one in that example has voted, BA, CB, or AC, which are all likely combinations.

But it is an interesting effect, even if not entirely likely to occur.

It was a simplified example, just assume it was the last roud of a multi round elimination if it helps. The problem is though that AV allows it to happen at all. It should never be a situation where voting for your candidate can actually harm them. AV allows this to occur regardless of how often (or not).

 

[RDM]

Is there another voting system that doesn't suffer from this flaw?

FPTP or any form of true PR.

 

[krooton]

Would it not scale up the same way?

No. Saying that if 2 people had voted differently, the outcome would be different, is nothing like saying if 2,000 people voted differently.

 

[RDM]

No. Saying that if 2 people had voted differently, the outcome would be different, is nothing like saying if 2,000 people voted differently.

Rather than number of votes call it percentage of votes (Notice they handily add up to 100 ) same problem still applies.

 

[div0]

It was a simplified example, just assume it was the last roud of a multi round elimination if it helps. The problem is though that AV allows it to happen at all. It should never be a situation where voting for your candidate can actually harm them. AV allows this to occur regardless of how often (or not).

I agree.

I just wanted to make it clear why the effect happens.

I also agree that it's an undesirable effect, that shouldn't be allowed to occur, even if it is unlikely.

 

[nydryl]

No. Saying that if 2 people had voted differently, the outcome would be different, is nothing like saying if 2,000 people voted differently.

Would the numbers not work though if you had

4,900,000 A B
2,500,000 B C
2,600,000 C A

Ah actually I think I see what you're saying. You would now require 500,000 to have voted B C instead of A B for the winner to be A, and although it's the same percentage it seems a far more significant number than it was in the orginal case.

 

[ic1male]

Shouldn't we all be protesting in the streets over this? AV is rubbish. FPTP is rubbish. Proportional Representation is the right way. So why weren't we given that choice instead of AV. Why should the politicians have decided that for us in a dirty backroom deal.

 

[BDEE]

Very undecided. To the point I am not going to vote, which is a hard thing to do as I always vote, although since it is just a refferendum it's not as big of a social issue for me not to do so I feel.

I can see the pro's and con's of both systems. I think im probably 51% FPTP and 49% AV, but dont feel strongly enough to vote either way. If AV did come in, I would still only vote for one candidate.

It is a VERY tough one, but I imagine that FPTP will end up being the winner in the refferendum.

 

[Ferax]

Looking very close indeed, going to be hard to call. Wonder if this will help the turn out in the local elections as well.

 

[BDEE]

The Tories have too many 'safe' seats, which are partly assisted due to the structural issue of Spoiled / Wasted votes.

Probably not as many as Labour - The vast majority of the North East is Labour heartland and you see very few non-Labour run councils / MPs up here.

And when things did start to shift and Lib Dems started to make in-roads the old Labour government changed boundaries and created super-councils, which meant these areas ended up becoming Labour again.

Stinks.

 

[zenf]

Shouldn't we all be protesting in the streets over this? AV is rubbish. FPTP is rubbish. Proportional Representation is the right way. So why weren't we given that choice instead of AV. Why should the politicians have decided that for us in a dirty backroom deal.

Because that's unfortunately all the LibDems could get the Tories to concede when forming the coalition. The Tories and Labour will fight tooth and nail against PR as they know they'll no longer be able to win a majority of seats with less than 40% of the country supporting them.

If we vote for AV, we increase the chances of the LibDems gaining influence in Parliament, and then we might actually have a chance of getting PR.

 

[BDEE]

AV; more equal counting of votes is a good thing.

If you think more equal counting of votes is a good thing then surely you agree with FPTP?

AV = My candidate didnt win, so my vote gets counted again for someone else. Hadly fair compared to someone who voted for the winner in the "first round", meaning some people get 3 / 4 / 5 votes, some only get 1. How is that more equal?

This is the biggest issue I have with AV. Your preferred candidate didnt win....that should be the end of it.

However, the flip side is the fact I never see councillers / candidates apart from at election time, which AV would possibly change.

Hence why I am so undecided.