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

FPTP or AV

  • FPTP

    Votes: 319 37.1%

  • AV

    Votes: 359 41.8%

  • Pfft, Will Still End Up Run By Crooks

    Votes: 181 21.1%
  • Total voters
    859
AndyT said:
Apologies,

I need to edit my post, not to say "get into power" but rather, "get a seat or two in the house of commons"; which is what I really meant in the first place.
Click to expand...

Exactly the same principle. I realise you don't vote for which party you want to win, you vote for which MP you want in your local constituent. I am using the general election data as a simplification.

The fact still remains that by time any of the main parties which have the most significant number of active votes are liable to be knocked out (labour votes + conservative votes + lib votes) the BNP have already been knocked out. For an extremist party to even be in the running at all suggests all the main party votes totalled up is less than 50% You can apply it to the election data, you can apply it to a local constancy data.

The only way an extremist party can get in to power is where the main party votes totalled are less than a majority. Find me a constituency where the main parties totaled dont have majority support and i will put a loaf of hovis on my head.
 
Last edited:
AndyT said:
Apologies,

I need to edit my post, not to say "get into power" but rather, "get a seat or two in the house of commons"; which is what I really meant in the first place.
Click to expand...
Firstly, what's wrong with small parties getting seats? If people want them they should be represented. Secondly they'd have to get enough first preference votes to survive the initial rounds, even if every Labour voter put BNP as their 2nd preference (just an example) there is very little chance of having enough preference votes for labour to go out first.
 
krooton said:
But if you genuinely prefer parties A. B, C. and D over party E, stating that preference isn't tactical, it's just the truth.
Click to expand...

However voting for everyone but Labour* to make sure Labour doesn't get in is tactical voting and is made easier with AV. You will also get the "drone voting" issue where parties tell supporters who to vote for.

To say AV doesn't allow for tactical voting is not really true, it just changes the nature of it. The outcome of tactical voting is to make sure that the person you do not want in power doesn't get a seat, AV arguably makes that easier.

*For Labour replace any party you like.
 
RDM said:
However voting for everyone but Labour* to make sure Labour doesn't get in is tactical voting and is made easier with AV. You will also get the "drone voting" issue where parties tell supporters who to vote for.

To say AV doesn't allow for tactical voting is not really true, it just changes the nature of it. The outcome of tactical voting is to make sure that the person you do not want in power doesn't get a seat, AV arguably makes that easier.

*For Labour replace any party you like.
Click to expand...
So a system designed to allow you to express your full preferences makes it easier to express your full preferences, hello tautology. You can keep calling it tactical voting, but that won't make it true, and it won't make it a problem with AV.
 
My brother just said the following: "I am going to put 1 in the Yes box and 2 in the No box and when No wins I'll say "They're right. It is a **** system.""

:D
 
RDM said:
However voting for everyone but Labour* to make sure Labour doesn't get in is tactical voting and is made easier with AV. You will also get the "drone voting" issue where parties tell supporters who to vote for.

To say AV doesn't allow for tactical voting is not really true, it just changes the nature of it. The outcome of tactical voting is to make sure that the person you do not want in power doesn't get a seat, AV arguably makes that easier.

*For Labour replace any party you like.
Click to expand...

It won't happen though.

The higher preferences are going to contain at least one of the major parties, which is likely to survive the first batch of rounds.

The party you are voting against is probably a larger party as well, meaning that it will survive the initial rounds.

All the filler parties you put as lower preferences will be eliminated before the major ones, so they will not actually influence the major party you don't want in.

The fact that most people won't do this (I don't want Labour in, but I won't put BNP as my 4th pref because of that), means that those that do will be insignificant and not actually have the impact they desire.

More importantly, it will show what peoples actual first preferences are like, as even if voting 'tactically' with AV, you will still put your real preference first, something that doesn't happen with tactical voting in FPTP.
 
bam0 said:
So a system designed to allow you to express your full preferences makes it easier to express your full preferences, hello tautology. You can keep calling it tactical voting, but that won't make it true, and it won't make it a problem with AV.
Click to expand...

I just don't think the negative "Anyone but X" vote is a good thing. So it does make it a problem with AV IN MY OPINION.
 
Just went and voted yes.

Wasn't too happy about the lib dem that was standing around and asked for my number outside and everyone elses. When I came outside I realised he wasn't involved witht he voting so I questioned what it was for and he said lib dem research purposes. I said that's fine but he really should ask before hand, I thought it was a bit rude.
 
Here is some more interesting evidence about the minority party propaganda, using real world data. Example does not take into account the effects of tactical voting.

In the 2010 election the greens won a first ever seat in the house of commons in Brighton Pavilion with 31.3% of the vote, 16,238 votes. Data here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/a69.stm

Now under AV, the greens need a majority (total votes / 2) to win. This means they need 25 917 - 16 238 = 9679 second or higher preference votes to secure a victory.

The number of votes for all other parties than the Greens is 35 596

Under AV, the following knock outs are guaranteed because the pool of available votes to be reallocated is not enough to put any losing party above the next losing party, assuming a best case scenario every single voter listed the next loser as their preference

1st knock out - independant
2nd knock out - Citizens for Undead Rights and Equality
3rd knock out - Socialist Labour Party
4th knock out - UK Independence Party
5th knock out - Liberal Democrat

Now there are a number of possible outcomes. In each case, the greens require 9679 votes from all knocked out parties, so lets look at the math.

Case 1, 6th knock out - conservative
Pool of votes to be reallocated = 12275 + 7159 + 948 + 148 + 61 + 19 = 20 610
For the Greens to win requires 47% of all other voters to have highly ranked the Greens in preferential order

47% > 1st preference Green vote of 31%

Case 2, 6th knock out - labour
Pool of votes to be reallocated = 14986 + 7159 + 948 + 148 + 61 + 19 = 23 321
For the Greens to win requires 42% of all other voters to have highly ranked the Greens in preferential order

42% > 1st preference Green vote of 31%

What all of this means.

Under FPTP, the Greens won with 31.3% of the vote

Under AV, it is statistically improbable that the Greens would have won at all

In all possible cases it requires that everybody who didnt vote for the greens as a first preference has more loyality to the greens than the greens supporters themselves have, 42 > 31, 47 >31
 
Last edited:
Tactical voting is a bigger problem with FPTP and is easier to manipulate as it simply requires you to vote for the other big party, rather than voting for who you want and then the other big party.
 
Nitefly said:
Just went and voted yes.

Wasn't too happy about the lib dem that was standing around and asked for my number outside and everyone elses. When I came outside I realised he wasn't involved witht he voting so I questioned what it was for and he said lib dem research purposes. I said that's fine but he really should ask before hand, I thought it was a bit rude.
Click to expand...

AFAIK it is also illegal. Nobody from any party is allowed to speak to you going into a polling station.
 
RDM said:
No you don't. You need a majority in a single round of voting, which can be considerably less than a majority of turnout.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what i have said. The total votes cast in the example is 51,834. For a winner to be declared requires them to have a majority, 51834 /2 of the vote in any given round
 
vonhelmet said:
Tactical voting is a bigger problem with FPTP and is easier to manipulate as it simply requires you to vote for the other big party, rather than voting for who you want and then the other big party.
Click to expand...

I am not saying it isn't a problem in FPTP, I was just saying that AV doesn't eliminate it (as some posters are saying) and in some ways makes it worse (drone voting and easier to express negative rather than positive preference).

Again this falls under personal opinion stuff, some will think it is better, some will think it is worse. So for me it is a disadvantage of AV, for others it is an advantage of AV. It does not make either person wrong, stupid or a terrible person.
 
Nitefly said:
Wasn't too happy about the lib dem that was standing around and asked for my number outside and everyone elses. When I came outside I realised he wasn't involved witht he voting so I questioned what it was for and he said lib dem research purposes. I said that's fine but he really should ask before hand, I thought it was a bit rude.
Click to expand...

Actually quite normal around my area, in the last general election there were representatives of the three main parties who were all noting down the numbers - I guess they use it to guage who to send mail-shots out to come election times.
You are however quite within your rights to refuse.

Referendum got a yes vote from me too.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom