AV: Yes or No?

[Mike Brown]

http://av2011.co.uk/index.html

I didn't read a huge amount of this but their argument seems to be that we should reject AV because PR and STV would be better. Whatever you think of that, I'd be fairly confident that if people vote No on the current referendum then that'll be the end of all talk of voting reform for the next 50 years. It'll be seen as total vindication of FPTP.

This is one of my main concerns about a 'no' vote, tbh, and perhaps the main reason I might be persuaded to change my mind.

<some carefully considered stuff>

A very charitable reply.

I try.

[Mark James]

In Ireland we had two referendums, one was for the Nice Treaty and the other for the European Constitution. Unfortunately we didn't vote the way the government wanted so we had to have them again. Democracy is a side show to give people the illusion of choice.

[Gavin Chipper]

Rhys, because you haven't quoted the stuff you're referring to but just mentioned the people you're responding to, it's quite difficult to follow. But I will respond to some of it now.

Gavin again - Paragraph 1 - I must have missed that, as I haven't heard of it, but it sounds like a good system, but I can't link it to this debate in any shape or form that's not far-fetched.

Which bit? Multiple MPs per constituency?

The rest - You haven't shown how a scatter graph will show who wins the by-election, and the point about the differences does not make sense. It seems that you are doing it according to letter order. Anyway, how is this order determined? And the difference between 51% and 49% is NOT 4 in the United Kingdom! Your mathematical "proof" is not making too much sense. Despite reading it no less than 36 times, I can't make any sense out of it, only that you wasted server space by explaining a pointless and time consuming graph.

I've fully sorted out my system now so I'll post it properly later on. Hopefully it will make more sense. Forget the scatter graph - I'm not using it because it failed all my tests. There's actually two systems - one simpler than the other.

Gavin - I am tempted to say, "are you a disestablishmentist?" You would have quite enjoyed being alive during 1641!

Depends - what exactly is one?

Martin Bishop - The word occasionally is not applicable here. In fact, the Yes campaign admitted that we would be more likely to get a person who did not come first being Member of Parliament! An election should be most votes wins, it's like saying, (excuse the racing terms) "Lewis Hamilton comes first! But...... we're going to say he doesn't win yet because he's not 10 seconds (as an example) ahead of Pastor Maldonado!"

No. It's like that silly sports day analogy. Winning under FPTP isn't the objective definition of coming first. Just because someone who would have won under FPTP might not under another system, it doesn't mean the other system is somehow wrong. It's a question-begging argument.

Gavin (again!) - Er.... The Lib Dems actually wanted this to happen - they started the Yes campaign back in late February, I think.

Which bit - what?

Gavin (yet again!) - I also find voting systems interesting on a geeky level, but the video is a bit... er, dodgy. Dan Snow might have told me about The Spanish Armada, but it's clearly poorly scripted and autocued. The "real life" scenarios were better and more understandable under FPTP. Most people did not want to go to the pub, they wanted to go to the coffee shop - 3 votes is quite clearly more than 2 votes.

Watch it again! Most people wanted to go to the pub. No more than two voted for any specific pub but all bar three wanted to go to a pub. http://www.yestofairervotes.org/blog/en ... ternative/

[Innis Carson]

Found this website supporting the 'No' campaign, which seems to be a little more sophisticated than the stuff we all got in the post, but I guess it doesn't mean that they're any more right.

http://av2011.co.uk/index.html

Dissect away!

Haven't read past the "What is AV?" section on this, but I don't really see the point they're trying to make with their example situation. Besides the fact that it's a pretty contrived situation (if C voters overwhelmingly preferred B to A, how likely is it that B voters would unanimously prefer A to C?) are voters whose first preference won the election really going to be upset that their second preference wasn't considered? The majority of voters preferred B to A, so the result shouldn't be too unsatisfactory. The tactical voting strategy they describe would be near impossible to co-ordinate (and would require the kind of bizarre situation shown the example), and even if it succeeded, those people would be getting the representative they actually want, unlike the current incarnation of tactical voting which requires people to help someone other than their preference. So the tactical voting situation is certainly improved under AV, if not entirely fixed.

[Jon O'Neill]

Maybe this is a poignant time to repeat my reasons for voting yes to AV.

David Cameron doesn't want it. Therefore I'm voting for it.

I appreciate this won't further the thread, nor the debate, but still.

[Charlie Reams]

David Cameron doesn't want it. Therefore I'm voting for it.

It's a good heuristic.

[Liam Tiernan]

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
However, AV gives disproportionate weight to the dogshite vote.

Exactly the opposite. The whole point of AV is to give proportionate weight to smaller parties.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
I think that you want to change to the American presidential elections, as I see your point about PM's, but only in presidential countries they actually choose the member. In Prime ministerial countries, such as the UK, the Prime Minister and Members of Parliament do not have totalitarianism.

When did the USA become a totalitarian regime?

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Sophie Krol - You're 10. How long do the current elections take to count up? WAY past your bedtime, and I daresay, many adults on this forum as well. In last years election, when I went to school on Friday morning, the election still hadn't been decided. AV may result in elections taking much, much longer to complete. We may not know who the Prime Minister is (or, since AV will produce more coalitions, was) by Sunday night!

What real difference does it make if the count takes 3 days, rather than 3 hours. The outgoing PM is still nominally in charge until the next sitting of Parliament anyway ( I presume).

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
(excuse the racing terms) "Lewis Hamilton comes first!

.....and is awarded 100 points. The rest of the field score zero.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
The Lib Dems actually wanted this to happen - they started the Yes campaign back in late February, I think.

Yes, late February 1966, if I recall correctly. Of course they were still just the Liberals then.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
No real point, just a rant about politics.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
The Lib Dems and their harsh, unfair, coalition policies

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Ed Milliband looks like the man who would come round and clean your windows. Under FPTP, David would have won, and I would have preferred that.

So, you're judging the man on his looks, rather than his policies or abilities? Way to score points in a political debate.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
I know, quite possibly, the stupidest person in the world and he understands.

Your kid brother, I assume? A blood relative, at any rate.

[Rhys Benjamin]

ARGUMENTS - PART 2

Charlie Reams - Where on EARTH did you get £26,000,000? It's is expensive, because of the fact that First Past The Post was around £20,000,000 and that's not going to help us in the recovery (started by the Conservatives).
The extremist parties are not just "the other ones". Take a place in Northern England last year which nearly went to the British National Party. The voters said, "It wasn't tactical voting - we really wanted the British National Party!" But if I see them getting 25% of the vote and getting in under FPTP, under AV people will want to vote more tactically - as all the Labour supporters will make preferences for all the parties and the Conservatives are last. If everyone ganged up on the Conservatives, then they would be eliminated after Round 1 and that's not good as everyone should have an equal chance.
Well, ignoring all of your stuff, the simplest explanation is what the No2AV campaign have given. There is no denying that it is more complicated than FPTP, but the No2AV campaign gave the simplest explanation and it came out as VERY COMPLICATED. Under AV, it takes 3-4 minutes to explain, but First Past The Post can be described in 3 words - Most. Votes. Wins.
I've read it and it's a load of bullshit. I DON'T CARE ABOUT TURKEYS AT CHRISTMAS!

Craig Beevers - Yes, the Liberal Democrats would gain the most seats (theoretically) as I often ask my parents "If they didn't exist, then who would you vote for?" and the answer most people would give to that question is Liberal Democrats. As said before, the Liberal Democrats would end up with a 326-seat majority. Tactical voting - See above.

Liam Tiernan - You could have a very low population and you waste your chance to change the future of Great Britain. AV will end up with Party 3 becoming MP.

Gavin Chipper - The problems with dictatorship are best explained in 5 words - The Middle East, except Bahrain.

Martin Bishop - Ed Milliband is not a very good leader for the Labour party, especially for the government. He looked a bit shocked when he won, but if he becomes Prime Minister we may have to call an Ambulance.
You don't make any sense with Abbott or no Abbott whatsoever. Honourable Labour members would not vote tactically.

Lesley Hines - Seen it, the BBC are biased towards the Yes campaign. They attacked 2 members of the No campaign live on BBC News.

Mike Brown - Isn't the BBC the only service without a +1?

Michael Wallace -

Ryan Taylor -

Charlie Reams - Don't forget a majority Labour or Liberal Democrat government!

Ben Hunter - Why?

Martin Long - Please clarify!

Charlie Reams - My thoughts exactly.

Gavin Chipper - Coming right up.

Peter Mabey - Well, the point about the A v B v C is not very clear, so the preferences are C, A, B (ha ha).
Why that? If supporting AV is not fair, why support it?
Nothing that AV can solve with your paid but abolished.

Charlie Reams - He understands your post.
Yes, I could have said that, but I need proof, back up, and I'm trying to win a bet with Ben Hunter here!

Michael Wallace - Part 1 is here for a reason. I read it and I find it insane. The fact that we're having a referendum is well known. The No2AV campaign don't want change and so attack AV, just as Labour attacked the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives last year. Duh.

Oliver Garner - A very sensible website. I feel that the page about fairness shows that 2010 is the only election since 1997 where AV would be better. That's 1 in every 4 elections. The coalitions argument would mean that in 1997, 2001 and 2005 certainly, there would have been a coalition under AV.

Mike Brown - Did I say disagree? I reworded that to say that I supported your No vote and that's the bit I'm agreeing with.

Charlie Reams - The website, as far as I'm aware, only mentions PR and STV once.

Graeme Cole -

Okay, I'll bite

Ouch!
The first lap is like an exit poll. It shows likeliness but not the actual result. Only under AV (in this case, the stewards) is the result changed after the result is declared. It's said, done, but utterly time consuming and unfair.
People minds' don't change that quickly, and 3 people wanted Coffee shop! It doesn't matter who wanted which pub, it's the same as which party do we use?
AV gives some people, effectively, more than 1 vote. Redirection is not 1 vote.
Hmmm... that was a silly comment, but I'll take it.

I need to go to school, so I'll be back later.

[Phil Reynolds]

I'd just like to point out that the man who cleans my windows looks nothing like Ed Miliband.

[Ryan Taylor]

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
I know, quite possibly, the stupidest person in the world and he understands.

Your kid brother, I assume? A blood relative, at any rate.

[Michael Wallace]

Michael Wallace - Part 1 is here for a reason. I read it and I find it insane. The fact that we're having a referendum is well known. The No2AV campaign don't want change and so attack AV, just as Labour attacked the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives last year. Duh.

What the hell are you talking about? This doesn't even vaguely make sense (as opposed to your other stuff, which is wrong, but I can at least see where you've got your incorrect arguments from).

[Charlie Reams]

ARGUMENTS - PART 2

Would you mind using the quote button? It's becoming impossible to follow your points, insofar as you have any.

Charlie Reams - Where on EARTH did you get £26,000,000? It's is expensive, because of the fact that First Past The Post was around £20,000,000 and that's not going to help us in the recovery (started by the Conservatives).

From the page linked in my original post, which you apparently still haven't read. The £26M is from the No campaign's own figures. Let's assume you're right and FPTP really cost £20M (no idea where you got that from), so AV would cost an extra £6M, or to put it another way about 0.0002% of Government spending over the course of the parliament. Is that expensive?

The extremist parties are not just "the other ones". Take a place in Northern England last year which nearly went to the British National Party. The voters said, "It wasn't tactical voting - we really wanted the British National Party!" But if I see them getting 25% of the vote and getting in under FPTP, under AV people will want to vote more tactically - as all the Labour supporters will make preferences for all the parties and the Conservatives are last. If everyone ganged up on the Conservatives, then they would be eliminated after Round 1 and that's not good as everyone should have an equal chance.

This is wrong because 1) the BNP is exactly the party people describe as extremist 2) the tactical vote you describe is not necessary.

Well, ignoring all of your stuff, the simplest explanation is what the No2AV campaign have given. There is no denying that it is more complicated than FPTP, but the No2AV campaign gave the simplest explanation and it came out as VERY COMPLICATED. Under AV, it takes 3-4 minutes to explain, but First Past The Post can be described in 3 words - Most. Votes. Wins.

This is wrong because 1) it doesn't take 3-4 minutes (see the page you've been linked to twice), 2) it isn't necessary to fully understand the counting system in order to vote. Also I'm surprised that you think 3-4 minutes is too much time to expend understanding a basic aspect of democracy, but you're entitled to think that.

Craig Beevers - Yes, the Liberal Democrats would gain the most seats (theoretically) as I often ask my parents "If they didn't exist, then who would you vote for?" and the answer most people would give to that question is Liberal Democrats. As said before, the Liberal Democrats would end up with a 326-seat majority. Tactical voting - See above.

In the short term, yes.

Gavin Chipper - The problems with dictatorship are best explained in 5 words - The Middle East, except Bahrain.

This is wrong because 1) you don't understand jokes 2) dictatorship is only one of many features of the Middle East.

Lesley Hines - Seen it, the BBC are biased towards the Yes campaign. They attacked 2 members of the No campaign live on BBC News.

Evidence please.

Charlie Reams - Don't forget a majority Labour or Liberal Democrat government!

Umm, okay. (What?)

Nothing that AV can solve with your paid but abolished.

Good point.

Yes, I could have said that, but I need proof, back up, and I'm trying to win a bet with Ben Hunter here!

I think he's still winning. You haven't really replied to any arguments, you've just made the same oblique non-points over and over.

Oliver Garner - A very sensible website. I feel that the page about fairness shows that 2010 is the only election since 1997 where AV would be better.

This is wrong because 1) your definition of "better" is meaningless 2) the figures are based on assumed AV trends, since no one gathered the real data 3) it's not so easy to measure proportionality with AV.

AV gives some people, effectively, more than 1 vote. Redirection is not 1 vote.

No it does not, this is absolutely wrong. Under AV, there are several rounds of voting; some people change who they vote for between rounds, and some do not. For example, if you put the eventual winner as your top preference, your votes go
1, 1, 1, 1.
whereas someone else's might go
4, 3, 3, 1.
Everyone votes in the same number of rounds, unless they abstain by expressing only a partial list of preferences.

[Ryan Taylor]

I've decided I'm going to vote on May 5th. I'm voting along the same lines of Jono but I'm voting Yes because Rhys Benjamin doesn't want it.

[Ian Volante]

I've decided I'm going to vote on May 5th. I'm voting along the same lines of Jono but I'm voting Yes because Rhys Benjamin doesn't want it.

THIS

[Charlie Reams]

[Graeme Cole]

Looks like most people don't want to play your tourney.

[Ben Hunter]

Looks like most people don't want to play your tourney.

THIS

[Liam Tiernan]

Since I quoted 1966 above purely at random, lets take a look at the General Election results for that year:

Labour 317 seats, 44.1% ; Conservative 304 seats, 43.4% ; Liberal 9 seats, 11.2%; Total seats 630

On the basis of the overall national vote, the Liberals under Proportional Representation,(the voting system here in Ireland), could reasonably have expected to get about 70 seats. Instead of which they got 9. So a party which gets 11.2% of the overall national vote gets 1.4% of the seats. Basically, Rhys, FPTP is a system which is skewed in favour of the larger parties. AV goes some way towards addressing that. PR would be a better alternative, but it seems a step too far for Cameron.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
You could have a very low population and you waste your chance to change the future of Great Britain. AV will end up with Party 3 becoming MP.

This reads like the opening sentence of a Nigerian scam e-mail and makes about as much sense.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
I know, quite possibly, the stupidest person in the world and he understands.

Your kid brother, I assume? A blood relative, at any rate.

Since you haven't denied this in your reply I'm going to claim a direct hit.
EDIT:

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Ed Milliband looks like the man who would come round and clean your windows.

This sounds just a little bit elitist to me.

[Oliver Garner]

DANSNOWINNIT

[Mike Brown]

Mike Brown - Isn't the BBC the only service without a +1?

It's certainly the main one, but I was making the point that it doesn't exist and that I wish it did (as I was commenting on the fact that it was 11pm when Lesley told us there was an AV special on Newsnight that had started at 10.30. I'm not quite that uninformed.

Mike Brown - Did I say disagree? I reworded that to say that I supported your No vote and that's the bit I'm agreeing with.

"Quite frankly, Mike, I couldn't agree with you less" sounds pretty like you disagreed with me, but hey, it's a long weekend so whatever.

Good debate, though. And I hate to admit that I agree with your dissection of the coffee shop v. pub analogy, although I do think you need to view AV with a more open mind, or are you secretly playing devil's advocate with us all?

[Liam Tiernan]

Third party results since 1970:
1970: 7.5% national vote 6/630 seats 0.95% of seats (Liberal)
1974 Feb:19.3% NV 14/635 seats 2.2 % of seats (Liberal)
1974 Oct:18.3% NV 13/635 seats 2.04 % of seats (Liberal)
1979: 13.8% NV 11/635 seats 1.73 % of seats (Liberal)
1983 25.4% NV 23/650 seats 3.53 % of seats ( Liberal/SDP Alliance)
1987 22.6% NV 22/650 seats 3.38% of seats (Liberal/SDP Alliance)
1992 17.8% NV 20/651 seats 3.07% of seats (LibDem)
1997 16.8% NV 46/659 seats 6.98% of seats (LibDem)
2001 18.3% NV 52/659 seats 7.89% of seats (LibDem)
2005 22.0% NV 62/646 seats 9.59% of seats (LibDem)
2010 23.0% NV 57/650 seats 8.77% of seats (LibDem)

This is the system you want to maintain, Rhys? Doesn't look very democratic to me.

[Jon O'Neill]

When you actually think about it, first past the post is a joke.

[Oliver Garner]

Why do you care so strongly for the Conservative Party, Rhys? You won't even be able to vote in the next election. Although you will be over 16, and I think that the Lib Dems are the party who support votes for 16+. Or are you against this because having young people voting may damage your beloved Conservatives?

[Rhys Benjamin]

Oliver, you have forced me into revealing my affiliation.

[sigh] My cousin, who is 22, is (and has been) standing for councillor elections in his Local constituency (well, sort of(the one his uni's in)) and he represents the Conservative party. As such, we have "inside knowledge".

Well, Oliver, I DO think that people who are 16 should vote.

I'm going to sod off for a bit.

[Rhys Benjamin]

Oliver, you have forced me into revealing my affiliation.

[sigh] My cousin, who is 22, is (and has been) standing for councillor elections in his Local constituency (well, sort of(the one his uni's in)) and he represents the Conservative party. As such, we have "inside knowledge".

Well, Oliver, I DO think that people who are 16 should vote.

I'm going to sod off for a bit.

[Oliver Garner]

Oliver, you have forced me into revealing my affiliation.

[sigh] My cousin, who is 22, is (and has been) standing for councillor elections in his Local constituency (well, sort of(the one his uni's in)) and he represents the Conservative party. As such, we have "inside knowledge".

Well, Oliver, I DO think that people who are 16 should vote.

I'm going to sod off for a bit.

Ah, interesting. I wondered. The only thing I like about the party is Boris. Far more interesting and less irritating than Ken IMO.

[Ian Volante]

Oliver, you have forced me into revealing my affiliation.

[sigh] My cousin, who is 22, is (and has been) standing for councillor elections in his Local constituency (well, sort of(the one his uni's in)) and he represents the Conservative party. As such, we have "inside knowledge".

Well, Oliver, I DO think that people who are 16 should vote.

I'm going to sod off for a bit.

Ah, interesting. I wondered. The only thing I like about the party is Boris.

Apparently the Scottish Tory leader is very nice.

[Innis Carson]

[sigh] My cousin, who is 22, is (and has been) standing for councillor elections in his Local constituency (well, sort of(the one his uni's in)) and he represents the Conservative party. As such, we have "inside knowledge".

It's clear you're having a hard time justifying his opinions, have you considered the possibility that you don't agree with them? You don't have to just because he's your cousin.

[Martin Bishop]

I know, quite possibly, the stupidest person in the world and he understands.

[sigh] My cousin, who is 22, is (and has been) standing for councillor elections in his Local constituency (well, sort of(the one his uni's in)) and he represents the Conservative party.

Hmm...

[Rhys Benjamin]

If you want a voting system which eliminates the last placed candidate, then you should have a system where everyone votes again. Under AV, some people's second preferences count whereas others don't. But we won't know WHOSE second preferences would count. This means that one person does not get one vote. This argument is starting to become personal, and it is more like politicians bickering. As such, I expect the turnout to be low.

[Rhys Benjamin]

LATEST POLLS:

Yes 41%
No 59%

[Oliver Garner]

If you want a voting system which eliminates the last placed candidate, then you should have a system where everyone votes again. Under AV, some people's second preferences count whereas others don't. But we won't know WHOSE second preferences would count. This means that one person does not get one vote. This argument is starting to become personal, and it is more like politicians bickering. As such, I expect the turnout to be low.

If there are two rounds of voting, a person who does not have their second preference vote counted has their first preference counted twice. Therefore, everybody gets the same number of votes, making it fair.

On an unrelated point, rather than FPTP being a misnomer, isn't it an accurate way to describe both systems since the 'post' could be considered to be the 300-odd seats needed to win a majority in the Commons?

[Hugh Binnie]

my main reason against Alternative Voting is that it is too complicated. Also, bear in mind that I am only 12, and although I am more interested in politics than my peers , my classmates have said that "I want to vote no because the elections will take longer."

These are both stupid reasons. AV is not complicated: you rank your candidates in order of preference, so your favourite candidate is number 1; your second favourite is 2; and so on until you have no more preferences. That's it.

The deliberately confusing descriptions of how the run-offs work are almost entirely irrelevant to voters any way, beacuse they don't matter unless you're trying to vote tactically, one of the main things that AV aims to eliminate. (There is no practical way to vote tactically under AV.) It taking longer to count up the votes is not a good reason to vote no for fairly self-evident reasons. If it takes an extra few hours to ensure that the country is run by a more democratically-elected government for the next four or five years, that's a few extra hours well-waited.

[Chris Corby]

Imagine a seat where the top three parties get virtually 100% of the vote and the result is:

Labour 48%
Lib Dem 30%
Conservative 22%

Under first past the post, Labour would get the seat with a pretty convincing majority.

Under AV, the Conservative candidate is eliminated and their second preference vote counted. Surely anyone who votes Tory would not have Labour as their second preference (would they?) and vice versa for Labour. So the LibDem candidate picks up the second preference Conserative vote.

New result:

Labour 48%
LibDem 52%

The LibDem candidate wins the seat having now got over 50% of the votes.

Now try and put your own politics to one side...

If you think that in the above example, the Labour candidate should have won vote NO to AV.
If you think the LibDem candidate should win vote YES to AV.

[David Williams]

If you think that in the above example, the Labour candidate should have won vote NO to AV.
If you think the LibDem candidate should win vote YES to AV.

Suppose that there are a lot of seats like this, with the LibDems picking up a steady 30% and the other two an average of 35%, made up of equal numbers of 22% and 48%. (Not outlandish, as you may well get this sort of situation under AV after all but the top three candidates are eliminated.)

How do you vote if you think the Lib Dem should win the individual constituency, but you don't think they should have a majority in the House of Commons?

[Martin Bishop]

Surely anyone who votes Tory would not have Labour as their second preference (would they?) and vice versa for Labour. So the LibDem candidate picks up the second preference Conserative vote.

I'm not so sure about that. I think there will be some Tories who would feel uncomfortable with Lib Dem ideas on things like scrapping trident, taxing the rich and letting working class people into university. They'll probably get the majority of the Tory vote in an "anyone but Labour" exercise, but I think getting all of it is an exaggeration.

[Michael Wallace]

Surely anyone who votes Tory would not have Labour as their second preference (would they?) and vice versa for Labour. So the LibDem candidate picks up the second preference Conserative vote.

I'm not so sure about that. I think there will be some Tories who would feel uncomfortable with Lib Dem ideas on things like scrapping trident, taxing the rich and letting working class people into university. They'll probably get the majority of the Tory vote in an "anyone but Labour" exercise, but I think getting all of it is an exaggeration.

Agreed, and if they did all put LD second preference (or at least the huge proportion required to prevent the Labour guy getting his extra 2%) I think that would say something about how unfavourable the Labour candidate must seem to a pretty large proportion of the electorate.

(Edited to fix the typos from this fubared keyboard.)

Re-edit: and of course, you can rephrase it as "52% of the electorate prefer the LD candidate to the Labour one", so if you think the Labour guy should win, vote no!

[Clive Brooker]

If you think that in the above example, the Labour candidate should have won vote NO to AV.
If you think the LibDem candidate should win vote YES to AV.

This is an extreme example where a comfortable win under the current system is narrowly overturned under AV. It's just as easy to construct examples where a narrow FPTP win would be swept aside under AV. There have been many fanciful examples produced to illustrate a number of bizarre possibilities.

I think the argument should focus on the cases nearer the middle - what should happen in 35/30/25 seats where the leader under FPTP is strugging to get the transfer votes needed.

[Peter Mabey]

Actually, with AV, it's likely the there will be more than the main parties standing, as the Greens, UKIP and even the dreaded BNP etc. would consider themselves in with a shout
So the campaign would be aimed as much at picking up second-preference votes as swinging the undecided and perhaps be not so confrontational, resulting a distribution of preferences very different from the simplistic cases discussed so far.

[Chris Corby]

I did ask you to "imagine a seat" where the results I gave occurred. All you had to do was ask yourselves whether the Labour candidate had done enough to win in the example I gave. I gave no indication of whether I was pro or anti AV or my politics although I have strong views on both.

[Clive Brooker]

You said that if we think the Labour candidate should have won, we should vote no to AV, which I disagree with. I think it's wrong to base a conclusion solely on one carefully constructed, extreme example.

[Chris Corby]

You said that if we think the Labour candidate should have won, we should vote no to AV, which I disagree with. I think it's wrong to base a conclusion solely on one carefully constructed, extreme example.

I was demonstrating, without frills, how AV works because from what I saw on TV earlier this week, a lot of the public have no idea. (Newsnight feature with Michael Crick) OK, pretend you are back at school. You are voting for a form captain (do they still do that?) Three names are put forward and all the class vote - results for Tom 48%, Dick 30% and Harriet 22%. Should Tom win or should Harriet's second preference votes be added to Tom and Dick's totals in order for one of them to get 50%+. If Dick ends up winning, is this fair or not? It's simple enough, YES or NO? Interesting that according to all the polls, the public are against AV but this forum is very much pro at the moment.

[Michael Wallace]

Interesting that according to all the polls, the public are against AV but this forum is very much pro at the moment.

I wonder if it has something to do with this forum not being completely full of retards.

Edit: And before someone misinterprets that - I mean that retards seem more likely to vote no (rather than people who vote no are necessarily retards).

[Charlie Reams]

Three names are put forward and all the class vote - results for Tom 48%, Dick 30% and Harriet 22%. Should Tom win or should Harriet's second preference votes be added to Tom and Dick's totals in order for one of them to get 50%+. If Dick ends up winning, is this fair or not?

It's very likely that Tom would win in that situation, and if he didn't then he'd have to be overwhelmingly unpopular with Harrietites, so yes, that seems fair to me. As has already been said several times, you can construct unlikely examples for any given voting system.

[Clive Brooker]

OK Chris, I'll look at the example in the spirit intended.

I don't think anyone should have a problem with Dick being elected because assuming that votes were cast consistently, we know that Dick would beat Tom in a two-way fight. So I would say a system producing this result is perfectly credible. Since many defend FPTP to the hilt, there is no doubt that Tom being elected over Dick is also viewed as fair by some. But personally I would say it's less fair because FPTP consciously decides to ignore a layer of information relating directly to the overall view of the electorate.

However, if Harriet is picking up all the second preferences from both Tom and Dick, she could still be the most popular of all. And yet she would still come last under FPTP and be eliminated first under AV. Where's the fairness in that?

On the other hand, perhaps Tom has all Dick's second preferences, so that his overall support is much stronger than has emerged so far.

I go back to my earlier point that the debate shouldn't focus on contrived examples which depend on close to 100% of preference votes passing to one candidate. When deciding which system is fairer, I think it's much better to look at an example where FPTP gives a win to a candidate with, say 35% of the vote, but where he or she would end up losing something like 55% - 45% under AV to an alternative who has broader support.

[David Williams]

There are obviously two factions here. Tom is in one corner, Dick and Harriet in the other. Unfortunately Dick and Harriet have split their faction's vote. Under AV the supporters of the faction that has majority support will win.

I still think the basic argument Chris puts forward is a fair one. If the votes are 45/30/25 to start, and 49/51 at the end? Or if they are Con 40/Lib 30.1/Lab 29.9 the LibDem may well win. If it's Con 40/Lab 30.1/Lib 29.9 the Conservative will probably win. So a few voters switching from Lib Dem to Labour will unseat the LibDem and give the seat to the Tories.

Maybe you should be able to vote only against candidates, but you can vote against as many as you want. The one with the fewest votes wins.

[Charlie Reams]

I still think the basic argument Chris puts forward is a fair one. If the votes are 45/30/25 to start, and 49/51 at the end? Or if they are Con 40/Lib 30.1/Lab 29.9 the LibDem may well win. If it's Con 40/Lab 30.1/Lib 29.9 the Conservative will probably win. So a few voters switching from Lib Dem to Labour will unseat the LibDem and give the seat to the Tories.

Chris claims not to be making an argument so I'm not sure what you're agreeing with, but anyway you can construct similarly volatile examples for any voting system.

[Soph K]

Dick

Forgive me for not actually reading anything but the quoted bit but...er, why does one of the names have to be Dick?!????!!

[Ian Volante]

Dick

Forgive me for not actually reading anything but the quoted bit but...er, why does one of the names have to be Dick?!????!!

Tom, Dick, Harry. Extremely commonly used names for a random group of non-entities. Dick is also slang for penis.


Guess I'm not ten any more I suppose

At 34, the penis humour just gets much much worse.

[Charlie Reams]

At 34, the penis humour just gets much much worse.

Like the aqueous humour, it hardens and makes it difficult to focus.

[David Williams]

I still think the basic argument Chris puts forward is a fair one. If the votes are 45/30/25 to start, and 49/51 at the end? Or if they are Con 40/Lib 30.1/Lab 29.9 the LibDem may well win. If it's Con 40/Lab 30.1/Lib 29.9 the Conservative will probably win. So a few voters switching from Lib Dem to Labour will unseat the LibDem and give the seat to the Tories.

Chris claims not to be making an argument so I'm not sure what you're agreeing with, but anyway you can construct similarly volatile examples for any voting system.

I could have worded it better. I simply meant that looking at plausible examples of different results arising from the two systems, and deciding which you think is fair, is a good way to come to a decision.

[Charlie Reams]

I could have worded it better. I simply meant that looking at plausible examples of different results arising from the two systems, and deciding which you think is fair, is a good way to come to a decision.

It's hard to concoct a sufficient range of plausible examples though, and puts you at significant risk of confirmation bias. You could also consider more general features of the systems, such as whether someone's second preference should have any weight, and the extent to which you would prefer to eliminate tactical voting.

[Chris Corby]

I could have worded it better. I simply meant that looking at plausible examples of different results arising from the two systems, and deciding which you think is fair, is a good way to come to a decision.

Thanks David, that was the purpose of the exercise. The assertion that my results are unlikely to be reflected in a real local or general election miss the point.

[Charlie Reams]

The assertion that my results are unlikely to be reflected in a real local or general election miss the point.

You're certainly doing a good job of obscuring your point, whatever it is. As I understand it, you would prefer a voting system which performed most fairly on some obscure hand-crafted example, even if it was utterly useless for any plausible preferences of a real electorate. Is that right?

[Chris Corby]

You're certainly doing a good job of obscuring your point, whatever it is. As I understand it, you would prefer a voting system which performed most fairly on some obscure hand-crafted example, even if it was utterly useless for any plausible preferences of a real electorate. Is that right?

FFS, I haven't said I prefer either voting system. Just look at the example I gave and (a) If you think Tom should be elected you probably support FPTP (b) If because of AV, Dick ends up winning and you are happy with that then AV is probably for you. Simple or what?

[Gavin Chipper]

You're certainly doing a good job of obscuring your point, whatever it is. As I understand it, you would prefer a voting system which performed most fairly on some obscure hand-crafted example, even if it was utterly useless for any plausible preferences of a real electorate. Is that right?

FFS, I haven't said I prefer either voting system. Just look at the example I gave and (a) If you think Tom should be elected you probably support FPTP (b) If because of AV, Dick ends up winning and you are happy with that then AV is probably for you. Simple or what?

I'm not sure it is that simple. It depends what you mean by "should be elected". It's quite plausible that someone can look at it consituency by constituency, and agree with the FPTP result on some occasions an the AV result in others. It might be that really you support a third voting system, which sometimes corresponds to the FPTP result and sometimes AV, or you might think that no system is perfect so you go with the one which more often than the others produces the "best" result. And it might be that on this occasion your system would agree with FPTP, but that doesn't mean you would probably agree with FPTP because you might agree with the AV result more often (I'm not talking about agreeing with the result meaning preferring the candidate, obviously).

[Charlie Reams]

You're certainly doing a good job of obscuring your point, whatever it is. As I understand it, you would prefer a voting system which performed most fairly on some obscure hand-crafted example, even if it was utterly useless for any plausible preferences of a real electorate. Is that right?

FFS, I haven't said I prefer either voting system.

I think it's possible to make inferences about someone's opinion beyond what they state explicitly.

Just look at the example I gave and (a) If you think Tom should be elected you probably support FPTP (b) If because of AV, Dick ends up winning and you are happy with that then AV is probably for you. Simple or what?

I replied to your example already, although you didn't acknowledge my reply. Either way, I'm puzzled as to why you think someone's opinion about one particular fictitious example would be enough to settle the whole debate (especially when the example is incomplete because you didn't give us any idea about what the second round of voting would produce). Here's another fictitious example: you have 10 candidates and one of them gets 11% of the vote and is hated by the other 89% of the electorate, who spread their votes evenly over the other nine. FPTP elects the person who is hated by 89% of the voters. If you are happy with this, FPTP is probably for you. This line of reasoning certainly is simple, unfortunately it's also completely wrong.

[David Williams]

I think it's possible to make inferences about someone's opinion beyond what they state explicitly.

. . . puts you at significant risk of confirmation bias.

[Chris Corby]

I replied to your example already, although you didn't acknowledge my reply. Either way, I'm puzzled as to why you think someone's opinion about one particular fictitious example would be enough to settle the whole debate (especially when the example is incomplete because you didn't give us any idea about what the second round of voting would produce). Here's another fictitious example: you have 10 candidates and one of them gets 11% of the vote and is hated by the other 89% of the electorate, who spread their votes evenly over the other nine. FPTP elects the person who is hated by 89% of the voters. If you are happy with this, FPTP is probably for you. This line of reasoning certainly is simple, unfortunately it's also completely wrong.

I love you Charlie but you are a right little mischief maker! Your example (unlike mine) bears no relation to the result of any election - the winner has 11% of the vote???? Never ever! The trouble with this campaign nationally is the absolute garbage spouted. I heard John Reid this morning (a NO to AV man) compare the AV system as the equivalent of buying a Mars Bar, taking a bite out of it and returning it to the shop and exchanging it for a Twix (WTF?)

Here is a genuine result from the last general election (so as I cannot be accused of offering up unlikely scenarios):

LD 16,806 43.7%
Con 14,116 36.7%
Lab 5,061 13.2%
UKIP 1,243 3.2%
BNP 1,213 3.2%



Under FPTP, the LibDem wins.

Under AV, the BNP votes are looked at again and their second choice votes are added to the remaining four candidates. Even if all these votes go to the same candidate, there is still no 50% target reached so the UKIP second preference votes are counted. These could now include some transferred BNP votes so the argument against AV says that those who voted for BNP have now had two votes and some are now heading for a third! If the combined votes for the BNP and UKIP parties have all now voted LibDem as their second preference that candidate has passed the 50% threshold and is elected (unlikely) so I would predict the count goes on. Now the second preference Labour votes are taken into account. Some BNP voters could be heading for a fourth vote! I now think it highly likely that the LibDem candidate will get over 50%. So really no different in this instance to first past the post.... but a better system? This is what you have to decide. I heard Paddy Ashdown on Newsnight say that under AV, no vote is wasted? Really? What about all those who voted Conservative above? Were their second preference votes ever taken into account?

[Jon O'Neill]

Under AV, the BNP votes are looked at again and their second choice votes are added to the remaining four candidates. Even if all these votes go to the same candidate, there is still no 50% target reached so the UKIP second preference votes are counted. These could now include some transferred BNP votes so the argument against AV says that those who voted for BNP have now had two votes and some are now heading for a third! If the combined votes for the BNP and UKIP parties have all now voted LibDem as their second preference that candidate has passed the 50% threshold and is elected (unlikely) so I would predict the count goes on. Now the second preference Labour votes are taken into account. Some BNP voters could be heading for a fourth vote! I now think it highly likely that the LibDem candidate will get over 50%. So really no different in this instance to first past the post.... but a better system? This is what you have to decide. I heard Paddy Ashdown on Newsnight say that under AV, no vote is wasted? Really? What about all those who voted Conservative above? Were their second preference votes ever taken into account?

But they haven't had two votes, have they???????????????????? Becuase their first vote doesn't count any more????????

Honestly, it's not that fucking difficult. That whole several votes argument is one of the most moronic things I've ever heard.