silverfox

I don't know any FPTP people who claim it's an ideal system. Rather, if we're going to replace the current system let's replace it with something better. AV isn't a better system - it's a dog's dinner of a contrivance. I rest my case.

I don't know any FPTP people who claim it's an ideal system. Rather, if we're going to replace the current system let's replace it with something better. AV isn't a better system - it's a dog's dinner of a contrivance. I rest my case.

Re: First Past the Post or AV Posted by: Loz Today, 10:39AM "I'll reply one more time just to note that those two 'thank yous' were positively dripping in sarcasm..." I'm disappointed that you feel that way because you've helped me get a better understanding of the case for AV than would have been possible by simply reading the leaflet that's come through the door, which of course is how most people will make their decision. So, thank you for your explanations and examples. What I've concluded is what appears to be a reasonable and fairer system at first glance is actually full of flaws and contradictions. My main concerns are: 1 It is not necessary to reach at least 50% to gain a result 2 Some people's second preferences are counted but others' second preferences aren't 3 Some people's second preferences are counted at the same time as others' third preferences 4 The idea of multiple preferences cannot be reconciled with the idea of one person, one vote. It is a false concept and the reality is multiple votes 5 The claim that it is an improvement over the present system is dubious 6 The claim that it will enhance democracy is dubious In short AV is not as simple or fair as its advocates would have us believe

I beg to differ Huguenot my old friend. In fact Loz has thanked me on at least two occasions on this thread for helping him to put his AV ideas over on what is, let's face it, an excruciatingly boring subject.

Okay Loz, I'll call it a day as you're starting to get ratty again. There are a number of points I've raised that you haven't answered, or been able to answer, but never mind. There's no shame in that. You've tried your best. Good luck in the referendum.

Loz said: "... The people that 'voted' for Mr A and Ms B also 'voted' for them again in round two...everybody gets two votes, or three votes, or whatever..." So it's not one man/person one vote? Also, going back to your table above, when do the people who voted for Mr A and Ms B have their second vote/preference taken into consideration? Why is it only losers who are allowed to vote more than once?

But Loz, they're obviously voting with their feet

Am I the only one who finds the above incomprehensible mumbo jumbo? Quote: "...A vote is a wider concept..." ?????? I might as well be speaking with a Martian.

Another way to explain this is to take the result and work backwards. So, in Round one there are 100 votes but by Round 3 both Mr A and Ms B have received an extra 15 votes each. So really 130 votes have been used to determine the outcome not 100. It is misleading to say only 100 votes have been used because some people have had two votes used. It is not good enough to say we'll ignore the first vote because it has been counted at Round 1.

But gentlemen, you have to look at what has really happened here. Poor old Sir D has only received 10 votes. That means, as unpopular as he is, 10 people have voted for him. Now it is possible that some of these 10 people didn't put down any preferences so their vote has gone (as it would under FPTP). However on your example the 10 have given preferences. So, 10 people vote for Sir D and he's eliminated. How does Mr A and Ms B get an extra 5 votes each in Round 2? They have received the second votes made by those who voted for Sir D - not the first votes because they were for Sir D, but the second votes. These 10 people have been allowed for vote for more than one person. They have had two bites at the cherry. This is not one man/person one vote. By couching it in the terminology of preferences you are trying to disguise the reality of what's gone on here. These 10 have voted for both Sir D and another candidate (and maybe a third etc). both their votes have been counted, in Round 1 and Round 2. If this is only one vote it is a very schizophrenic vote.

No Loz, if you wipe the AV sleep from your eyes you might see the world as it really is. What really happens in an AV election as I understand it from you and Huguenot, is that if one candidate does not achieve 50% there is a second round of voting, and perhaps a third and a fouth. All first votes have been cast and nobody has achieved 50%. So now some people are being given a second vote which is added to the cumulative total. If there is still no clear winner others are then given the chance to have a second vote when their third preferences are added to the cumulative total. So, unfairly in my opinion, some people get one vote, others, who have used their vote at preference 1 are now allowed to vote a second time. AV is like paying a shopkeeper with a ?5 note on a piece of elastic which snaps back into the purchaser's pocket. It's not so much alternative voting but multi-voting for some. You can dress up this in fancy language like preferences but you can't disguise the reality of what's really happening here.

Preferences are votes- full stop. If you put a tick next to more than one candidate you have made more than one vote. If this were not the case the second vote (preference in your terminology) couldn't logically be transferred to the candidate you've voted for a second time. AV is deluding itself if it thinks one vote can be fragmented into sub-units. PS the concept man is generally accepted to include woman as well, eg, the evolution of man, ascent of man etc

Here's something even more simple that doesn't require a leaflet through the door that takes four pages to (badly) explain it. Wait for it........ One man one vote

Good 'Say no to AV' ad on Telly earlier this evening. lots of confused faces all round. 9 out of 10 I'd say.

Why am I lying? What I'm saying is once you get past a person's real vote (that is the first person they vote for) as far as I can see it becomes a numbers game, the result of which, I've yet to be convinced, bears any real relation to the will of the voters.

Au contraire mon ami. It's coming back to marmora man's point that the preferences cannot logically carry the same weight. preference 1 (or let's call a spade a spade - your real vote) is the outcome you really want, wish for, desire, covet etc, otherwise you wouldn't have voted that way. A second, third, fourth vote is a sliding scale of desperation, grasping at straws. Alternatively, the person putting these multiple preferences is an idiot who doesn't know what they want. Under FPTP if I vote for x and x doesn't win I accept the result. More people preferred a different candidate than the one I chose. Fair enough. If the result of the Referendum is that AV is voted in (wins) I will accept the result but probably will only cast one vote in future AV elections without all the secondary preferences. However, if these is a result under an AV election what do we make of that result in cases where the first preference votes didn't produce a clear winner with at least 50% of the votes? As far as I can see we cannot meaningfully say it was the will of the majority - what the people wanted, wished for, desired etc. Rather the mathematical combinations of preferences under the rules of AV has produced an artificial result. In some respects it's a bit of a lottery than has had unintended consequences due to the mathematical combinations where second and third votes are counted together. It is for this reason that I stated I would question being told by an AV supporter that the result is for the greater good. I'm not convinced the result is any such thing but a contrivance - arrived at by bureaucratic meddling. It's the dead parrot being shaken by the hand of the person telling me it's for my own good if only I realised it. Or to put it another way - it's a horse that's been designed by a committee - A CAMEL!

Would I be accused of trying to mislead and confuse the issue if I introduced the idea of Monty Python's dead parrot sketch? Eg, my first preference would be to buy a live parrot (that is, I have made this my first preference because this is what I want, what I wish for). I don't want any other outcome so there's no need for me to make any other preferences. But if I did my last preference would be what I least want to happen, least wish for/desire, ie, to get a dead parrot. If someone then tells me I've ended up with a dead parrot for the greater utilitarian good, no matter how much they shake the parrot to feign life, I'm not going to be very happy.

Quote: "Not very compelling? You were prepared to force 'chocolate' on people when the majority didn't want it. The majority did not want it..." Sorry Huguenot, maybe something's being lost in translation here. I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. You seem to be so sure that AV is a good thing in principle that your judgment is being clouded. Look at the children's first preferences again. What is so difficult to understand about the fact that appling AV to the ice cream example has resulted in a worse result than if you left well alone? AV is doing the forcing by insisting everybody (ie 100%) has vanilla when only 30% wanted it in the first place. Look at the figures - they are staring you in the face. You can squirm and wiggle as much as you like but AV has produced a worse result here. Are you honestly saying you can't see that, a clever chap like you?

Quote: "Since the arguments in favour of AV are so compelling..." I've just cited two examples above that don't appear very compeling to me. I'm struggling to see how it is an improvement on FPTP. Not least the logistics. Hickey's nine voters are really 9,000 voters or more. How can the transfers of votes be monitored unless it's computerised. All you need is a Silverfox type character to ask for a recount and the whole system is thrown into confusion and hundreds of hours of re-checking and double-checking. So will it really be as simple as numbering 1-4 or more or will we need some form of lottery ticket type grid next to each candidate's name that needs carefully filling in so that a computer can read it? The advantage of FPTP is dotty Aunt Doris doesn't even have to write her name, just put an X. There's a strong argument for keeping things simple so everyone understands what they're doing. In short, in my humble opinion, putting all the preferences down is a bit like stabbing the paper with a pin to choose who to back in the Grand National. You're at the mercy of the Gods. (Edited for rogue apostrophe, in case anyone mistook it for a rogue preference)

Loz said: "...Please cease misleading people as to my ice cream example. If you don't understand it, fine, but stop using it to back a statement that is not correct... The point of the ice-cream example is to show that, although chocolate would win under a FPTP regime, it is actually the most disliked by the *majority* of the electorate... silverfox's assertion that, "The majority of people have ended up with what they didn't want in the first place" is just a false statement and belies logic. What the majority *didn't* want was chocolate - and FPTP would have declared the least-wanted candidate the winner..." Loz, it's not that I misunderstand your example, your figures speak for themselves. Let's look at it again. At stage 1 of your example we have the following result. This is the children's real wish, their first preference. The only reason they voted differently at stage 2 was because they couldn't have what they wanted at stage 1. So, 1) Everyone votes and the outcome is chocolate (4), vanilla (3), strawberry (2) and pistachio (1). Now this seems quite straight forward to me. The most popular choice is chocolate. 40% of people have voted for it. That means 60% of people didn't vote for it. 30% of people voted for vanilla. That means 70% of people didn't vote for vanilla. Ergo, AV reasoning has resulted in more people ending up with a Vanilla ice cream they didn't want in the first place (70%) than would have been the case if the children hadn't taken the extra votes (60%). How is that a false statement and belies logic? What strange logic allows you to conclude that 'What the majority *didn't* want was chocolate' if more people didn't want the vanilla they actually ended up with? Andrew Hickey's example above is similar to this. If you look at the real intentions of the voters you have to look at the first preference. This is what they would really like to happen. Further preferences lack conviction on a sliding scale until we reach the scraping of the barrel. A person who is going to choose four different candidates probably doesn't know what they really want. What is clear from Hickey's example is twice as many people didn't want Red with their first preferences. Therefore the majority of people have ended up with what they didn't want in the first place. What's difficult or misleading about that?

Thank you nashoi. I think you've done democracy a favour here. I think this is one of the best explanations of how AV works I've seen. It's very cleverly put together and superficially very seductive. Note how there's no room for a FPTP objection in round 1 as, conveniently, the leaders are tied. Note also how all nine voters dutifully, lemming-like, put down four preferences. Nobody justs votes once for the candidate they would like to win. This is theory at its rose-tinted hypothetical best. Let's quote part of this in full: "... How It Works Everyone is given a ballot on which is listed all the candidates who are standing, The voter then ranks them in order. If one candidate gets more than 50% of the first-preference votes, that candidate is the winner. Otherwise, the lowest-scoring candidate is knocked out, and the second-preference votes from them go to the other candidates. This carries on until one candidate has more than 50% of the votes. This means that whoever wins, more than half the voters think they?re not the worst alternative. An example ? imagine we have four parties (Red, Blue, Yellow and Green) and nine voters who vote as follows: Voter 1 Yellow Green Blue Red Voter 2 Yellow Blue Red Green Voter 3 Red Blue Yellow Green Voter 4 Red Blue Green Yellow Voter 5 Yellow Green Blue Red Voter 6 Red Green Blue Yellow Voter 7 Blue Green Yellow Red * Voter 8 Blue Red Green Yellow Voter 9 Green Red Yellow Blue Round 1 ? We have 3 Yellow, 3 Red, 2 Blue and 1 Green first preferences. Green is eliminated as it has the fewest first preference votes, and the votes redistributed: Voter 1 Yellow Blue Red Voter 2 Yellow Blue Red Voter 3 Red Blue Yellow Voter 4 Red Blue Yellow Voter 5 Yellow Blue Red Voter 6 Red Blue Yellow Voter 7 Blue Yellow Red Voter 8 Blue Red Yellow Voter 9 Red Yellow Blue Round 2 ? We have 4 Red, 3 Yellow and 2 Blue , so Blue are eliminated Voter 1 Yellow Red Voter 2 Yellow Red Voter 3 Red Yellow Voter 4 Red Yellow Voter 5 Yellow Red Voter 6 Red Yellow Voter 7 Yellow Red Voter 8 Red Yellow Voter 9 Red Yellow We now have 5 Red votes, which is more than 50%, so Red wins..." http://andrewhickey.info/2010/08/22/the-alternative-vote-system/ Now let's look at this objectively and find out what's really gone on here. In Andrew Hickey's example, above, the Red candidate won. But let's look at what really happened. Preference 1 - Six out of nine voters didn't want the Red candidate to win - twice as many people didn't vote for Red. Preference 2 - Only two out of nine voters thought the Red candidate worthy of the second preference Preference 3 - Only one of nine voters put Red down as a choice Preference 4 - Again, twice as many people did not vote for Red So, at every stage of the voting procedure Red has never achieved more than a third of the votes. But under this AV example Red has won. Sorry folks, this does not make sense to me. The reason Red has won is because of a bureaucratic voting procedure that clearly, on this example, has nothing to do with the will of the people. Okay, in fairness to AV promoters, such an example of a candidate getting 30-odd% and winning is not uncommon under FPTP. I agree. My point is how is AV an improvement? How does it enhance democracy? In short, the AV camp hasn't made the case to convince us why we should abandon FPTP. I have been accused of having no ideas of my own. I don't have to. 'He who asserts must prove'. I'm not the one trying to convince the electorate that AV is a fairer system that empowers you on plainly dubious grounds. So really we've come full circle back to Loz's ice cream example. The majority of people have ended up with what they didn't want in the first place. (* explains why third vote has to be used instead of second - ie can't use green second preference as eliminated)

I don't blame you being confused Peckhamgatecrasher and it's funny how the pro-AV group have started resorting to insults. Speaks volumes to my mind (claiming to extol the virtues of a 'simpler' more democratic system and then shouting and bullying, calling others stupid, daft, silly and refusing to answer questions etc). Fair enough, call me stupid, daft, silly if you wish but can someone please explain to me what is meant by the bit in bold below which is the BBC's attempt to explain this 'simple' concept: "...People can nominate as many preferences as they like. Only first preference votes are counted initially. Anyone getting more than 50% of these is elected automatically. If that doesn't happen, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their second choices allocated to the remaining candidates in a second round of counting. If one candidate then has more than 50% of the votes in this round they are elected. If not, the remaining candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their second preferences (or third preferences if they were the second choice of someone who voted for the first candidate to be eliminated) reallocated. This continues until one candidate has 50% or more of the vote in that round of counting..." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11243595) So, some people's second preferences are being counted at the same time as others' third preferences?????????????????????????? I feel a headache coming on (Edited - word vote changes to preferences to suit AV terminology)

Fair enough, you have been patient. Wonder what the answer to the above question is though?

Loz, another query (if you've fallen out with me please deputise an AV supporter to answer on behalf of the 'Yes' group): Once a candidate has been eliminated can they be re-installed because the reallocation of votes make them the winner? For example, assume four candidates with one of them the Monster Raving Looney Party which all voters put as their fourth choice. Round 1 - no candidate gets 50% and MRLP candidate drops out. His second choice votes reallocated. Still inconclusive. Round 2 - the second candidate is eliminated and second choice votes reallocated. Still inconclusive. Round 3 - presumably a third candidate can't drop out and have his votes re-allocated as there would only be one candidate left. So back to the MRLP member and re-allocate his third votes etc Could you get to the situation where, because everybody voted the MRLP member fourth choice he or she actually wins with 100% of the votes cast by virtue of the fouth choice votes being re-allocated? Please advise a nitpicker with no arguments of his own.

Oh dear, first Huguenot and now Loz. The pressure of fighting a losing battle must be getting to them. Chin up Loz. PS, I see the Prime Minister used the Olympic example, as above.