First Past the Post or AV

[Huguenot]

I can't believe your response deserves anything but ridicule.

AV doesn't say "I don't want" it says "If I can 't have A, I'll have B". In this example the voters said "I will choose my primary candidate, but failing that I'd prefer Carnell".

They are allowed that choice.

In this example, apart from your core voters silverfox is bottom of the heap.

You would take away that choice in order to foist upon them your control regardless of the fact that Carnell was the preferred candidate. The majority candidate. The representative candidate.

You know this too... I can't believe that you really don't understand this. You want to be a snake?

[Huguenot]

The manipulation of FPTP laid bare no less.

[Huguenot]

The principle is that in this situation Carnell with everyone's second vote would be in a better situation to govern than silverfox saying "60% (most) of you can go to hell, I'm in charge".

Heaven forbid that should ever happen...

[Loz]

No, that's the part you are not following, silverfox. I'm setting the scenario that:

1) Silverfox is actively disliked by 61 of the 100 pupils, but liked by 39

2) Carnell and Loz are liked by all, but because of the vote-splitting nature of FPTP, scored 30 pupils each. (Brendan obviously voted for himself!)

3) Had only silverfox and Carnell been in the election then Carnell would have won easily.

This is what AV is really, really good at - showing *preferences*. Try this: imagine you offered an ice-cream to 10 kids, but they all had to have the same flavour. You decide to have a vote.

1) Everyone votes and the outcome is chocolate (4), vanilla (3), strawberry (2) and pistachio (1).

2) You then narrow the choice down by taking pistachio away as an option, as it is least popular.

3) Everyone votes again. This time the result is chocolate (4), vanilla (4) and strawberry (2).

4) You then narrow the choice down by removing strawberry.

5) The final vote (since there are only two choices) and its chocolate (4), vanilla (6 ).

Do you think this is a fair way of working out what the most popular choice was, rather than just taking chocolate on the first vote? Do you think more kids are happier with the final choice of flavour? Do you see that chocolate was not as the choice of the majority?

[Townleygreen]

I want proper PR, but will be voting for the AV for the moment. Hopefully, we'll eventually get proper PR. With AV, I can properly express my preferences, without having to guess as to who I should tactically vote for. It won't help the Lib Dems that much, might get them a couple more seats. Greens should benefit a bit too.

[silverfox]

Stop being such a sore loser Huguenot. Cross me palm with silver and I might make you my milk monitor deputy.

You can't ridicule mathematics Huguenot. On Loz's example a less popular person has won. It's enough to make the milk go sour.

It's quite possible under AV millions of people will try "If I can 't have A, I'll have B, then C, then D then E etc" and still end up with someone they didn't want as their MP.

So what's different?

[nashoi]

Surely the real worry stemming from this example is that while Silverfox is still trying to work out how AV works, Brendan annexes his one voter (the new girl Gosia). Seduced by his revolutionary rhetoric of "The rest are all just cunts" she follows him in a storming of the milk monitors room in a classic coup d'ecole. Groovily anarchic at first his policy of collectivized milk production eventually fails and the curtain descends. The school doors are nailed shut and the milk monitors room is renamed the White Lubyanka.

Back to the topic though, if we are moving into a post idealogical age (and I pray to God everyday that we are) all that's left for the political parties is to play tug-of-war around the centre ground until consensus is reached. Any system that encourages this pragmatic, evidence based policy making over its adversarial, idealogical alternative is to be preferred.

[Huguenot]

What do you mean by 'a less popular person has won'?

The only way a 'less popular person' can win is by FPTP.

[Huguenot]

I think you know that, it's why you're feigning daftness. Come on silverfox you're a snake aren't you?

[Huguenot]

Wooo 'foreigners', woooo 'torture', woooo 'end of empire', woooo 'end of democracy'...

You don't have an honest bone in your body do you?

Mainly you're wooo 'trying to get an advantage before "I end my days"'?

[Loz]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think you know that, it's why you're feigning daftness.

I've suspected that for a while, too. But, silverfox has enabled me to put together what I hope is a good argument for AV that may just convince some of the 200+ viewers of this thread to vote Yes.

[silverfox]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No, that's the part you are not following,

> silverfox. I'm setting the scenario that:

>

> 1) Silverfox is actively disliked by 61 of the 100

> pupils, but liked by 39

> 2) Carnell and Loz are liked by all, but because

> of the vote-splitting nature of FPTP, scored 30

> pupils each. (Brendan obviously voted for

> himself!)

> 3) Had only silverfox and Carnell been in the

> election then Carnell would have won easily.

>

> This is what AV is really, really good at -

> showing *preferences*. Try this: imagine you

> offered an ice-cream to 10 kids, but they all had

> to have the same flavour. You decide to have a

> vote.

>

> 1) Everyone votes and the outcome is chocolate

> (4), vanilla (3), strawberry (2) and pistachio

> (1).

> 2) You then narrow the choice down by taking

> pistachio away as an option, as it is least

> popular.

> 3) Everyone votes again. This time the result is

> chocolate (4), vanilla (4) and strawberry (2).

> 4) You then narrow the choice down by removing

> strawberry.

> 5) The final vote (since there are only two

> choices) and its chocolate (4), vanilla (6 ).

>

> Do you think this is a fair way of working out

> what the most popular choice was, rather than just

> taking chocolate on the first vote? Do you think

> more kids are happier with the final choice of

> flavour? Do you see that chocolate was not as the

> choice of the majority?

The most popular choice was chocolate at step 1 because more people voted for it than other flavours.

After jumping through hoops the majority of people have ended up with second best. At step 1, 60% of people would have been disappointed. At step 4, 70% of people have ended up with what they didn't want.

Seems simple to be.

Also, at step 4, what if the result had been Chocolate 5 and Vanilla 5? Do the kids have to lick half it away and then swap with the other 5 kids for the other flavour? Therein the madness of coalitions lies.

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> After jumping through hoops the majority of people

> have ended up with second best.

But second best is better than something you *really* don't want.

I think Huguenot is right - you are feigning daftness and, indeed, borderline trolling now. Nobody can take this long to pick up such a relatively simple concept. Still, as I said above, you've proved useful, both for me to put the AV argument and for you to show the paucity of the FPTP argument. So, thanks.

[silverfox]

Loz, you've quoted me selectively. You conveniently missed out the bit that after three votes more people ended up with an ice-cream they didn't want in the first place (70%) than would have been the case in the fist place (60%). they are your figures not mine.

As an argument justifying AV it does not appear to be very convincing. more people now have a flavour they didn't want and it's taken three votes to get there. If you translate that into the real world how many millions of pounds will be wasted to give people a result they didn't want?

Maybe I'm not as daft as you'd like me to be.

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Maybe I'm not as daft as you'd like me to be.

Actually, I suspect your not as daft as you are making out to be.

[minkturtle]

...

[Loz]

I see what you mean, minkturtle, but you are questioning the whole notion of a parliamentary democracy. Frankly, I'm not sure the UK is quite ready for that debate yet.

[david_carnell]

Look, did I get elected or not!?

Anyway....like the mature adult I hope to be, I've changed my mind. AV is far from perfect (in fact in some instances it's rubbish), but it's better than what we have to enough of a degree that it might be worth a roll.

I'm in.

[silverfox]

Don't know David as FPTP and AV are incompatible.

In fairness to Loz, the reason her ice-cream example didn't work and (with all due respect) the reason your victory was questionable, is you can't apply AV process to a FPTP election.

Had both elections been AV then there would have been clear preferences - as Huguenot said, "If I can't have A, I'll have B" etc - and thus the transfer process would be transparent as the voters' secondary or alternative wishes were clear.

Which begs the question, how could David Cameron claim yesterday that Gordon Brown would still be in power had AV applied at the last election if no preferences are available to test this claim?

In short, I won under FPTP, I'm the Milk Monitor and if any of the majority who didn't vote for me grumble about it then there may be an explosion in cases of Rickets in the coming years.

[mockney piers]

Ooh, finally we agree about something.

These comparisons of cameron would be, or Brown would be are utterly pointless because you can't apply FPTP votes to a different electoral system. Not even peter SNow could swing *baddam tish* that one.

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In fairness to Loz, the reason her ...

I assure you Silverfox, that judging by the contents of my underwear I am most definitely a 'he'.

[SeanMacGabhann]

predictive phone text strikes again!

[Brendan]

I also keep a bag of roll-up, a nip of Bells and a copy of the Racing Post in my pants.

[silverfox]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> silverfox Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > In fairness to Loz, the reason her ...

>

> I assure you Silverfox, that judging by the

> contents of my underwear I am most definitely a

> 'he'.

Sincere apologies Loz, I can't get used to this bloody iPad virtual keypad with my fat fingers and end up with loads of typos and it takes twice as long to post anything

[mockney piers]

an interesting look at the AV referendum, and Cameron's possible fall from grace, from the WSJ.

http://blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2011/02/18/the-battle-for-the-no-campaign-and-a-prime-minister-in-peril/