First Past the Post or AV

[maxxi]

Loz Wrote:

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

this is especially good for

> the 10% of 'wasted' votes - those that currently

> go to smaller parties who do have a preference for

> one of the bigger parties. And also to an

> inestimable number of voters who currently put in

> a tactical vote for the big three, but would

> rather count themselves a Green, or a UKIP or an

> independent... whatever. They are the ones that

> AV will effectively re-enfranchise.

Isn't this just a way of saying to these voters "Yes, yes alright, you're a Green/UKIP/Indie etc very good. Now then let's have your second choice and get on with the real business of electing one of the big three?

Politics in this country is already MORE about keeping someone out rather than voting for a candidate you want and muddying the waters with 57 varieties of the same basic view will leave people more concerned that the wrong one would get in as their vote is split. The candidate whose supporters refuse to give second choice etc would surely win and those wishing to vote Green etc would (rightly) resent only being counted for their 2nd or 3rd choice.

I am probably being terribly dim but don't see a situation where this system will lead to the parties that would come 4th or lower in a fptp system getting a seat in Parliament, and if we're to have representation of all views (even the unpalatable) surely everyone should be represented with votes counted on a national basis and seats awarded accordingly.

[James Barber]

If AV wins in the referendum on Thursday I suspect the ramifications will be far more than we currently appreciate.

For the 1st time even no main political supporters will have a reason to vote. We'll see what everyone first preference is. This is bound to show that in some areas a minority party everyone assumed would never win enough support to win is actually far closer than anyone imagined.

It would also be a real pleasure to not squeeze voters by pointing out it a two horse race and voting for anyone else is a wasted vote.

The turnout would increase and whoever wins would have to have more than just the biggest minority - they'll have to have more than 50% of voters preferences.

[Loz]

maxxi Wrote:

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

> Loz Wrote:

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

>> this is especially good for

>> the 10% of 'wasted' votes - those that currently

>> go to smaller parties who do have a preference for

>> one of the bigger parties. And also to an

>> inestimable number of voters who currently put in

>> a tactical vote for the big three, but would

>> rather count themselves a Green, or a UKIP or an

>> independent... whatever. They are the ones that

>> AV will effectively re-enfranchise.

>

> Isn't this just a way of saying to these voters

> "Yes, yes alright, you're a Green/UKIP/Indie etc

> very good. Now then let's have your second choice

> and get on with the real business of electing one

> of the big three?

Yes, that may be the effect in the short term. But, as the Greens managed to show at Brighton Pavilion, there is a potential support for the smaller parties that is held back due to the FPTP system 'pushing' people towards the big three.

What you are asking for is PR, but that (rightly or wrongly) is not on the table. But you can bet that, if the AV question is lost on Thursday, then any electoral reform will be off the agenda for a generation. I'm not saying that voting yes to AV will lead to PR, but voting no to AV is voting no to any electoral reform.

What do we have to lose by voting Yes, then?

[silverfox]

Loz said:

"...What do we have to lose by voting Yes, then?..."

We lose a simple, straightforward system that everybody understands - one person one vote.

AV is not the correct choice to replace this tried and tested system. Even the architect of the vote, Mr Clegg, acknowledges it's a miserable little compromise. Even he didn't want it, he wanted PR.

By all means start the process of discussion to replace FPTP with a different system such as PR but don't, out of desperation, vote for an ill-thought out stop-gap that'll do little if anything to improve democracy or empower voters.

[maxxi]

Loz wrote

>

> What you are asking for is PR, but that (rightly

> or wrongly) is not on the table. But you can bet

> that, if the AV question is lost on Thursday, then

> any electoral reform will be off the agenda for a

> generation.

>

But if the AV question is won won't that have the same effect? Is it not possible to reject AV simply because it IS a compromise and that the electorate want the question re-examined & revisited sooner rather than later?

The only arguments I am hearing are yes it's crappy but better than nothing. Or that it is change for change's sake and anything's better than what we have. Embrace the compromise.

I suspect it will make no difference (a yes vote) and will only serve to kill the PR debate for a long time to come. It has already had the effect of condemning PR to the side-lines as though it were an unobtainable utopian goal.

Only PR is fair whilst still retaining the underlying principles of democracy - one person, one vote.

[Loz]

Is it not possible to reject AV simply because it IS a compromise and that the electorate want the question re-examined & revisited sooner rather than later?

No, it's not. The Tories are bankrolling the No campaign because they want to keep FPTP. They are in power (and let's face it probably will be for 5 to 10 years) and will kill any thought of electoral reform should they get a No vote.

I'll say it again, because it is worth remembering: if the AV question is lost on Thursday, then any electoral reform will be off the agenda for a generation.

If you want to keep FPTP, then vote No.

If you want to keep PR on the table, vote YES on Thursday. If you want electoral reform, vote YES on Thursday.

[Huguenot]

I don't really understand what the problem with compromise is, it's a fundamental strength of the British that they understand the benefits of compromise and the quest for common ground.

Maxxi, cutting off your nose to spite your face springs to mind. I do feel you're fundamentally misguided if you imagine a rejection of AV will result in accelleration to PR.

A 'no' vote will be taken as a rejection of all change, and an endorsement of the decrepit self serving system we have in place.

Conversely AV will deliver us a more representative and responsive political environment where politicans are under much more pressure to listen to the needs of the electorate.

FPTP delivers us minority governments supported and driven by unaccountable self-serving elites.

Currently maxxi, you don't have any democracy. The system is driven by selection committees and a two party state. Under FPTP you have no choices at all.

More fool you if you reject AV on the basis of an empty dream of PR.

[silverfox]

True, there is nothing wrong with compromise.

Unfortunately, as we have seen from the examples given on this thread in support of AV, AV is a dumbing down, a dilution, the elevation of the average candidate on a second or third best basis - and all this under the misguided notion that it's good for us, it's fair.

It's a fallacy.

[Loz]

Ignoring silverfox's silly trolling - he doesn't understand anything he writes about and just mindless regurgitates whatever he reads in the Daily Mirror that day. I mean, like you could 'dumb down' FPTP - after all, it's the voting system that's so simple, only the simple like it.

Anyway, there are two things to remember going into Thursday's vote.

1) If the AV question is lost on Thursday, then any electoral reform will be off the agenda for a generation.

2) Everything that is fair and honest and reasonable about AV can be summed up in Brendon's excellent video link. So good, it's worth repeating. The cool cats vote Yes to AV.

 

[silverfox]

FPTP is a simple voting system Loz.

You put an x next to the candidate you would like to win. The person with the most votes wins. (Simple, that took 20 words to explain)

You don't need expensive leaflets coming through the door taking four pages to explain how to vote.

You don't need silly graphics with bar charts and dogs wearing hats and frock coats to explain it.

You don't need adverts with people shouting through loud hailers to try to explain it.

You don't need to put down several choices because you're not sure who to vote for.

You don't need to give a failed candidate extra votes to help them using a complicated form of pass the parcel.

You don't need to pretend to people that it will somehow empower them, make their votes count, when in fact any change will be negligible

And the biggest self-delusion of all is to tell people that all this nonsense is good for them if they but realised it - yes folks you really wanted this useless miserable compromise of a candidate to represent you because you put them down as your 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th choice.

[womanofdulwich]

were the majoral elections AV or single transferable vote? whatever they were i liked them and they were easy to understand.

[Loz]

FPTP is a simple voting system Loz.

You put an x next to the candidate you would like to win. The person with the most votes wins. (Simple, that took 20 words to explain)

You don't need expensive leaflets coming through the door taking four pages to explain how to vote.

but also

AV is a dumbing down

So AV is more complex than FPTP, but it is a dumbing down? You are just contradicting yourself now, silverfox. You're not making sense. But then, few of your rambling posts have.

[Loz]

womanofdulwich Wrote:

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

> were the majoral elections AV or single

> transferable vote? whatever they were i liked them

> and they were easy to understand.

They were a form of AV where you were limited to two preferences. For the AV system being proposed you will be allowed to number as many (or as few) preferences as you like.

As you say, AV is easy to understand - the only people who could possibly find AV complicated are those that can't count to ten.

[womanofdulwich]

thanks Loz, i wonder if it is all the FPTP's that keep going on about how difficult it is. It would be better to fine those that do not vote- like Australia!

[James Barber]

If the AV referendum results in a NO then I doubt we'll have an further chance of MP voting reform in my lifetime.

If YES wins on Thursday and over the following MP elections I could see further reform happening.

If you want a YES on Thursday can you spare any time to help with the campaign in East Dulwich?

If you can please get in touch and help change parlimantary politics.

[email protected]

[westdulwich]

If, for sake of argument, 10,000 people vote as follows:

4,100 vote Party A as their first preference, with 800 voting Party B and 3,300 voting Party C as their second preference

3,000 vote Party B as their first preference, with 1,500 voting Party A and 1,500 voting Party C as their second preference

2,900 vote Party C as their first preference, with 800 voting Party A and 2,100 voting Party B as their second preference

Have I understood this correctly?

Party A has the most first preference votes

Party C is the party that most would be prefer, if their first choice was eliminated.

Under FPTP, Party A is the winner, with 41% of votes cast.

Under AV, Party B is the winner, with 51% of votes cast (after Party C is eliminated and its votes distributed).

[Loz]

Yep, westdulwich - the FPTP vs AV results are correct.

But - "Party C is the party that most would be prefer, if their first choice was eliminated." - not sure about that one as that isn't really what AV is about. For instance, the Greens or an independent may get loads of second preferences from the Big Three, but very few first preferences. So just cutting away all first preferences and examining the second prefs doesn't really tell you much and certainly not how the system works. You need to score high on first prefs to stay in the ballot.

[Marmora Man]

westdulwich Wrote:

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

> If, for sake of argument, 10,000 people vote as

> follows:

> 4,100 vote Party A as their first preference, with

> 800 voting Party B and 3,300 voting Party C as

> their second preference

> 3,000 vote Party B as their first preference, with

> 1,500 voting Party A and 1,500 voting Party C as

> their second preference

> 2,900 vote Party C as their first preference, with

> 800 voting Party A and 2,100 voting Party B as

> their second preference

>

> Have I understood this correctly?

> Party A has the most first preference votes

> Party C is the party that most would be prefer, if

> their first choice was eliminated.

>

> Under FPTP, Party A is the winner, with 41% of

> votes cast.

> Under AV, Party B is the winner, with 51% of votes

> cast (after Party C is eliminated and its votes

> distributed).

West Dulwich - try my maths on the Lounge thread - I don't think it quite answers your query but it confuses me!

[maxxi]

Loz - You have used the AV system in Australia as an example of it working well. Do you think that the optional preference system here (where voters don't HAVE to excpress a 2nd 3rd 4th choice) as opposed to Aus. where voters MUST fill in 2nd 3rd 4th for their ballot to count as valid will make it less effective here?

Also do you think there is any truth in the argument used by the NO campaign that there is a majority in Aus. who want to revert to fptp and if so is this not a point against AV?

[Loz]

I rather like the optional preference idea - let's face it, if you are faced with 10 candidates you are only really going to care up to 3-5 preferences. For those that choose to still only mark one preference then, yes, they will miss out on the the full vote value that preferences give, but hey, it's a free country and it's their right to do as they see fit. Will it make it less effective? I don't think so, but in any case at least it will still be more effective than FPTP.

As for the Australia lie, well there is now a thread open in the lounge as well. I answer that earlier, so forgive a bit of cutting and pasting here:

That is a complete fabrication by the No camp. There was a single poll held in the days following the last general election (which had ended in only the second hung parliament in Australia in a century). That poll did indicate dissatisfaction with the current voting system, but actually found that most Australians would actually prefer Optional Preference Voting ? i.e. the version of AV that would be adopted in the UK ? to either Compulsory Preference Voting (the current Aussie system) or First Past the Post.

But also, the No camp fail to tell you that no one is embracing FPTP - in fact, quite the opposite. As a report says:

Over the course of the 20th century, a number of states have opted to switch away from FPTP. From Australia in 1913 through to New Zealand in 1993, successions of states have embraced wholesale electoral reform. More tellingly, no major democracy in the modern era has gone the other way and adopted FPTP. Since 1945, only three new democracies have introduced FPTP based on the British model ? Albania, Macedonia and Ukraine ? and even these countries subsequently decided to switch to a different system.

[maxxi]

Pretty much as I suspected - when I was in WA briefly (albeit 10 years ago) the good citizens of Perth seemed more concerned with a referendum on a republic rather than the voting system.

With the optional preference system I think we will see more campaigning on the lines of Blair's New Labour though: Ignore those that will vote for you as first pref. they are in the bag, instead concentrate on those who wouldn't normally vote for you (Blair wooing the city and the middle class family vote).

With a following wind (provided by the rampant corruption and incompetence of the Tories) Blair made it work in a fptp system. Seems a tactic even more likely to succeed with AV so maybe we can look forward to Cameron paying court to the Greens, Miliband making promises to UKIP and the Lib Dems doing deals with whoever holds the high ground at the time or perhaps finally splitting back into their constituent parts (Liberals and SDP - an uneasy marriage that was only convened to create a party 'big' enough to challenge the other two in a fptp system) in order to pick up each others second preference votes?

[westdulwich]

Loz Wrote:

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

> Yep, westdulwich - the FPTP vs AV results are

> correct.

Thanks. I wasn't sure.

I'm new to internet forums, so:

- I'm not sure whether I should be posting here or on the new thread.

- I'm sorry if my tone "sounds wrong". I'm just trying to make my point as clearly as I can.

It appears that under AV,

1. Everyone has the right to express their second, third, and subsequent preferences (I'll just say "second preferences" to keep things simple) in the event that their first/earlier choices are eliminated.

2. Any preference, when included in the count, is treated as equivalent (e.g. voter X's second preference, if counted, is equal to, say, voter Y's first preference)

3. Second preferences are more likely to be counted if the first preference is for a less popular choice, and less likely to be counted if the first preference if for a more popular choice.

Which strikes me as unfair: In the example above, if your first choice is C and the C candidate is eliminated then your second preference (for A or B ) is counted instead. The rationale? That your first choice is out of the running ("the shop is out of twixes, what would you like instead?"). However, if my first preference is for A, then even though my candidate cannot win, my second preference is NOT counted ("the shop is out of mars bars too, but tough - we ran out of twixes first so we don't care what you would like instead").

Again, sticking with the example I gave:

i. If you look at people's first choice of who they would want (FPTP) - A wins, then B, then C

There are of course drawbacks to FPTP, but this strikes me as a fairly straightforward answer to a straightforward question.

ii. If you look at who people are trying to avoid with their preferences ("any party but X"), counting all preferences - C wins, then A, then B

This may be a clumsy what of measuring it (and I'm not proposing it as an alternative to FPTP, AV or PR), but this approach at least attempts to gauge what a compromise position would look like.

Under neither (i) nor (ii) does B win. It's only under AV that B would win. In this example, B doesn't win if you ask "what's your first choice of chocolate?". B doesn't win when you ask "what's your first choice of chocolate, and what's your second choice of chocolate if you can't have your first choice". B only wins when you ask "what's your first choice of chocolate, what's your second choice of chocolate - oh and by the way, although many of you will not get your first choice, we'll only acknowledge the second choices of some of you".

> But - "Party C is the party that most would be

> prefer, if their first choice was eliminated." -

> not sure about that one as that isn't really what

> AV is about.

The point is that there are more people, in this example, who would either prefer A based on first choices, or who would agree to settle for C if they can't have their first choice.

Loz, please tell me - in the example above, do you think that B winning is the fairest outcome? (I've given my reasons above why I think it isn't). Do you think that B winning adequately reflects the preference of the voters? Really interested to hear from any in the Yes camp on this.

I appreciate the example has it's shortcomings (simplistic, assumes only 3 candidates, assumes all voters offer a second preference, etc.), but I don't think it depicts an implausible scenario, i.e. victory for a candidate under AV that would not have won under FPTP, and which does not have the support (once all voters preferences are taken into account) of most voters.

[westdulwich]

Marmora Man Wrote:

>

> West Dulwich - try my maths on the Lounge thread -

> I don't think it quite answers your query but it

> confuses me!

Thanks. This is also part of the point I was making.

[Huguenot]

There seems to be a group of people who treat voting like football teams, where the winner of an election is the one that scores the highest number of points regardless of whether this is a majority or not.

This is not democracy. Democracy is about identifying the candidates that have the majority support of the electorate.

AV is not about reduced percentage vote value or ridiculous 'no' camp fabricated maths, it's about weeding out unpopular candidates until only two remain and then asking the electorate to vote on these final two.

It's equivalent to a presidential run off when only two candidates remain. If one candidate gets over 50% of the vote in initial rounds you know they can't be beaten and so don't need to carry on the weeding.

In a run off you don't say 'anyone who voted for anyone else is not allowed to vote' or that their vote is worth less. Stupid idea.

You're not struggling to understand a run off are you?

AV allows you to do this without returning to the polls.

This is not complicated. This bullshit about reduced value in votes completely misses the point. It's mainly being driven by dishonest 'no' camp politicians who use the system themselves, but don't want it for everyone else.

[Alan Dale]

http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy/singapore_3603.jsp