That AV Vote

[Simster]

personally i would like a bit more ideology from the political elite, rather than being governed by focus groups and polling.

Er, no thanks. I've had my fill of Thatcherite policies of controlling money supply by raising interest rates to ridiculous levels, or uncontrolled Labour spending because apparently the only alternative is mass unemployment. Political ideology is a whimsical folly of politicians dicking around with other people's lives. Enough already.

eitherway, the issue is turning into a damp squib, no body really cares. on past results, the current coalition would still be in place and the last few Labour governments would have had slightly smaller majorities.

You can't look at past outcomes, as the whole point of changing the voting system is that it will reduce tactical voting.

 

[Simster]

As I see it if eg 10,000 people vote 5, 000 for A, 5000 for B but all 10000 for C as the 2nd choice, we would finish up with C as the MP who nobody wanted as first choice.

How is that any worse than having either A or B represent the whole constituency when neither have any sort of mandate?

 

[withdeanwombat]

If,at the races,the first horse(winner) is trained by Jim Jones, but the second and third are trained by Fred Loser, you don't expect Loser to end up as the winner by virtue of his non winning positions.

 

[sten_super]

As I see it if eg 10,000 people vote 5, 000 for A, 5000 for B but all 10000 for C as the 2nd choice, we would finish up with C as the MP who nobody wanted as first choice.

No that's not right. I'll have to change your numbers to make sense, but assuming it's a three horse race;

First round;
4,500 A
4,500 B
1,000 C

Result - Nobody has an overall majority (more than 50% of the vote). C is eliminated, and the second preference of all C voters is then added.

Second round;
5,200 A
4,800 B

Result - A is elected.


I suppose what you could have is;

First round
3,500 A
2,500 B
2,000 C
1,200 D
800 E

Second round
3,600 A
3,000 B
2,200 C
1,200 D

Third round
3,800 A
3,600 B
2,600 C

Fourth round
4,400 A
5,600 B

B wins, from a losing position all the way through.

 

[Notters]

As I see it if eg 10,000 people vote 5, 000 for A, 5000 for B but all 10000 for C as the 2nd choice, we would finish up with C as the MP who nobody wanted as first choice.

No, not at all. The person/party withe least first choice votes gets discarded so this would result in a tie between A and B.

 

[keaton]

If,at the races,the first horse(winner) is trained by Jim Jones, but the second and third are trained by Fred Loser, you don't expect Loser to end up as the winner by virtue of his non winning positions.

Just to clarify, this decision is only about British elections. It won't affect horse races, football matches or the pop charts in anyway.

 

[BensGrandad]

No that's not right. I'll have to change your numbers to make sense, but assuming it's a three horse race;

First round;
4,500 A
4,500 B
1,000 C

Result - Nobody has an overall majority (more than 50% of the vote). C is eliminated, and the second preference of all C voters is then added.

Second round;
5,200 A
4,800 B

Result - A is elected.


I suppose what you could have is;

First round
3,500 A
2,500 B
2,000 C
1,200 D
800 E

Second round
3,600 A
3,000 B
2,200 C
1,200 D

Third round
3,800 A
3,600 B
2,600 C

Fourth round
4,400 A
5,600 B

B wins, from a losing position all the way through.

I have obviously misunderstood this then because I was under the impression that if there was no winner in the first choice then 2nd choice comes into play hence my 5000 each no winner so the 2nd choice of the majority is elelcted.

 

[Curious Orange]

So people who do want to have a second choice can. It should stop the anamoly (for example) were 60-70% of voters can vote for left of centre parties but a right of centre party wins

It isn't an anomaly though is it, its a product of the multi-party system - I'd be surprised if the winning party did draw the majority of the total votes, but what is important is that it draw the majority of the constituencies.

The real anomaly is that constituency sizes are inconsistent, though I believe that this is being addressed?

 

[Waynflete]

Should people be allowed to vote more than once?
NO

I'm voting against AV. Quite frankly a bloody stupid idea.

I've really never understood this argument. By definition, your second preference only counts if your first preference doesn't count, so no-one is voting more than once. All it's doing is improving on the current situation where the vast majority of votes are worthless because people live in safe constituencies or two-way marginals where they have to vote tactically. AV at least allows people to vote for who they actually want.

 

[Superphil]

when did an election ever finish 4500 to 4500?

IMO, if one candidate gets more than the others, he wins, simple. Like someone said, if a horse wins, he wins, if a runner wins, he wins, just because the winning margain wasn't large is no reason to say the winner doesn't win.

It's all a load of flannel, vote no.

 

[sten_super]

I have obviously misunderstood this then because I was under the impression that if there was no winner in the first choice then 2nd choice comes into play hence my 5000 each no winner so the 2nd choice of the majority is elelcted.

A winner has to have over 50% of the vote. If they don't, then the individual with the lowest number of votes is excluded, and the second preferences of those that voted for him/her are added to the remaining candidates. This is done iteratively until someone has an overall majority of the votes. This is the only way that the secondary preferences are used - they are not all used at any stage.

 

[Superphil]

I've really never understood this argument. By definition, your second preference only counts if your first preference doesn't count, so no-one is voting more than once. All it's doing is improving on the current situation where the vast majority of votes are worthless because people live in safe constituencies or two-way marginals where they have to vote tactically. AV at least allows people to vote for who they actually want.

That is my point, I vote for candidate A, I DO NOT WANT candidate B to win, so I am f***ed if I am going to allow him anywhere near my vote in the event of my preference not winning. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, get over it, it happens.

 

[Waynflete]

I have obviously misunderstood this then because I was under the impression that if there was no winner in the first choice then 2nd choice comes into play hence my 5000 each no winner so the 2nd choice of the majority is elelcted.

If no candidate has more than 50% of the votes then the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and her/his second preferences are redistributed. But the first preferences for all the other candidates remain valid. They continue eliminating the candidate with fewest votes until one candidate has more than 50%.

 

[jordanseagull]

Yes to AV. I'm not a particular fan of PR if it uses the 'list' system whereby seats are divvied up depending on the number of votes cast and an 'unelected' group of people become MPS. I say 'unelected' because we as individual voters have had no say in whether Person X becomes an MP or not - a bit like life peers.

However I'll admit even PR is better than first-past-the-post. And the current coalition has killed the of-quoted anti-PR chestnut that coalition governments are inherrently weak and unstable as the partners are always rowing.

Well what you're talking about there is a closed list system, where the party decided who the MP's are. In an "open" list system, you have two votes, one being for the party candidate. It is the most proportional but while Labour/Tories hold power it will never happen.

 

[Superphil]

And I don't get that either, OK, so i am probably being naivie but if one gets 4501 votes, the other gets 4500, the the one with 4501 has the majority, is that not a statistical fact?

 

[BensGrandad]

Could they not bring in a straight election for a leader eg Cameron or Clegg or Milliband based on consituencies. When it is decided that Tory have 400 seats Labour 20 Lib Dem 200 the elected leaders party then appoint the required number of MPs as per the vote and then if an MP dies the party appoint another one in his place. This would ensure that a party with a majority would have that majority for the duration of their term in office and be able to carry out whatever is on their mandate. At a General Election most people vote for a party as opposed to local elections were they vote for a person.

 

[sten_super]

when did an election ever finish 4500 to 4500?

IMO, if one candidate gets more than the others, he wins, simple. Like someone said, if a horse wins, he wins, if a runner wins, he wins, just because the winning margain wasn't large is no reason to say the winner doesn't win.

It's all a load of flannel, vote no.

The race analogy doesn't work, IMHO, because we are not talking about some kind of prize - the point of MPs is that they are meant to be representatives of the people. Shouldn't they therefore have the backing (in at least some fashion) of a majority of the people they represent?

 

[withdeanwombat]

This is just a scam by the DimLebs to avoid meltdown at future elections having been exposed as being less than honest with the electorate.It could lead to more pant wetting moments for the BBC's political editor outside the H o P as another coalition is patched together.

I never have trusted the Conservatives,nor would wild horses drag me into voting for them.But I have always accepted that,as part of the democratic system we have sometimes we must suffer a tory government.If they've won,fair enough.Or more often, unfair enough.But a country governed by a bastard coalition ?

I'd rather not,thank you.

Rochdale will be a draw.

 

[Bob!]

That is my point, I vote for candidate A, I DO NOT WANT candidate B to win, so I am f***ed if I am going to allow him anywhere near my vote in the event of my preference not winning. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, get over it, it happens.

You don't have to vote for any one else.
You put the candidates in order of preference by putting a 1, 2, 3 etc on the voting slip. If you only have one preference you just vote for the one candidate.

 

[jordanseagull]

And I don't get that either, OK, so i am probably being naivie but if one gets 4501 votes, the other gets 4500, the the one with 4501 has the majority, is that not a statistical fact?

There is always more than two candidates. If, say:

A: 5001
B: 5000
C: 2

A hasn't got a majority because it has less than 50% of the overall vote.

Not sure if that answers your question or not?!