AV or Not to AV, That is the question

[DTES]

DTES you make your arguments very well and I think most concur FPTP is not a great system. I Quoted what Churchill said on AV as a reason not to vote AV, you quoted what he said about FPTP to allege I am given a biased and unfair opinion as an advocate of FPTP. I am not and that was a mis-representation.

This is a referendum between two options for our voting system. Don't forget that any vote "against AV" is a vote "for FPTP". You might not support FPTP, but quite simply this referendum decides which of the two systems available we use at the next general election. The point I was making about Churchill was that he has slated both options, and it is therefore inappropriate for either camp to select one of his quotes to support their side.

I am no fan of the tories, but I believe in an absolutely fair system of democracy (without ANY hidden agendas) and I don't think AV gives that (and FPTP is flawed btw). There are many tribal and partisan contributors and most parties are NOT interested in increasing democracy or fairness, they are ONLY intersted in increasing their share/powerbase, disguised as "better for all"

I will not accuse you of holding partisan political allegiences, as I do not know you, but every time I read you footer (as much as I agree with the sentiments) it says "politically motivated" and it is therefore no suprise that your pro AV arguments are very condusive with the "grand progressive coalition" supporters who I am convinced say vote YES for self interest more than voter of increasing fairness interests.

As for me personally: Do I dislike the Conservative party? Yes. Is that my motivation for wanting to change the voting system? No. The equalisation of constituency sizes will benefit the Conservative party (mainly at the Labour party's expense), but I also support this move.

As for the "grand coalition": were this true then I don't think the Labour party would be so split straight down the middle. Also, in terms of number of seats, I'm not sure AV would actually benefit either the Green Party or UKIP (both are unlikely to get 50%), but both still support the system...

As above with beorhthelm, I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree, but for the reasons I've spelt out above, I genuinely believe AV is a fairer system than FPTP.

I could be pursuaded that another system is fairer and better that FPTP. But this politically motivated system is not it.

I'm not sure about your use of "it", which suggests there is only one system fairer and better than FPTP, but I understand what you're saying. AV is not the perfect system. I would prefer a fully proportional system, and would happily argue the benefits of PR against both FPTP and AV, but it's just not part of the question. Sadly, the question/choice in May is "AV or FPTP", and for me AV wins.

 

[peterward]

As above with beorhthelm, I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree, but for the reasons I've spelt out above, I genuinely believe AV is a fairer system than FPTP..

Fair enough, you do seem balanced and objective and I have enjoyed our frank discussion of views. I find your thoughts very interesting, even if not entirely condusive with my own. the rich tapestry i guess........ Next week religion??!!

I am sure there is more that unites us than divides....

Good luck on May 5th, you are obviously a passionate advocate......

and up the Albion (a uniting force for good and the team FPTP!)

 

[DTES]

Next week religion??!!

Haha! I might actually get no work done at all if we got onto that...

Spot on though - up the Albion! :albion1:

 

[Acker79]

it depends on how the vote is split and who is eliminated first. i dont see how the candidate first place in the first, second, third even forth round getting knocked to second in the fifth is any better.

Because, in theory at least, the more popular/representative candidate gets more votes to move in to first place.

33 People are represented 100% by Candidate A
31 People are represented 100% by Candidate B
25 People are represented 100% by Candidate C, and 90% by Candidate B
5 People are represented 100% by Candidate D, and 90% by Candidate A
6 People are represented 100% by Candidate E, and 80% by candidate B

In the first run the guy who gets most votes will represent 33 people totally, + 5 mostly.

If the Candidates C, D and E are eliminated Candidate B gets most votes because he represents 31 people totally, and represent a further 31 better than candidate A. Therefore the winner is the candidate who best represents the majority, that's why it's better. At least in theory. If candidate A represented more voters better, he will stay in the lead.

 

[Deano's Invisible Pants]

OK, it's only in the last couple of days that I've looked into the specifics of AV, and it seems so unfair that I almost wonder whether I've been misinformed. So the weakest candidate on 1st pref vote gets knocked out (usually monster raving loony), and ONLY the 2nd preferences of people who vote for this candidate count in the next round?

Have I got this right? So in other words, those voting for the utter noddy candidates effectively get 2 votes, the second of which still carries equal weight to the first preference of voters choosing the one of the top candidates?

I could see the democratic case for a system in which EVERYONE's 2nd preferences were counted at the same time and given some kind of weighting below that of 1st preferences, but if AV is as I've described it, it seems like a very flawed system.

 

[DTES]

OK, it's only in the last couple of days that I've looked into the specifics of AV, and it seems so unfair that I almost wonder whether I've been misinformed. So the weakest candidate on 1st pref vote gets knocked out (usually monster raving loony), and ONLY the 2nd preferences of people who vote for this candidate count in the next round?

Have I got this right? So in other words, those voting for the utter noddy candidates effectively get 2 votes, the second of which still carries equal weight to the first preference of voters choosing the one of the top candidates?

I could see the democratic case for a system in which EVERYONE's 2nd preferences were counted at the same time and given some kind of weighting below that of 1st preferences, but if AV is as I've described it, it seems like a very flawed system.

Round 1: "Who do you prefer out of A, B, C, D & E?". Everyone's first preferences count. Let's say E gets knocked out.
Round 2: "Who do you prefer out of those candidates left, i.e. A, B, C & D". It is assumed that if you preferred, say B, out of A-E then you also prefer B out of A-D, so you vote for the same one again. If you voted for E, your second choice comes in.
Round 3 etc... carry on the same logic until someone's got 50%.

Incidentally, it's the system used all those years ago that saw David Cameron elected as leader of the Conservative Party. Obviously he'll be resigning then and standing again under the system he thinks is fair, no?

 

[Deano's Invisible Pants]

Round 1: "Who do you prefer out of A, B, C, D & E?". Everyone's first preferences count. Let's say E gets knocked out.
Round 2: "Who do you prefer out of those candidates left, i.e. A, B, C & D". It is assumed that if you preferred, say B, out of A-E then you also prefer B out of A-D, so you vote for the same one again. If you voted for E, your second choice comes in.
Round 3 etc... carry on the same logic until someone's got 50%.

Incidentally, it's the system used all those years ago that saw David Cameron elected as leader of the Conservative Party. Obviously he'll be resigning then and standing again under the system he thinks is fair, no?

Yup, I get the logic, but I think it's flawed, because it's premised on the notion that those who vote for unpopular candidates deserve two bites at the cherry while everyone else still only has one bite. Furthermore, the 2nd bite is every bit as nutritious and flavoursome as everyone else's one bite!

Why not keep the bottom placed candidate in the race, but count EVERYONE's 2nd preferences? I know that the opponents of PR would reject this too because the outcomes might be unpalatable to them, but it would at least have some intellectual coherence behind it. It seems to me that AV is at least as unfair as FPTP (albeit in a different way).

 

[DTES]

Yup, I get the logic, but I think it's flawed, because it's premised on the notion that those who vote for unpopular candidates deserve two bites at the cherry while everyone else still only has one bite. Furthermore, the 2nd bite is every bit as nutritious and flavoursome as everyone else's one bite!

I see where you're coming from, but the logic behind the system is that everyone gets the same number of bites at the cherry, it's just that for a lot of people each of those bites will the same bite as their previous bite. So to speak.

Why not keep the bottom placed candidate in the race, but count EVERYONE's 2nd preferences? I know that the opponents of PR would reject this too because the outcomes might be unpalatable to them, but it would at least have some intellectual coherence behind it. It seems to me that AV is at least as unfair as FPTP (albeit in a different way).

Because if every preference for every candidate counted, they'd all end up on 100%...

 

[Deano's Invisible Pants]

Because if every preference for every candidate counted, they'd all end up on 100%...

Only if every preference carried equal weight.....

Leaving aside the principles, many of the PRACTICAL arguments made by both sides of the campaign don't seem to stand up to scrutiny. Ed and Co argue that under AV, politicians will have to cooperate more, while Dave fears that there will be more coalitions. But according to today's Times, in every election in the last 30 years (with the exception of '83 and '92), the winners under FPTP would have been elected with LARGER majorities under AV. At a local level, once every 5 years, candidates in some constituencies may have to reach out to the natural supporters of minority candidates, but this is not necessarily desirable and will hardly usher in a new era of a cooperative, consensus politics.

 

[beorhthelm]

quite right, a more sensible approach would be to weight the preferences then count the total. it would at least mean all of everyones preferences (which are apparently so important) would be acknowledged in the result. with the element of elimination, the second or third option of many will be removed, so their lower, least prefered options are counted. another example of the kludge that AV is.

 

[DTES]

Leaving aside the principles, many of the PRACTICAL arguments made by both sides of the campaign don't seem to stand up to scrutiny. Ed and Co argue that under AV, politicians will have to cooperate more, while Dave fears that there will be more coalitions. But according to today's Times, in every election in the last 30 years (with the exception of '83 and '92), the winners under FPTP would have been elected with LARGER majorities under AV. At a local level, once every 5 years, candidates in some constituencies may have to reach out to the natural supporters of minority candidates, but this is not necessarily desirable and will hardly usher in a new era of a cooperative, consensus politics.

There are a couple of problems with looking at AV in terms of the parliament (and government) that it will make-up overall:
1. Any reports on previous results are based on a lot of guesswork (in terms of where second preferences would have gone). Some of the assumptions may well be reasonable, but no-one can be sure. Having said that, one comparative we can use is Australia - which has only had 2 coalitions in the last 100 odd years under AV.
2. This aside, AV isn't designed in terms of the make-up of the house. It's designed - in exactly the same way as FPTP, so no difference here - to account for the election of each MP individually. If we want to choose a system based on how it will affect the make-up of the house overall we need to move away from single-member constituencies and onto a (preferably proportional) multi-member constituency system. Unfortunately we don't have that option in this referendum...

 

[Don Quixote]

I think I might just vote for it, with all this rubbish from the NO camp.

 

[peterward]

There are a couple of problems with looking at AV in terms of the parliament (and government) that it will make-up overall:
1. Any reports on previous results are based on a lot of guesswork (in terms of where second preferences would have gone). Some of the assumptions may well be reasonable, but no-one can be sure. Having said that, one comparative we can use is Australia - which has only had 2 coalitions in the last 100 odd years under AV.
2. This aside, AV isn't designed in terms of the make-up of the house. It's designed - in exactly the same way as FPTP, so no difference here - to account for the election of each MP individually. If we want to choose a system based on how it will affect the make-up of the house overall we need to move away from single-member constituencies and onto a (preferably proportional) multi-member constituency system. Unfortunately we don't have that option in this referendum...

Australia has preferential vote, (derivitive of AV) and it also had mandatory compulsory voting (which would be an improvement)#

couple of interesting quotes from the only manjor democracy that uses AV - Australia.

"A poll conducted for the Institute of Public Affairs late last year found 57% of voters preferred first past the post and 37% supported the current Australian system"

And I think most are agreed FPTP is flawed, but most Aussies in this survey would still choose it as a better option than AV

And is it fairer? or tactical/rigging?

Voters entering [australian] polling stations run the gauntlet of activists brandishing these cards, which tell people how to allocate their preferences so allied parties benefit if their number one candidate is eliminated


http://redo.me.uk/news/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13065069

 

[DTES]

A poll conducted for the Institute of Public Affairs late last year found 57% of voters preferred first past the post and 37% supported the current Australian system. And I think most are agreed FPTP is flawed, but most Aussies in this survey would still choose it as a better option than AV

No need to shout.

One poll shows FPTP is preferred to AV? There have been plenty of opinion polls over here showing results both ways. With all due respect, I don't think one opinion poll in Australia really matters that much.

And is it fairer? or tactical/rigging? Voters entering [australian] polling stations run the gauntlet of activists brandishing these cards, which tell people how to allocate their preferences so allied parties benefit if their number one candidate is eliminated

No different to the party activists you see at UK polling stations under FPTP trying to convince you to vote for their party. If you want to listen to them, take a card; if you don't then ignore them. Simple as that, isn't it?

 

[peterward]

No need to shout.

One poll shows FPTP is preferred to AV? There have been plenty of opinion polls over here showing results both ways. With all due respect, I don't think one opinion poll in Australia really matters that much.

No different to the party activists you see at UK polling stations under FPTP trying to convince you to vote for their party. If you want to listen to them, take a card; if you don't then ignore them. Simple as that, isn't it?

shout (highlight).... sorry DTES

I agree about the second statement you've made, but the first...... well whats interesting is that most YES to AV campaigners in the UK laud how well the system works in the only major country using it, and yet that countries electorate in this survey would readily ditch it in favour of our flawed system.

57% of Australians against AV would be well beyond any margin of error.

That to me reads not so much as a vote in favour of FTPT but a resounding NO from the aussie electorate for their system of AV and wanting something different.

As I said in the very first post, (respecting others differences of opinion), there are a lot of poitically motivated self interested politicians trying to convince me AV is the best answer for voters when really I just believe that its the best answer for them and the parties they represent.

It is easy to dismiss "1 survey" but that survey really does matter.

I would readily trust the ordinary Australian electorate who will not be to dis-similar to me and who use this system more than I would trust Cameron, Milliband, Clegg or any other affiliated politico all of whom have personal and party self interest firmly involved in this process.

get PR on the debating table by all means but AV?

 

[DTES]

57% of Australians against AV would be well beyond any margin of error.

I don't think this is true. You don't even know when it was asked, who was asked, or even how many were asked - if it was exactly 57 out of only 100 people then it's certainly no representation of the millions living in Australia. Anyway - more details on the poll (I'm that much of a geek that I had to go and look it up) are at: http://isupportav.co.uk/2010/12/that-australian-poll/.

 

[8ace]

Does AV only have to get more than 50% of the vote in the referendum?
What is the expected turnout