AV or Not to AV, That is the question

[Guy Fawkes]

Spectacularly 100% wrong. Majority means more voted for than against.

Under FPTP you can get elected without a majority - last May one MP got elected with 29%! Under AV you need a majority. Your sentence is absolutely an argument for AV

(Your point about some people getting more votes than others is answered in my earlier post which I won't copy again)

Majority as in the candidate received more votes for being elected than each of the others candidates individually received not the overall vote. Ie, more people voted for that individual to be elected compared to the other candidates.

If overall vote mattered there would be no need for smaller parties to stand as they would become redundant as their votes will would always count for nothing in the grand scheme of things under AV as they would then be divided up amongst other parties anyway so why vote for them in the first place? you could end up with just a few maindstream parties standing - how is that more democratic?

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Spectacularly 100% wrong. Majority means more voted for than against.

Under FPTP you can get elected without a majority - last May one MP got elected with 29%! Under AV you need a majority. Your sentence is absolutely an argument for AV

(Your point about some people getting more votes than others is answered in my earlier post which I won't copy again)

so if under 50% of potential voters actually bother, should no one get elected as the majority of the voting public didnt want to give their vote and support to any of the candidates?

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I agree that turnout is a problem. In Australia (where they already use AV), they also have compulsory voting - with failure punishable by a small fine.

And that is democratic..how?

Surely its up to someone if they choose to vote or not, they may not find any of their potential candidates worthy of getting their votes and forcing people to vote for the sake of it reminds me of those dodgy potical regimes where one politican scares voters into voting for them and winning by getting 99% to 100% of the vote each time so they stay in power continually. (eg. Mugabe in Zimbabwe)

 

[DTES]

is it truely represental of the constituancy's votes?

Is it perfect? Nope. I've not claimed it is. However, this is a referendum between AV & FPTP, and AV is (for me) far, far superior to FPTP.

To be truly representational, of the constituents' votes, you'd need PR - which I would vote for over both of the options currently available. But there being a third option that isn't included shouldn't make someone choose the worse of the two that are available...

 

[DTES]

so if under 50% of potential voters actually bother, should no one get elected as the majority of the voting public didnt want to give their vote and support to any of the candidates?

If more people turn up and spoil their ballot paper than vote for any of the candidates (or a "none of the above" option wins) then that's exactly what the result says, yes. If less than 50% turn up, then they don't care, and the winner requires 50% support from 50% the voters that do care.

FPTP offers no clue as to how much people care beyond their first choice.

Another great example is Bush's election in 2000 - it's a fair assumption (I think, given his political positions) that if AV had been used, the majority of those who voted for Nader would have put Gore as their second choice meaning he would have taken Florida and the Presidency. However, even though Gore was more popular than Bush, the fact that a third party decided to stand took the victory away from Nader and gave it to Bush. Why should the inclusion of a third person interfere with who is more popular out of the other two? That really is undemocratic.

And that is democratic..how? Surely its up to someone if they choose to vote or not, they may not find any of their potential candidates worthy of getting their votes and forcing people to vote for the sake of it reminds me of those dodgy potical regimes where one politican scares voters into voting for them and winning by getting 99% to 100% of the vote each time so they stay in power continually. (eg. Mugabe in Zimbabwe)

I agree that you shouldn't be forced to vote for a candidate - but turning up and making that opinion known ("none of the above", or spoiling the paper) isn't exactly a big ask if you actually care.

 

[beorhthelm]

Would it be better to stagger the rounds over a couple of weeks, rather than do it instantly?

of course not. but you are talking about the technical applicaiton without explaining the advantages or clarify the voting process. this highlights its just too complicated, now comparing to French presedential elections which is different to that being proposed (there you explicitly get to change your mind according to the known results, this has an impact on how people vote).

Everyone's first votes count the same, and everyone's second votes count the same. Your first and second just happen to be for the same person, as my previous post.

votes dont count the same, my third preference might decide the winner, where as the voter of the winner just got to stick with their first choice. ive had three goes. you position isnt even consistant, if we see the French example, where everyone clearly vote n times. here too we vote n times, but only if you are chosing the least favorite candidate first. or second.

Under FPTP you can get elected without a majority - last May one MP got elected with 29%! Under AV you need a majority. Your sentence is absolutely an argument for AV

that is a problem for FPTP. however its a bit of a falicy that AV changes this much. you will still have first preferences below 50%, with winners proped up by votes for who's disliked the least. they didnt get a majority of first choice. and there will be those that win from 2nd after the first round, possibly from 3rd. does a wide 3rd preferance for Liberal candidate in a 30/30 Lab/Tory seat mean the they get though after the fringe parties are knocked out? when the 6th prefence comes in, does that swing it to the Tory, as the Green voters ran out of alternatives. in the 5th round of voting, does the 2nd or the 5th choice count from voters of Labour, who just got eliminated (i honestly dont know... ).


and compulsory voting is an awful, undemocratic manner to tidy up the problem of low turnout. I think i'd not vote on principle. politicians should have to engage the electorate to earn their vote.

 

[DTES]

of course not. but you are talking about the technical applicaiton without explaining the advantages or clarify the voting process. this highlights its just too complicated, now comparing to French presedential elections which is different to that being proposed (there you explicitly get to change your mind according to the known results, this has an impact on how people vote).

You get to change your mind? Well, yes - but if your first preference out of A, B or C is A, it's a pretty fair bet that your first preference out of just A or B is also... A?

votes dont count the same, my third preference might decide the winner, where as the voter of the winner just got to stick with their first choice. ive had three goes. you position isnt even consistant, if we see the French example, where everyone clearly vote n times. here too we vote n times, but only if you are chosing the least favorite candidate first. or second.

Question 1: Who do you prefer out of A, B or C? I choose C, you choose A. No-one gets 50%
Question 2: Who do you prefer out of A or B? You choose A and, out of those two, so do I. For this question, A gets 50% and is elected.

Both get two questions, both get two answers. Yes, with "instant run-off" or "alternative vote", it's automatically assumed that you want to vote for your first choice whoever they are up against. As above though, I don't think that's an unfair assumption.

If I got more votes than you, then your vote wouldn't count in round 2... clearly it does.

that is a problem for FPTP. however its a bit of a falicy that AV changes this much. you will still have first preferences below 50%, with winners proped up by votes for who's disliked the least. they didnt get a majority of first choice. and there will be those that win from 2nd after the first round, possibly from 3rd. does a wide 3rd preferance for Liberal candidate in a 30/30 Lab/Tory seat mean the they get though after the fringe parties are knocked out? where does the 6th prefence come in, does that swing it to Tories as even the swing Labour voters run out of alterntives. in the 5th round of voting, does the 2nd or the 5th choice count of the Liberal who just got eliminated (i honestly dont know... ).

I think it changes it a lot. It isn't perfect, no, but (unlike FPTP) you are certain that given a straight choice between the winner and the second place candidate, the winner is preferred by the majority. This, for me, makes it better than FPTP so I'll be voting Yes in May...

 

[beorhthelm]

You get to change your mind? Well, yes - but if your first preference out of A, B or C is A, it's a pretty fair bet that your first preference out of just A or B is also... A?

its not a very fair assumption - you understand people tactically vote? it could be argued that Norman Baker won his seat by virtue of the Referdum party spliting the Tory vote (they polled more than his majority). it might follow that those voting first round for Referendum (or now UKIP) might, having registered their disapproval of european involment, rather like to back the tory on the second round as their preference. in AV, if they poll well enough, perversly their second preferance wont count while those voted for an eliminated candidate will, and thus a third option they are more against wins. (so prehaps there will be less tactical voting... my head spinsing now )

im take it too far i know, but the point stands that you cannot assume if we were to adopt run-off elections that the results would be the same. people can and do change based on the results, its one reason they dont release the results until after polling to avoid people being swayed to back the winner (people tend to like to be on the winning side).

FPTP is simple, if flawed, and at least everyone understands the process. AV is a kludge that even the vote reformers dont like. i note examples used are for a second round, but not for 3, 4 or more where it all gets messy.

 

[Waynflete]

How do you work that one out - its only the voters for the candidate thats eliminated in each round whose 2nd choice gets counted not those whose first choice candidate is still in the running - why should some be allowed basically to have 2 votes and others just one?

At least with first past the post it means that the candidate which the majority of people in a constituancy wanted elected gets in not peoples third or fourth choice.

As has already been pointed out, FPTP is specifically not about electing candidates using majorities. Almost no-one is elected with a majority under FPTP.

I think we should remember what it is elections are for - i.e. to deliver a parliament and government that are stable and effective but that also as far as possible represent the wishes of the electorate. Obviously you need a balance between stability and representation, but effectively the question here is: Is AV a better system for finding out what the electorate thinks than FPTP, or not?

Under the current system, the vast majority of votes don't count at all. It's only if you're in a marginal constituency that your vote might count, and even if you live in a marginal, you may feel obliged to vote tactically to decide between the two parties with a chance of winning. Does this system give an accurate representation of who the public actually wants? I don't think it does.

AV isn't perfect, but what it does is introduce another level of subtlety into the voting system, so that people can vote for who they want, without wasting their vote completely. By allowing people to order their preferences you get a better idea of what people actually think than with the crude FPTP system.

By requiring 50% to win MPs will also have a greater degree of legitimacy, because no longer will they be voted in by a minority of voters.

And as has already been said, the argument that some people vote more than once while others don't is simply wrong. Everyone votes more than once in multiple rounds of voting, it's just some people's first choice candidates stay in the running and others' don't.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Is it perfect? Nope. I've not claimed it is. However, this is a referendum between AV & FPTP, and AV is (for me) far, far superior to FPTP.

To be truly representational, of the constituents' votes, you'd need PR - which I would vote for over both of the options currently available. But there being a third option that isn't included shouldn't make someone choose the worse of the two that are available...

Surely the true representation of who a constituancy wants to represent itself is the winner in first past the post as they recorded the most votes compared to any other candidate as the person they wanted elected, not weel i want candidate X to win, butif he doesn't then i suppose i won't mind if candidate y gets in, just to prevent candidate Z from getting power. If a party does badly in an area, its because people don't want that parties candidate as their MP -simples, so why should that persons voters get a final say in who is elected?

The crys to change it to PR or AV tend to come from those who fair badly at elections as they think its their best shot at gaining some power they wouldn't otherwise have. If people wanted them in, they would have voted for them in the first place.

PR is awful imo - As it is done on a National and not local level with preferred candidate lists rather than MPs standing in and for constituancies and how does that system give a clear majority if it works by halving your vote each time a candidate is elected? eg. If party A polls 20000 votes party B polls 14000 votes and party C polls 10002 votes and there are 6 seats for grabs - Party A gets their first choice candidate takning their total to 10k, party B is now the highest and gets their candidate in and their vote drops to 7k, party C is now highest and they get their candidate in and their total is halved to 5001 the next is party A again with 10K , another in and vote halfed to 5k, Party B gets a candidate in next and their vote drops to 3.5k and the final candidate to get in would be from party C as they have 5001 votes compared to party A's 5000 - the result is a party that gets almost 1/2 the winning party's vote gets the same number of candidates into power and all three parties would get the same number of MPs - how is this better?

Also PR would have a negative effect on candidates standing on local issues as an independant as they wouldnt amass enough votes to get in even if they would have otherwise won their constituancy - again eliminating their impact on local issues like AV would.

What if your current local MP was someone you liked and wanted to vote for but wasn't a fan of his political party but he was a long way down that parties election list under PR, he may not get in and candidiates that you didnt want and wouldn't otherwise be elected get in because the party has decided they are higher in the pecking order (bellotti could get back in, and / or you wouldn't have any shocks as cabinet ministers lose their seats as they would be protected and could become further detached from their constituants.

AV is no better as it isn't a true reflection of peoples voting patterns, You would basically end up with 2 parties with the vast majority of the votes and other parties being eliminated until the 3rd place party is out as the votes other parties get may not be enough to get a candidate to 50% - and as said before, if those who remain may have different 2nd choice parties and the result of the election could be completely different depending on which of the others did worst. And it wouldnt eliminate tactical voting either and as mentioned before it means pandering to small, possibly extremist parties views and policies by the main parties in an attempt to get the 2nd preferrance vote.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

the argument that some people vote more than once while others don't is simply wrong. Everyone votes more than once in multiple rounds of voting, it's just some people's first choice candidates stay in the running and others' don't.

If 30000 vote for candidate A
20000 for candidate B
11000 for candidate C
and 62000 don't vote, how can you say that electing candidate A is not what the people of that constituancy have voted for?

Don't you vote for who you want elected and if they don't get enough votes they dont get in, if people dont vote for their real first choice as they have no chance to get into power in that constituancy, its because not enough people have chosen not to vote for them and nothing to do with 2nd, 3rd or 4th choices.

If more people voted for candidate A (as above) surely they should be elected as that is how the constituancy decided to vote.

 

[Waynflete]

why should that persons voters get a final say in who is elected?

Everyone in a constituency is represented by an MP, whether they voted for her/him or not, so it matters very much what everyone thinks, even if their first choice isn't one of the main candidates.

 

[Waynflete]

If 30000 vote for candidate A
20000 for candidate B
11000 for candidate C
and 62000 don't vote, how can you say that electing candidate A is not what the people of that constituancy have voted for?

Don't you vote for who you want elected and if they don't get enough votes they dont get in, if people dont vote for their real first choice as they have no chance to get into power in that constituancy, its because not enough people have chosen not to vote for them and nothing to do with 2nd, 3rd or 4th choices.

If more people voted for candidate A (as above) surely they should be elected as that is how the constituancy decided to vote.

It's perfectly legitimate to make that argument. However, in your example, 30,000 people voted for the winner while 93,000 did not. That's clearly a bad thing if you're interested in a healthy democracy.

With all the disenchantment with politics and politicians I think we should look at voting systems that don't routinely elect people with only a third of the vote.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Under the current system, the vast majority of votes don't count at all. It's only if you're in a marginal constituency that your vote might count, and even if you live in a marginal, you may feel obliged to vote tactically to decide between the two parties with a chance of winning. Does this system give an accurate representation of who the public actually wants? I don't think it does.

AV isn't perfect, but what it does is introduce another level of subtlety into the voting system, so that people can vote for who they want, without wasting their vote completely. By allowing people to order their preferences you get a better idea of what people actually think than with the crude FPTP system.

So why have so many candidates to split and dilute the number of votes each party gets, having 8 or 9 people standing means that votes are spread about more and therefore you are far less likely to get 50% or more voting for one candidate, thats because they gave their vote to someone else, it doesn't mean its not what the voters decided.

The problem with AV is it doesnt give any so called fairness as it doesn't count everyone 2nd vote and a party could be eliminated early as it received few 1st choice votes but could have been everyones 2nd choice vote (seagulls party anyone) but those votes didn't count as those who's 2nd choice was for them haven't been eliminated and as they are the larger groups of voters, they are ultimately more likely to decide its outcome once eliminated as you are talking thousands rather than 100s. What if the tory and the lib dem voters 2nd choice was for the seagulls party which would have been enough to propell them into first place with a majority but these 2nd choices count for nothing as the seagulls party would be eliminated too early. so minority party supporters basically deciding the main electoral result, and if you want to vote for a party that doesnt traditionally do well in your area, your vote still isn't one that gets someone in, so why do they get a 2nd bite of the cherry at deciding the outcome?.

Democracy is about choice, the freedom to have people standing for whatever reason they choose and to elect someone to represent a constituancy in Parliament, a voters choice is who to give their one vote to, and as all eligable voters get one vote to give to one candidate which is then shown in the final counts, not one where a vote for a party is wiped out because they didnt poll well enough and we need to generate an artificial result to elect someone - why have alternative votes which only a select few get to use and are counted for something? why not just force candidates to vote for 1 of 2 candidates to ensure that one gets a majority? If you vote for a party thats likely to be first or second, you don't really have this second vote !!

 

[Guy Fawkes]

It's perfectly legitimate to make that argument. However, in your example, 30,000 people voted for the winner while 93,000 did not. That's clearly a bad thing if you're interested in a healthy democracy.

With all the disenchantment with politics and politicians I think we should look at voting systems that don't routinely elect people with only a third of the vote.

So 62000 didnt vote for anyone whereas 61000 did vote - why have an MP as the majority of voters decided against voting? Surely thats what the people want, or is it that the non voters want an MP but either arn't too bothered who it is, don't like any of the candidates / parties or just didnt feel it was worthwhile voting because they had better things to do.

Also there will be those who feel that their vote isn't represented, even if their preferred candidate got just 34 votes, do you change the rules to allow this candidate and these votes to be represented? - after all thats what those 34 wanted

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Everyone in a constituency is represented by an MP, whether they voted for her/him or not, so it matters very much what everyone thinks, even if their first choice isn't one of the main candidates.

So the voters who voted for the parties in 1st or 2nd place find their second choice ignored "because it matters very much what everyone thinks, even if their first choice isn't one of the main candidates"

If everyone felt strongly enough about the main candidates, why didnt they vote for them in the first place?

If they didnt want the person who was elected to get in, why didnt they vote for the person who was their main challenger anyway
Also as you look to other preferred choices, you find more and more will not have expressed a preferrance, meaning even fewer voters will end up deciding the outcome - so it still wont neccessaryily be the majority of all that constituancy's choice of candidate and less than 50% of available voters may have voted for them, but as their original choice is eliminated, their vote is no longer counted and their voice is lost.

 

[kevo]

Sorry, maybe I should be a bit clearer. The best way is probably to use an already existing example (though there are a few to choose from) - The French Presidential Election

1. Everybody votes on the three (usually) candidates. Nobody gets 50%
2. The bottom candidate is eliminated and everybody comes back to the polling booth a couple of weeks later and votes between the two that are left. One of them will get 50%, and that one is elected.

It's easy to see that everybody gets 2 votes. For some people, both of those votes will be the same person. For some people (those who voted for the 3rd place candidate), the two votes are for different people.

This is exactly the same, except that the two voting rounds aren't weeks apart - they happen instantly (the alternative - better? - name for AV is "instant run-off"). You do it instantly, by marking a "2" (or "3" etc) next to the candidate that you want to vote for in the later rounds if your candidate happens to have been knocked out.

Would it be better to stagger the rounds over a couple of weeks, rather than do it instantly? In an ideal world maybe, but there are two reasons against it:
1. Cost - doubling or trebling the cost of the election needlessly can't appeal to anybody
2. Fairness. Not every constituency would need the same number of rounds, so you'd be going back to the polls knowing the results of other constituencies, which would some voters have access to more information than others.

Even without these reasons though, I'm not sure of the benefits of staggering the rounds - it just means you have to listen to all the candidates to start with, and to be honest, shouldn't we all do that anyway?

Nicely explained, thanks. Staggering would indeed be a bad idea - would just drag everything out needlessly.

AV seems a much fairer system to me than FPTP. Gets my vote.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

This is what's needed. Fair, but impossible to explain simply.

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/LocalGovernment/Voting/FileDownLoad,1895,en.pdf

Guide to Ireland’s PR-STV Electoral System

1. Overview

Voting at Presidential, Dáil, Seanad, European and local elections is by secret ballot on the
principle of proportional representation in multi-seat constituencies (Ireland is a single
constituency at a Presidential election), each elector having a single transferable vote.

2. Voting is straightforward

- You vote for candidates in order of preference. You mark the ballot paper by putting 1
opposite the name of your first choice candidate and, if you wish, 2 opposite the name
of your second choice and so on.

- What you are saying is: "I want to vote for candidate A. If the situation arises where A
does not need my vote because he/she has been elected or excluded from the count, I
want my vote to go to candidate B." And so on.

- This system gives you a wide degree of choice. You can choose between candidates of
different parties or non-party candidates and you can order your preferences, as you
wish.

- Only one of the preferences in your vote is active at a time. The vote stays with your
first preference candidate unless and until he/she does not need it any more (either
because he/she has been elected or excluded from the count). If your vote is
transferred, it passes to your next highest preference for a candidate still in the running.

Your vote could transfer a number of times at the same election to your lower
preference candidates.

3. The count is more complex. It is divided into a number of stages.

I. Opening the ballot boxes

Each ballot box is opened separately and the ballot papers in each box are counted and
compared with the total number of ballot papers issued for that box - this is done to
check that ballot papers have not been put into or taken out of the box since the poll
closed. The number of ballot papers in each box are added together to determine the
total poll.

Individual ballot papers are not examined at this stage but the "tallymen" note the first
preference on each ballot paper as it is counted.

II. First Count

All the ballot papers are mixed and then sorted according to first preferences, setting
aside the invalid papers. The quota is then calculated. This is the minimum number of
valid votes each successful candidate must get to be elected. The quota is calculated as
the minimum number of votes, which will fill the seats available and no more. For
example, in a three-seat constituency, the quota is a quarter of the valid votes, plus one -
only three candidates can get this number of votes. In a four-seater, the quota is a fifth
of the valid votes, plus one, and so on.

The formula for calculating the quota is: divide the valid votes by the number of seats
plus one, ignore any fraction and add one. As an example, if there are 1,000 valid votes
and 4 seats, the quota is calculated as follows:
(1,000 + 1) / (4 + 1) = 201

This is the lowest number of votes which four candidates can obtain (804) but five
cannot (1,005).

Any candidate whose first preferences equal or exceed the quota is deemed elected.

The first count is generally the only time the votes of all candidates are examined and
sorted.

The second and subsequent counts at a PR-STV election involve either the distribution
of the surplus of an elected candidate or exclusion of the lowest candidate(s) and
distribution of his/her/their votes.

III. Surplus distributions

A candidate's surplus is the number of votes he/she has over the quota. Generally
surpluses are distributed before candidates are excluded. The rule is that a surplus must
be distributed in the next count if it meets one or more of the following conditions:
• Can elect the highest continuing candidate,
• Can bring the lowest candidate level with or above the second lowest candidate
• Can qualify a candidate for the recoupment of their election expenses or deposit (if
applicable)

If there is more than one surplus and the largest surplus on its own does not meet any of
the above conditions, the largest surplus must be distributed on its own in the next
count if the sum of the surpluses meets one or more of the conditions.

The question of whether a surplus must be distributed is considered afresh after each
count on the basis of the surplus(es) then available. After a surplus has been
transferred, any candidate who reaches or exceeds the quota as a result is deemed
elected.

Following the distribution of the surplus, the elected candidate is left with an exact
quota of votes that he/she retains for the duration of the count.

See section VIII for further elaboration of the rules for distributing a surplus.

IV. Overview of the surplus distribution procedure

An elected candidate's surplus is distributed based on the next available preferences for
continuing candidates (i.e. candidates not elected or excluded) contained in the last
parcel of votes that brought the elected candidate over the quota. In the case of a
surplus arising on the first count, this parcel is made up of all the elected candidate's
first preferences. In any other case, only the last parcel of votes received by the elected
candidate is involved.

Where all the next preferences in the last parcel of votes received by the elected
candidate cannot be distributed because they exceed the surplus, the surplus votes are
distributed to candidates still in the running in proportion to each one’s share of next
preferences in that parcel of votes. The votes for inclusion in the surplus are taken from
the top of each candidate's sub-parcel of next preferences made up from the last parcel
of votes received by the elected candidate.

V. Detailed surplus calculations

All the votes in the last parcel of votes received by the elected candidate are sorted into
sub-parcels according to the next available preferences, setting aside those that do not
transfer to any candidate. The total number of transferable papers is calculated. The
manner in which the surplus is then distributed depends on whether –
• the number of transferable papers is greater than the surplus (this is usually the case
in the early stages of a count);
• the number of transferable papers is equal to the surplus (this happens
infrequently), and
• the number of transferable papers is less than the surplus (this is usually the case in
the later stages of a count).

Where the number of transferable papers is greater than the surplus, only a
proportion of them can be included in the surplus distribution. This proportion is
calculated by working out the ratio of the surplus to the total number of transferable
papers and applying that ratio consecutively to the total number of next preferences for
each candidate still in the running. This calculation gives the number of next
preferences for each candidate that should be included in the surplus distribution. The
resultant number of next preferences for each continuing candidate to be transferred as
part of the surplus distribution is taken from the top of his/her sub-parcel of next
preferences made up from the last parcel of votes received by the elected candidate.

As an example, if candidate A was 6 votes short of the quota and then got 10 votes in a
particular count, he/she would have a surplus of 4 votes. The 10 votes that got him/her
elected are examined and 8 are found to be transferable, viz. 6 to candidate C and 2 to
candidate D. The ratio of the surplus of 4 votes to the 8 transferable papers in A's last
parcel of votes is 0.5. This ratio is applied to the sub-parcels of next preferences for
candidates C and D. Thus, the votes transferred in the distribution of A’s surplus of 4
votes are the top 3 votes in the sub-parcel of next preferences for candidate C, together
with the top vote in the sub-parcel of next preferences for candidate D.

In this situation, the quota of votes retained by the elected candidate following the
surplus distribution comprises all the papers credited to him/her up to the count
immediately before he/she was elected, and - from the last parcel of votes that brought
him/her over the quota – all the non-transferable papers and the transferable papers that
were not actually transferred in the surplus distribution. The non-transferable papers
retained by the elected candidate are regarded as “effective” because they form part of
the quota of votes held by him/her.

Where the total number of transferable papers is equal to the surplus, all the
transferable papers are included in the surplus distribution. In this situation, the quota
of votes retained by the elected candidate whose surplus is being distributed is made up
entirely of non-transferable votes.

Where the total number of transferable papers is less than the surplus, all the
transferable papers are included in the surplus distribution. As the transfer of these
papers leaves the elected candidate with more than a quota of votes, that number of
non-transferable votes equal to the difference between the number of transferable
papers and the surplus is removed from him/her. The papers concerned are designated
as “non-transferable papers not effective” because they are no longer credited to any
candidate. The quota of votes retained by the elected candidate for the duration of the
count is made up entirely of “effective” non-transferable votes.

VI. Exclusion of lowest candidate(s)

If there is no surplus available or the distribution of a surplus is prohibited, the lowest
candidate(s) is/are excluded and his/her/their votes distributed.

The two or more lowest candidates must be excluded together where it is clear that they
will be excluded in turn in any event or where it is clear that they will not qualify to
recoup their election expenses or deposit (if applicable) i.e. where the sum of their
votes, plus any available surplus(es), is less than the number of votes credited to the
next lowest candidate. Where this rule does not apply, the lowest candidate only is
excluded. All transferable votes of the excluded candidate(s) are distributed to
candidates still in the running in accordance with the next available preferences shown
on them. All non-transferable papers of the excluded candidate(s) are set aside and
designated as “non-transferable papers not effective” because they are no longer
credited to any candidate. Any candidate reaching or exceeding the quota following
this distribution of votes is deemed elected.

See section VIII for further elaboration of the rules for excluding the two or more
lowest candidates together.

VII. Filling of last seat(s)

The process of distributing surpluses or excluding the lowest candidate(s) and
distributing his/her/their votes is continued until all seats in the election are filled.

The count can be finished without distributing either an available surplus or the votes of
excluded candidates where it is clear which candidate(s) is/are eventually going to fill
the remaining seat(s) and which candidate(s) has/have no chance of being elected or
where it is clear that the candidate(s) will not qualify to recoup their election expenses
or deposit (if applicable). When this happens, candidates are deemed elected without
reaching the quota. A common example of this is where there are three continuing
candidates, two unfilled seats and no available surplus. The lowest continuing
candidate is excluded and the remaining two candidates are deemed elected to fill the
last seats. Alternatively, if there was an available surplus in this situation that could not
bring the lowest candidate level with or above the second lowest candidate, the two
highest continuing candidates would be deemed elected to fill the last seats.

VIII Recoupment of election expenses/deposit

Candidates at most elections qualify for recoupment of their election expenses or
deposit (if applicable) provided the number of votes they receive at the count exceeds
one-quarter of the quota. There are count rules designed to give candidates every
chance of reaching this vote threshold. Thus, a surplus must be distributed if it could
qualify the lowest candidate for recoupment of election expenses (see section III) and
the lowest candidates must be excluded separately if this could possibly qualify any of
them for recoupment of election expenses (see section IV). Also, any surplus(es)
available after all seats have been filled must be distributed if it/they could possibly
give any continuing candidate enough votes to qualify for recoupment of election
expenses (see section VII).

The election expenses threshold is calculated differently at a bye-election to ensure
that it is broadly comparable to the threshold that applied at the general election in
that constituency.

IX. Recounts

The returning officer can decide at any time to re-examine and recount all or any of the
ballot papers and change results already announced.

Candidates can request a re-examination and recount of any particular count after it is
completed. A recount of this nature involves examining all papers relevant to that
count and moving papers to correct any errors.

Candidates can also, before the result is formally declared, request a total recount of all
votes. This involves re-examining and recounting all parcels of ballot papers as they
stand when the recount is called for. If a significant error is found (i.e. one which is
likely to change who is elected), then all the ballot papers must be counted afresh from
the point at which the error occurred.

X. Declaring result

When all seats have been filled and any recounts are concluded, the returning officer
formally declares who has been elected. Once this is done, the only way a person can
question the election result is by presenting an election petition to the High Court within
28 days of the result being declared.

 

[peterward]

DTES i simply do not agree with your assertions that AV is in anyway fair, and thus why it is only used in 3 countries in the world, 2 of those are tinpot alleged democracies run by dictators - Fiji and New Guinea

You make your argument well and I will contend that FPTP is flawed and does end up in most cases with a majority of people who didn't vote for that candidate. But thats the price of multiparty politics and it is still only fair to have one person 1 vote for 1 candidate.

It may be that 65% didn't vote for the winning candidate in our multi party FPTP system, but the 65% all had 1 vote, they used it and not 1 of their chosen candidates got more votes than the winning candidate. If you have 9 also rans they will always likely form more than 50% collectively.

Say you have 10 people for a job interview. Would you ever employ someone in the same manner? taking the next preference of the least wanted person in interviews and tests and adding it to the other interviewees...and so on until this system of using losing candidates other preferences decided for you who was best. Even though 1 person did better than the other 9 initially?

In AV fringe party losers second or third prefs will decide who wins?

And you think its fair? that if you were to vote lets say Labour for example and they get say 40% for example and I were to vote (and I would never vote BNP), but lets just say I put BNP number 1, UKIP 2, Lib Dems 3. Now if it transpired that the BNP went out first, my second pref would be used and another vote from me would be added to the UKIP pile and if they went out next, my next pref would be used and by the time the Lib dems who may have originally been 10% behind you, actually win the seat with 51%, I may have in effect voted for 3 different parties and you just for the one party with first pref.

I am not against changing the system. I am completely in favour of something fairer but this AV system is ill considered, undemocratic and definately not a step forwards.

Changing consticuency boundaries to have equal size and weight is fairer, allowing some to only have a vote for 1 candidate used and others for 3 or 4 different candidates is not fair.

Is it any wonder it is being so widely embraced by the Labour party and their ideologically aligned socialist fringe parties like SNP, Plaid and greens. Of course it isn't.

This is not in the best interests of democracy, fairness or the electorate imho. This is an attempted left wing stitch up in the interests of obtaining more power and influence in the hands of "progressives" and trying to institute AV enables the long dreamed for and secretly planned socialist rainbow grand coalition that locks out the right wing parties for good (I am not against the end of the tories, but not in this underhand manner).

And I am somebody who would see myself as a left of centre eurosceptic. I read the guardian and new statesmen a former blairite who voted Lib Dem. But I can see beyond the hidden agendas. I don't like anti democratic carve ups by politicians acting in self interest and disguising it to the un-informed as "better off for all".

Electoral reform YES - AV NO

2 things for the record

1) According to newsnight the abhorrent BNP are actually in favour of proportional representation which is also the ultimate dream of the socialist alliance and the next step beyond AV.
2) Former Labour home secretary Dr John Reid was on stage with Cameron and also against AV as "not fair and not the answer"

http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/ashdown-blair-the-great-coalitionmerger-plan/

 

[beorhthelm]

Nicely explained, thanks. Staggering would indeed be a bad idea - would just drag everything out needlessly.

AV seems a much fairer system to me than FPTP. Gets my vote.

i wonder if you could highlight where the explaination covers why AV is fairer. DTES describes the French system and why staggered, repeated polling would be bad, not the strengths of AV.