If you were pro Proportional Representation...

[beorhthelm]

Wasn't it? The full results are here...

The only difference I can see is that the run-off was instant, rather than staggered

far from instant, there was over a month gap between stage 2 and 3 and a different electorate for the 3rd round. even if it were AV, Cameron would have won after round two. really, how anyone can say this is the same as AV beyond me.

and in the leadership election there is no assumption of who you'd vote for first applies second - Davis loses votes in the second round, which wouldn't happen in AV.

 

[DTES]

far from instant, there was over a month gap between stage 2 and 3 and a different electorate for the 3rd round.

Oh I quite agree that there was a large gap. For me, AV improves on this, by eliminating the need for delay and extra cost involved. Either way, the underlying principle of run-off voting (instant or otherwise) is the same - candidates are eliminated until somebody achieves 50% of the remaining votes.

even if it were AV, Cameron would have won after round two.

Can you explain this? What am I missing - he had 45.5% of the remaining votes?

really, how anyone can say this is the same as AV beyond me.

As above, the underlying principle is exactly the same. It's run-off voting, which eliminates candidates until one candidate achieves 50%. AV just assumes that you'll vote for the same candidate each round if they're still in.

 

[beorhthelm]

Can you explain this? What am I missing - he had 45.5% of the remaining votes?



As above, the underlying principle is exactly the same. It's run-off voting, which eliminates candidates until one candidate achieves 50%. It just assumes that you'll vote for the same candidate each round if they're still in.

apologies, i missed that the number hadnt hit 50%.

however, it is not in principle the same. the only similarity is the run off aspect. there are no preferences; the first round vote does not transfer directly to the second round; the electorate changes. if Cameroon or Davies had hit 50% in the initial round or two, it would still have gone to the party membership round.

really, one could say that its FPTP because theres only two candidates in the final round which matters. but that would be equally wrong.

 

[DTES]

there are no preferences; the first round vote does not transfer directly to the second round

These two are linked. The preference is, in effect, your way of showing who you would wish to vote for in later rounds. Obviously, you don't know at the start who will be eliminated first, so you say "in any round, please take the highest remaining of my preferences as my vote in that round".

Yes, there is an assumption that your first choice out of all 5 candidates (for example) will also be your first choice out of any 4 of those 5 (i.e. after someone else has been eliminated). I don't see this as an unreasonable assumption at all.

the electorate changes. if Cameroon or Davies had hit 50% in the initial round or two, it would still have gone to the part membership round.

This bit I didn't realise - apologies.

really, one could say that its FPTP because theres only two candidates in the final round which matters. but that would be equally wrong.

You could say that about the final round under AV too, if you like. I think AV is a much closer analogy - indeed would be a perfect analogy were it not for the widening of the electorate.

 

[sten_super]

The French presidential elections are a much better example of 'delayed' AV than the Tory leadership elections. That is the same question asked of the same people (the French public), with a name removed from the ballot paper each time.

 

[beorhthelm]

Yes, there is an assumption that your first choice out of all 5 candidates (for example) will also be your first choice out of any 4 of those 5 (i.e. after someone else has been eliminated). I don't see this as an unreasonable assumption at all.

the point here is that theres no such assumption in the Tory leadership method. this is a significant difference, i cant change my mind in AV (or Instant Run-off Voting) according to who's left.

if you think AV is a closer analogy to the leadship election, you'd be right, because FPTP doesn't feature any sort of rounds. but its closer by a gnats foreskin. this argument is falling into the trap of saying because the Tory leadership isnt FPTP, its AV. its neither and its a disingenous arguement that makes me wonder if the people making it even understand AV and what they support in AV. to be comparible, the alternative vote system would have our councillors vote for their prefered candidates, then the population turn up on polling day with the two way choice they've left us with.

 

[DTES]

the point here is that theres no such assumption in the Tory leadership method. this is a significant difference, i cant change my mind in AV (or Instant Run-off Voting) according to who's left.

if you think AV is a closer analogy to the leadship election, you'd be right, because FPTP doesn't feature any sort of rounds. but its closer by a gnats foreskin. this argument is falling into the trap of saying because the Tory leadership isnt FPTP, its AV. its neither and its a disingenous arguement that makes me wonder if the people making it even understand AV and what they support in AV. to be comparible, the alternative vote system would have our councillors vote for their prefered candidates, then the population turn up on polling day with the two way choice they've left us with.

No, I completely agree that you can't change your mind. But why do you need to. The whole point of your preferences is that you've indicated (by selecting as highest preference) who you'd like to vote for in each round with any combination remaining.

If you prefer A out of A, B, C or D then surely you prefer A out of A or B / A or C / A, B or C / or any other combination. If out A & C, you'd choose C, why would you choose A out of A, B, C or D? (I hope I've written that so it's clear / makes some kind of sense )

I apologised before about the point regarding widening the electorate - I accept that isn't part of the analogy, and made the analogy before I was aware of that. As I said in my last point, I still do believe it would be close to AV were the electorate the same in each of those rounds. The assumption regarding preferences seems a fair one to me - unless you can spell out a good reason to my question above...

 

[paddy]

The simple point I am making is that the claim that is repeatedly made by the pro AV campaigners is that the elected candidate represents at least 50% of the electorate who turned out to vote.

This is FALSE as the example given in the BBC voting exercise clearly shows.

You could equally well achieve this meaningless 50% target by only counting the two leading candidates in a FPTP election and disregarding all of the rest.

Quite, here's the Economist's take on it:

"Most damagingly to supporters of AV—for it undermines their core argument—it would not even stop MPs being elected by a minority of votes cast. The version of AV used in Australian federal elections obliges voters to rank all candidates in order. The version on offer in Britain would allow voters to give their favourite candidate a “1” and stop there, behaviour known to psephologists as “plumping”. Where plumping is allowed (eg, in some Australian state elections), most voters do it, turning AV into a messy version of FPTP. Even where plumping is not allowed, candidates who start with the largest haul of first-preference votes usually win."

 

[Titanic]

Quite, here's the Economist's take on it:

"Most damagingly to supporters of AV—for it undermines their core argument—it would not even stop MPs being elected by a minority of votes cast. The version of AV used in Australian federal elections obliges voters to rank all candidates in order. The version on offer in Britain would allow voters to give their favourite candidate a “1” and stop there, behaviour known to psephologists as “plumping”. Where plumping is allowed (eg, in some Australian state elections), most voters do it, turning AV into a messy version of FPTP. Even where plumping is not allowed, candidates who start with the largest haul of first-preference votes usually win."

Indeed... you could call it AV-

 

[paddy]

If you prefer A out of A, B, C or D then surely you prefer A out of A or B / A or C / A, B or C / or any other combination. If out A & C, you'd choose C, why would you choose A out of A, B, C or D? (I hope I've written that so it's clear / makes some kind of sense )

Say A is Labour, B is Conservative, C is LibDem and D is BNP. As a voter I believe that the BNP might get enough votes in the first round to win and I also believe that the only party with the chance of stopping the BNP in the first round is Labour. Therefore, I select my first preference as Labour and my second as Tory (even though in fact I am a Tory voter). However, the predictions about the BNP are wrong and they turn out a dismal last place and are accordingly eliminated. Now that the BNP are no longer in the election I would like to vote for the Tories as my first preference but AV prevents me from doing so. Thus, where A, B, C and D are in the election I want A to win to prevent D from winning. However, when A, B and C are in the election I want B to win because I no longer fear D winning. Hypothetical you may say but in fact not that far away from the actual events of the election in Barking in 2010.

 

[severnside gull]

For all its faults (and there are many) AV is the crucial first step towards eventually achieving proportional representation. If we don't take the first step the journey will never begin.

 

[sten_super]

Indeed... you could call it AV-

It's all about preferences though, isn't it? The person that is ultimately elected will the support of the majority of people that have a preference.

Only compulsory voting would lead to a genuine majority supporting a candidate or government, and even then it would have to be allied to AV or PR and a sizeable majority.

 

[DTES]

Say A is Labour, B is Conservative, C is LibDem and D is BNP. As a voter I believe that the BNP might get enough votes in the first round to win and I also believe that the only party with the chance of stopping the BNP in the first round is Labour. Therefore, I select my first preference as Labour and my second as Tory (even though in fact I am a Tory voter). However, the predictions about the BNP are wrong and they turn out a dismal last place and are accordingly eliminated. Now that the BNP are no longer in the election I would like to vote for the Tories as my first preference but AV prevents me from doing so. Thus, where A, B, C and D are in the election I want A to win to prevent D from winning. However, when A, B and C are in the election I want B to win because I no longer fear D winning. Hypothetical you may say but in fact not that far away from the actual events of the election in Barking in 2010.

I see where you're coming from - however it doesn't work like that.

You're worried about the BNP winning in the first round. If they get enough votes to do that (50% under AV, remember) then where your vote goes is utterly irrelevant. If they've got 50%, they've got more than all the others put together. Your vote may affect the Labour/Tory split - you may (well, will) increase the Labour vote a little bit - but it does not (cannot) affect the BNP's percentage.

More clearly - if the BNP have more than half of all the votes, it is impossible for Labour to also have more than half. If they've got enough, they've got enough - if they haven't then they haven't.

One of the benefits of AV is that it eliminates the need for this kind of tactical voting.

 

[Titanic]

...One of the benefits of AV is that it eliminates the need for this kind of tactical voting.

but opens a whole new can of tactical voting worms, based on which votes are most likely to get redististributed before someone reaches the 50%, if anyone ever does.

 

[DTES]

someone reaches the 50%, if anyone ever does.

You're determined to pick up this point and run with it, aren't you? Someone, by definition (or by basic mathematics, if you prefer), will reach 50% of the votes cast in the final round (whichever round number that happens to be). If some people choose not to vote in every round that is their choice, not a flaw in the system.

 

[paddy]

You're determined to pick up this point and run with it, aren't you? Someone, by definition (or by basic mathematics, if you prefer), will reach 50% of the votes cast in the final round (whichever round number that happens to be). If some people choose not to vote in every round that is their choice, not a flaw in the system.

But the evidence from Australia is that most people will choose not to vote in every round. Whether or not it is a flaw in the system of the fault of the individuals, it is a fact. And this fact makes the claim of AV to be more representative fundamentally wrong. Under AV people can and will be elected on the basis of a minority of votes cast by those who go to the polling station on election day and that single fact makes it no better than FPTP.

 

[DTES]

But the evidence from Australia is that most people will choose not to vote in every round. Whether or not it is a flaw in the system of the fault of the individuals, it is a fact. And this fact makes the claim of AV to be more representative fundamentally wrong. Under AV people can and will be elected on the basis of a minority of votes cast by those who go to the polling station on election day and that single fact makes it no better than FPTP.

People will be elected, in the 'winning' or 'final' round by achieving 50% (refer to it as a 'majority', or 'more than all the other candidates put together') of the votes that are cast in that round.

People who have decided not to vote in that round (by not using all of their preferences) have made a conscious decision not to take full part, in the same way that those who stay at home have decided not to take any part.

Simple question: should people registered on the electoral roll, but not bothering to walk to the polling booth, be included in the % statistics? Clearly no-one will reach 50% if they are, but it's the same thing. They had the chance to have their vote count, but they didn't want to or couldn't be bothered.

"They may have won, but my vote wasn't included in the final score" will be the cry. Tough shit, you chose not to fully vote, so it's your fault.

 

[sten_super]

Under AV people can and will be elected on the basis of a minority of votes cast by those who go to the polling station on election day and that single fact makes it no better than FPTP.

But this is true of any system apart from a Compulsory Vote system with either AV or PR and a sizeable majority. Only under a Compulsory Vote system would you ensure that enough of the electorate turned out to give a true majority. Even then, history suggests that no one party has received more than 50% of the votes cast, so you'd need some reason for a massive number to favour one party.

Realistically you are not going to get more than 50% of eligible people voting for any one party under pretty much any system. Does that make the AV claim of being more representative wrong?

 

[paddy]

But this is true of any system apart from a Compulsory Vote system with either AV or PR and a sizeable majority. Only under a Compulsory Vote system would you ensure that enough of the electorate turned out to give a true majority. Even then, history suggests that no one party has received more than 50% of the votes cast, so you'd need some reason for a massive number to favour one party.

Realistically you are not going to get more than 50% of eligible people voting for any one party under pretty much any system. Does that make the AV claim of being more representative wrong?

As I understand it the way the Australia solve the issue on a federal level is to make the use of all one's preferences compulsory otherwise the ballot will be considered spoiled. My point is simply that under both AV and FPTP individuals can be elected by a minority of voters who turn up at the polling station. Indeed, under both AV and FPTP individuals can be elected by a majority of voters at the polling station (I think, under FPTP in over 200 of the 650 constituencies this already happens). Evidence from Australian state elections prove that most people do not use all of their preferences. With this in mind, when you take out the 200+ constituencies that already achieve majorities, how many more MPs will actually be elected by a majority of those who turn up on the day under AV? It is this figure which indicates how much more representative government AV delivers and I would think this figure is relatively small.

And when you try and weigh this modest improvement against the risk that AV will simply result in more voter apathy (since politicians will go out of their way to agree with each other/not say anything that might alienate others in desperate attempts to pick up second preferences from other parties, and the main cause of voter apathy is the feeling all politicians are the 'same') the case for AV falls away.

I do agree that you will never get more than 50% of eligible people voting for any one party under any system. However, that is not why I'm attacking AV. I'm attacking AV for not getting more than 50% of even those who turn up to vote. Despite going through the hassle of various rounds and eliminations, we get a system which produces something not dissimilar to what we have at the moment.

 

[Titanic]

...I do agree that you will never get more than 50% of eligible people voting for any one party under any system. However, that is not why I'm attacking AV. I'm attacking AV for not getting more than 50% of even those who turn up to vote. Despite going through the hassle of various rounds and eliminations, we get a system which produces something not dissimilar to what we have at the moment.

Cue DTES... but.... but.. they would have 50% of the votes that still count after we have thrown away the ones that don't... so that's 50%... isn't it?