westdulwich

Loz Wrote: > Did it deliver the fairest outcome? Compared to > FPTP (i.e. naming Party A the winner) then, yes, > absolutely. > > Reflected the preference of the voters? Again, > compared to FPTP, then yes, of course, as FPTP > ignores any preferences of the voter except their > first choice. Thank you. Could you answer without the caveat? Did the outcome reflect the preferences of the voters? > AV is often referred as IRV - Instant Runoff > Voting. The concept is the same except, as you've > noted, those whose preferences are still 'live' as > assumed not to change their votes between rounds. > It's a tradeoff for the sake of simplicity, speed > and cost. That is why examining preferences of > live votes is a bit of a red herring - they don't > actually 'exist' until needed. But in the example I've given, those preferences would have already been expressed and recorded under AV. They wouldn't all be counted under AV, but they certainly exist. > As I said, examining other options is no bad > thing, but the choice is between AV and FPTP. > Which do you think is better and fairer? I haven't yet decided which of the two I would prefer.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > westdulwich Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > 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. > > What you are doing here is not actually looking at > AV - you are looking at various possibilities that > *might* be an alternative to AV. Which is good in > a way as you are accepting that electoral reform > is A Good Thing. But, the question tomorrow has > two options: AV or FPTP, so in your example it is > rather irrelevant if you think that Party C has > gotten a raw deal. That's not on offer. > > What you need to look at is this: which is the > more deserving winner in your example: Party A or > Party B? It is fairly obvious that between those > two, Party B has the legitimacy and the majority > support recognition under AV that Party A cannot > demonstrate under FPTP. > When you compare AV to FPTP, AV delivers a much > more democratic solution. Yes, there might be > better systems out there, but we only have two > choices tomorrow. If you say no tomorrow you are > saying no to any electoral reform. Thank you for the response. I think you misunderstand me. I am not asking whether (in relation to my example) AV provides a better outcome than FPTP, or what kind of system would deliver the best outcome. Rather, I am asking whether AV (by making B the winner) would have: - delivered the fairest outcome? (or even a fair outcome) - reflected the preference of the voters? Would you mind answering this question?

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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. From your post, it appears that you are assuming that receiving the majority of votes counted in a given round (perhaps after other earlier preferences have been discounted, and other second or subsequent preferences have been ignored) is the same as having the support of the majority of the electorate. This is not the case, and sometimes (probably not often) it is possible to achieve the former without having the latter. The example that I gave above demonstrates this. By using AV, and thereby being selective about which preferences are counted and when, B will win. However, the majority did not want B. Based on first preferences of all voters B would not win (A comes out on top). Taking into account what voters would be willing to accept as a compromise if they cannot have their first choice, B would not win (C comes out on top). > 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. I'm not sure who your post is addressed to. It was posted after mine, so I'm assuming you're responding to me. On the other hand you also appear to be addressing the "no camp", so forgive me if this was meant for someone else and I'm responding out of turn. I don't understand what "fabricated maths" means. Are you suggesting that my example doesn't stack up mathematically? That it doesn't depict a plausible set of circumstances or outcomes? That the conclusions drawn are inappropriate? Of course, if you're referring to some other argument that the "no camp" have advanced and this wasn't meant for me then just ignore this. > You're not struggling to understand a run off are > you? > > AV allows you to do this without returning to the > polls. I'm not struggling to understand a run-off. I understand the concept, and the different systems through which this might be delivered. I'm not sure I understand your line of reasoning though. When I think of a run off, I usually think of a system with multiple rounds of voting, in each of which all voters are allowed to cast a vote (changing their preference from round to round if they so choose). I do appreciate that there are other run-off voting systems in which this is not the case. Can you please tell me: - is this what you have in mind when you refer to a run-off? - if so, do you think that AV offers the same "voter experience" (same range of option, same treatment of preferences, etc.) and would always deliver the same outcomes? - if you think there are differences in the experience offered to voters, or in the outcomes each system delivers, which (if any) do you think is better?

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.

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.

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).