First Past the Post or AV

[Marmora Man]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm sure dictatorship is even cheaper than FPTP. Maybe we should go for that instead.

Dictatorship is way too expensive - mainly of lives, not money. cf: Libya, Syria, Bahrain, USSR, China, et al.

[Huguenot]

It's right wingers on this thread that are in the No corner.

There are indeed left wingers in parliament in the No corner. They tend to be the political dinosaur, old-school jobs-for-life brigade.

Can you show me how you calculated that 50m figure? Since I've found no-one that can make a sensible forecast of the cost differential I suspect it has absolutely no validity.

If you can't see how appealing to 50% of the electorate requires more work than appealing to 35%, then I don't know how to help you.

What on earth you are talking about re. expenses I have no idea, no-one has made that claim.

This is the typical 'bullshit' to which I refer. You create fictitious arguments to refute. It's just a bald lie. Again.

[Loz]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LadyDeliah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I'm sure dictatorship is even cheaper than FPTP.

> Maybe we should go for that instead.

>

> Dictatorship is way too expensive - mainly of

> lives, not money. cf: Libya, Syria, Bahrain, USSR,

> China, et al.

On that basis, look at the cost of FPTP - after all it is the favoured voting system in Zimbabwe, China, Pakistan, Belize, Iran, Yemen. If FPTP is cheap it is because you get what you pay for.

[silverfox]

Here's some fiction that you'll recognise Huguenot:

Multiple preferences and transferred preferences equals one vote.

Be off with you Huguenot and hang your head in shame for being such a half-wit in believing that nonsense.

[Marmora Man]

What on earth you are talking about re. expenses I have no idea, no-one has made that claim.

This is the typical 'bullshit' to which I refer. You create fictitious arguments to refute. It's just a bald lie. Again.

BUT: Cleggie Speaks

[Moos]

I'm a 'Yes' but would be interested to know why so few other countries use AV for their parliamentary elections. I did read the posts on the last page wrt internal elections and so on, so to be clear I mean the election of local representatives of parliament.

[Marmora Man]

Can you show me how you calculated that 50m figure? Since I've found no-one that can make a sensible forecast of the cost differential I suspect it has absolutely no validity.

When Scotland introduced STV the cost of elections rose, over twofold, from ?17 million to ?39 million. A similar increase would lift the current cost of a General Election from circa ?85m to roughly ?185m.

The Scottish costs included the cost of vote counting machines, and I know that Australia don?t use vote counting machines but they are, essentially, a two party political system ? UK is a three party and AV, in UK would, I content, tend to increase the number of ?bit player parties? making vote counting machines inevitable.

My forecast of ?50m additional cost was intended to be a conservative (no pun intended) estimate ? so as not to court charges of hyperbole.

[Marmora Man]

If you can't see how appealing to 50% of the electorate requires more work than appealing to 35%, then I don't know how to help you.

Because the AV system does not mean a politician has to appeal to 50% of the electorate. He/she has to ensure that they collect enough second preference votes to accumulate a winning number of votes as set out in accordance with a new rule book. Amusingly this is exactly what the principal Yes to AV spokesman did - and shafted his brother in the process.

This is not the same as appealing to 50%. Second preference means - less preferred, it's a ranking. So an AV winer may have 35% first preference votes and 16% second preference or 16% of "well he's not my first choice but I can live with him / or I don't want that other bloke to get in" voters. That's not democracy - it's a con.

Democracy as I understand it involves putting your case to the voters and seeing which case wins the most votes. It's simple and it can be brutal but it works. If "left" or "right" cannot combine around a single candidate and thus split their own "natural" supporters, then more fool them. Their arguments are either too weak or they're too disorganised to put up an effective opposition.

[Loz]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> When Scotland introduced STV the cost of elections

> rose, over twofold, from ?17 million to ?39

> million. A similar increase would lift the current

> cost of a General Election from circa ?85m to

> roughly ?185m.

>

> The Scottish costs included the cost of vote

> counting machines, and I know that Australia don?t

> use vote counting machines but they are,

> essentially, a two party political system ? UK is

> a three party and AV, in UK would, I content, tend

> to increase the number of ?bit player parties?

> making vote counting machines inevitable.

>

> My forecast of ?50m additional cost was intended

> to be a conservative (no pun intended) estimate ?

> so as not to court charges of hyperbole.

You are not really comparing the same thing. STV is an entirely different beastie (it is full PR) and is much more complex to count.

So far there has been a one-off estimate of ?26m for education (which seems a bit overdone to me, but is official) and... that's pretty much it. I mean, what other cost could there be? AV ballot papers are virtually the same as FPTP. The list of candidates will be the same. The count may take a little bit longer, but the cost of that is such a small part of the overall election cost.

The eztra costs claimed by the No camp are at best a red herring and at worst an outright lie.

[silverfox]

Loz said:

"...what other cost could there be?..."

Well, millions of extra pencils and pencil sharpeners for a start.

If millions of half-wits can't make their minds up and insist on wasting everyone's time seeing if they can count up to ten with their preferences without putting down the same number more than once then millions of miles of extra lead/graphite in pencils will be required. That's not counting the pencils that have been chewed while the trainee-mathematicians concentrate on their preferences as well as those who snap the pencils in frustration at the over-complication of the whole process. Plus the wear and tear on pencil sharpeners.

That bill must come to a couple of million for a start, especially if the Greens insist the pencils must be locally sourced.

[Loz]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Finally you have exhibited a tendency in this

> thread to characterise opponents of AV as right

> wing and anti democratic, implying somehow that

> left of centre is more democratic. Given that over

> half the parliamentary Labour Party is intending

> to vote no - including a number of shadow cabinet

> members such as Caroline Flint and John Healey I

> cannot see how the Left /Right analysis supports

> the Yes case

That's true, but it worth scratching the surface to see why Labour is a bit torn on this.

Why do the Tories not like AV? That's easy. Voting trends show that the country is, on the whole, slightly left leaning. That mean the Tories would struggle - at least in the short term - to gain the majority 50% support needed under AV. Needless to say that rather turns them away from AV.

So why does Labour not support AV wholeheartedly? Because the left vote is more fragmented that the right - spread out amongst Labour, Greens, SWP, some Lib Dems, etc. So FPTP rather suits Labour as FPTP forces the lefties that may wish to vote for the smaller parties to vote for them to save wasting their vote. AV may see Labour lose some vote share and some in the party don't fancy that. The more progressive Labour people that believe in electoral reform are throwing their weight behind AV. The ones that are just looking out for Labour's best interests are behind FPTP.

FPTP, by it's nature, delivers a political duopoly (or, in the UK, an oligopoly) so new players and smaller players are forced out of the market, so it suits the big incumbents like Labour and the Tories. And that is why AV is fairer. Trying to argue 'fairness' (as some have) by comparing which of AV and FPTP are more proportional is a bit like comparing a Ford Focus and a VW Golf by looking at which flies better. Neither are designed for it. Comparing fairness between AV and FPTP is better shown by the fact that you are not forced to vote for a subset of candidates to make your vote count, the wider way you can express your vote and how it allows you to vote for the party you believe in (and not being forced to vote for a party you believe could win). You can say that FPTP is simple and is cheap, but you can't say it's fair.

[pontman]

Any change to the voting system will clearly incur a cost, Although I think it will be a large initial investment but I cannot see why there would be any greater ongoing costs.

On the subject of the two party system in Australia. Liberal has for many years formed a coalition with the Australian National Party. Last election the Libs won 44 seats and the Nationals 21 and Labour 72, while only the Coalition or Labour ( or this new Labour Coalition ) have been in power for many years, the Nationals do still run against Liberal candidates although the Nationals have no change of forming a government off their own backs.

So while on a smaller scale, the complexities of three parties still exist.

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well, millions of extra pencils and pencil

> sharpeners for a start.

>

> If millions of half-wits can't make their minds up

> and insist on wasting everyone's time seeing if

> they can count up to ten with their preferences

> without putting down the same number more than

> once then millions of miles of extra lead/graphite

> in pencils will be required. That's not counting

> the pencils that have been chewed while the

> trainee-mathematicians concentrate on their

> preferences as well as those who snap the pencils

> in frustration at the over-complication of the

> whole process. Plus the wear and tear on pencil

> sharpeners.

You seem to work on the premise that we need to keep FPTP because a vast number of British voters are mentally retarded.

[pontman]

You seem to work on the premise that we need to keep FPTP because a vast number of British voters are mentally retarded

In Australia political parties provide how to vote cards with the order to list your preferences, alleviating the need for numeracy and allowing even the most simple minded individual to tow the party line.

[silverfox]

So, not only are you forced to vote in Australia, ie it's compulsory, but you're told how you must vote?

[pontman]

So, not only are you forced to vote in Australia, ie it's compulsory, but you're told how you must vote?

Its for the best.

[pontman]

Ordering all 74 senate candidates is mighty painful....

[silverfox]

But I thought it varied between the states, eg, in NSW you are not required to use preferences and can vote for only one person or doesn't this apply in Federal elections?

[nashoi]

If "left" or "right" cannot combine around a single candidate and thus split their own "natural" supporters, then more fool them. Their arguments are either too weak or they're too disorganised to put up an effective opposition.

This is the argument I don't really understand. Whilst I believe the majority of MP's are conscientious professionals there is undoubtedly a minority who are lazy, incompetent, dishonest, complacent or any combination of the above. They win re-election because they are fortunate enough to sit in constituencies where just enough core party support can be relied on to keep them there.

AV just makes it easier to overcome party loyalty and hold these people to account. It is not, of course, a silver bullet, it won't work in every situation, but to my mind some is better than none.

Marmora Man, I am puzzled therefore, as to why you should call on one thread, for easier ways of cutting the dead wood out of the NHS and yet support a system which helps protect it in the House of Commons.

[Loz]

pontman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ordering all 74 senate candidates is mighty painful....

Pontman - you are confusing the issue. What the UK call AV is what we would call Preferential Voting - i.e. the voting system for the House of Representatives. The Australian Senate is elected under STV (or PR as it is called here).

[Loz]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm sure dictatorship is even cheaper than FPTP.

> Maybe we should go for that instead.

A bit like the House of Lords model? i.e. we get told who should govern us.

Let's face it - the cheapest election is no election at all. And some people round here seem to like democracy on the cheap. Personally, I like 'fair elections' like AV over 'cheap elections' like FPTP.

[silverfox]

Personally I think cost should not be an issue if it furthers democracy.

However unquantifiable costs for a dubious proposition like AV cannot be acceptable. As I've repeatedly argued, if we're going to have a root and branch reform of the electoral process let's do it properly rather than be presented with this dog's dinner of a compromise.

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Personally I think cost should not be an issue if

> it furthers democracy.

Excellent. The minimal one-off cost of changing to AV is money will spent, then.

> However unquantifiable costs for a dubious

> proposition like AV cannot be acceptable. As I've

> repeatedly argued, if we're going to have a root

> and branch reform of the electoral process let's

> do it properly rather than be presented with this

> dog's dinner of a compromise.

Oh, come on. You've repeatedly complained that AV confuses you and have continually demonstrated that you have difficulty understanding its relatively simple concepts. It's probably the simplest of alternatives to FPTP on offer. Anything else, like PR, you have no hope of ever understanding.

And I'm still waiting on and explanation this magical alternative to electoral reform that you believe in. I don't think you actually have one.

And remember - a vote of No to AV is effectively a vote against any electoral reform for a generation.

[silverfox]

Loz said:

"...Oh, come on. You've repeatedly complained that AV confuses you and have continually demonstrated that you have difficulty understanding its relatively simple concepts..."

On the contrary, I've continually rejected its concepts and found them wanting - for example, I reject:

- the idea that multiple preferences and transfers of preferences equate to a single vote

- I do not consider it 'fair' that some people have more votes than others under AV, that is having second and third votes taken into consideration while others do not

- you, Loz, have demonstrated with your examples that more people can end up with a result that was the least favoured at the outset. In short more people would have been happier not even voting in the first place under AV

- I have repudiated your idea that the 'majority' are somehow hard done by under FPTP by showing that the 'majority' of which you speak isn't some unified opposition but basically a grouping of disunited, divided minorities. Nobody forced them to vote for the losers

The arguments you have put forward are dubious to say the least and intellectually wanting, while the insults from the yes camp above are the desperation of scoundrels trying to mislead the public.

There is a reason why hardly any country in the world has adopted AV to elect it's government and of the three that have one makes it compulsory under threat of fines to get their electorate out of bed.

[Marmora Man]

Why do the Tories not like AV? That's easy. Voting trends show that the country is, on the whole, slightly left leaning. That mean the Tories would struggle - at least in the short term - to gain the majority 50% support needed under AV. Needless to say that rather turns them away from AV.

Loz - I take it that you are Australian. I further assume you have lived mostly in London over recent years. Within the metropoliltan, ethnic / political / cultural mix that makes up London's political geeks your comment would pass as received wisdom. However, I believe your view is slightly misguided or based on a misapprehension.

Those of us that have lived in UK all our lives and are old enough to remember the 80s can recall a time when received wisdom was that the Conservatives were the natural party of government.

Equally, outside of London the current supposed left of centre leaning is not quite as apparent as you would have us believe - Cornwall, Devon, West Midlands, Essex are just some of the areas I've lived in - the general approach to life and politics in these areas is a cross between - not too much change too quickly, "them Lunnun Politicians don't know owt", and "let's apply common sense and keep it simple" and a very strong belief in the concept of fairness - as defined by "getting what they deserve, not free handouts" - broadly right of centre on almost everything.