First Past the Post or AV

[pontman]

But what your really implying is that this is somewhat unfair, that one should not be able to sacrifice their first vote, in the knowledge that their second preference will count.

Your saying that if a candidate is unlikely to win ( perhaps not party of the major parties ) people should not attempt to vote for him, even if the candidate has ideals that are better for the area/society/ the economy and humanity as a whole since one would not waste their vote on a candidate that is unlikely to win.

Now, if people get preferences voting for this ideal independent is not such a bad idea, since we can vote for him without worrying that since his not part of a major political party we will waste our vote, and indeed he may just win.

[silverfox]

But haven't I just had a damn good mouthful and chew of 1 and 2 as well? I've had a nibble at all three surely?

[pontman]

So Vote AV, the nation will get more candy and everybody wins.

[pontman]

Off the topic of candy and back to voting.

I feel we should be concentrating more on what system heeds the best results as opposed to how 'fair' we believe the system to be.

Shouldn't the Question be which system gives us a candidate that best represents the beliefs of the constituents?

[Loz]

Sorry silverfox, you and your badly insulted (ha!) intelligence are still trying (and failing) to overly complicating a simple system. Again (as we're on a new thread page)...

A mum is going to a shop and asks two children what they want.

Child A says "I'd like a KitKat. If I can't have that I'd like a Twix. If they are out of those I'll have a Mars Bar."

Child B says "I'd like a Bounty. If I can't have that I'd like a Twix. If they are out of those I'll have a Mars Bar."

The shop has Mars Bars and Bounties.

Mum returns with a chocolate bar each. Child A gets a Mars Bar - his third preference. Child B gets a Bounty - his first preference. Both get one chocolate bar, each.

That is AV. Or, in this case, the Alternative Chocolate.

It is very simple. It is very fair.

[Loz]

pontman Wrote:

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

> Off the topic of candy and back to voting.

>

> I feel we should be concentrating more on what

> system heeds the best results as opposed to how

> 'fair' we believe the system to be.

>

> Shouldn't the Question be which system gives us a

> candidate that best represents the beliefs of the

> constituents?

I tried that one back on about page 4, pontman. silverfox is not big on establishing the beliefs of the majority. In fact it was another simple concept his fatally insulted intelligence had quite a bit of trouble comprehending.

[silverfox]

Once again Loz you fail to grasp the obvious even in your own examples.

In your example "The shop has Mars Bars and Bounties."

So translating that to an AV election:

Child A cannot make preferences 1 and 2 for KitKat and Twix because those candidates aren't standing - they don't exist, you cannot vote for nothing. So Child A has to vote for Mars Bar.

Child B can vote for Bounty, he's standing, but can't have a second preference for Twix because he isn't standing, doesn't exist, but can have a second preference of Mars Bar.

The reason for labouring this point is it goes to the crux of the fallacy of AV. For each candidate that is standing and you make a preference for, the person has, in reality, whether they're too stupid to realise it or not, made multiple votes. Each preference is counted therefore each is a separate vote.

This is quite unlike your examples of wish lists where the analagous candy bars aren't even on the ballot paper.

But then, I'm afraid, I don't expect you to understand this any more than you understood the difference between a majority and a number of fragmented minorities.

But I won't give up on you Loz - I see the potential

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

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

> Once again Loz you fail to grasp the obvious even

> in your own examples.

The examples are obvious and self-explanatory. They show the simplicity of AV, the fairness of AV and put to bed the (oft repeated) lie that expressing a preference is the same as multiple votes - it is not.

You can try and make it look as complex, silverfox, but it won't wash. You can try and say that "I'd like a KitKat, if not that I'd like a Twix, if not that the I'll have a Mars Bar." is the same as having a bite out of three chocolate bars when it is patently obvious it is not.

Both pontman and I have used AV. We know it is simple and fair. You can try and argue the opposite but you would only be insulting you own intelligence.

The No argument has been built on a pack of lies and half-truths (as the Charlie Brooker article on page 10 shows). Your argument is more of the same - trying to make a simple system look complex because trying to show the plus side of FPTP is an impossible task. Hopefully the electorate will see through the lies and vote for a better system. Sadly, lying to the electorate seems to be an acceptable tactic these days and one the No camp have taken on with gusto.

Will the lies of the No camp win the day? We shall see. I hope not.

[James Barber]

Hi silverfox,

I think you're confusing count in the terms of will all the 1st preferences be phyiscally counted - clearly yes they are. And will they all count towards the actual result at that time which is a clear no because if you voted for the 3rd or 4th placed candidate etc your vote didn't count towards the actual elected representative in that round. SO, your 2nd preference is taken into account. It might at that point result in one of the candidates having over 50% at which point your 2nd preferences would have counted towards the result.

[Marmora Man]

It seems from reports that apathy and the traditional British resistance to change will result in a small margin, on a low turn out, for retaining the status quo.

As long as the Yes campaigners cannot invoke the EU rule of continuing to hold referenda until the answer meets the politico / bureaucrat wish we'll be OK for another generation.

[LadyDeliah]

nashoi Wrote:

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

> 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.

Brap Brap, he got you there MM!

(sorry - heard too many exuberant teenagers today!)

[Marmora Man]

Lady Deliah - the argument put up by Nashoi is very weak indeed. I call for robust management in the NHS. I would ask for the same robust management of poor performers in any sector - from schools to the armed forces to parliament and everywhere in between.

However, I do not see the link you profess to make between a strange, unusual and illogical new voting system and improving the performance of politicians. There are many ways of keeping politicians honest - but changing the way we vote for them every 5 years isn't one of them. Try - attending their surgeries, press interest, full transparency on all payments and links to sponsors, regular Q&A sessions, the right to recall for re-election, an end to super injunctions, a free and intrusive press among others.

Additionally even the YES proponents only claim it will make a difference in about 60 constituencies - so what happens in the other 500?

[Marmora Man]

I see from today's papers that Tim Farron MP (Lib Dem) claims FPTP sustained slavery and Thatcherism and, by implication, that AV would have Prevented both.

If this campaign runs for much longer no doubt we'll discover that AV will cure cancer and lead to world peace.

[Huguenot]

I think he was simply trying to illustrate how FPTP allows disastrous policies to be sustained in the face of a majority disapproval.

FPTP was devised by old greedy men who wanted to remain in power, and is now being campaigned for by old greedy men who want to remain in power.

[Loz]

I must admit I have cringed at some of the ludicrous statements made by the Yes camp. Honestly, FPTP is such an easy target but they have to make it look difficult.

Mind you, at least they haven't gone for the blatant, bare-faced lying that the No to AV camp have indulged in.

[Burbage]

silverfox Wrote:

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

> So translating that to an AV election:

>

> Child A cannot make preferences 1 and 2 for KitKat

> and Twix because those candidates aren't standing

I think you've inadvertently hit the problem with FPTP. At the moment, FPTP elections attract a limited range of candidates in both senses of the word. Nobody in their right mind stands as an independent, as they clearly have no chance, and the dross we have served up by selection committees is directly proportional to how safe the seat is. In any case, your vote is taken not as an endorsement of a particular candidate but as a wholehearted agreement to be bound hand and foot by every weasel word in a manifesto. As the parties relentlessly hurtle towards the mealy-mouthed middle, there's increasingly little to choose from and the only certainty is that whatever we end up with will appease the banks, bungle foreign policy and pass the buck for their incompetence to local councils and services, while claiming their 'mandate' has given them no choice.

The benefit of AV isn't so much that the system is fairer, but that it opens up the possibility that a non-useless candidate might chance their arm. It's not guaranteed, but it's a chance worth having, nonetheless. Making seats less obviously 'safe' has another advantage, too. Instead of being able to rely on whip-toadying careerists parachuted in to safe seats, governments might have to allocate posts on the basis of merit and genuine experience. That wouldn't just make governments better, it might make the candidates better, too.

As for the complexity, we're in London. Here we have at least three different voting systems already, including a properly proportional one, and they seem to work well enough. Turnout is still lamentably low for some of them, but that's because a lot of people think their vote doesn't count. Under FPTP outside marginals, most of them are right.

[silverfox]

Fair point Burbage

[Brendan]

This one is for Snorky:

 

[Loz]

"FPTP Depresses Cats". Brilliant. :))

[silverfox]

Love it.

Brain the size of a cat?

Vote AV

[Loz]

Well, then... if you've got dog breath then vote Yes to FPTP...

[Famingo]

Loz Wrote:

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

> Well, then... if you've got dog breath then vote

> Yes to FPTP...

:(

[maxxi]

Surely no fervent supporter of a main party, be it blue red or yellow, is going to think "I want a tory mp, but if that's not on the cards then a labour one sounds okay too". They will put fringe candidates in the other choices or leave them blank. And those undecideds who make up their minds last thing will think similarly, "I've made up my mind to vote A, I don't want B or C so will put Q, Y, Z or leave it blank" I think under AV that most voters will ignore the second third fourth choice scenario and things will remain the same. I'm afraid Clegg was right. It IS a miserable little compromise.

[Huguenot]

That's a misunderstanding maxxi, you're trying to judge the success of AV by putting in an a two party state. FPTP creates a two party state by its very nature.

FPTP prevents people with similar views but different strategies appearing on the ticket because they split the vote and let in the opposite end of the spectrum.

AV allows more people with similar views but different strategies to appear on the ticket without threatening the overall picture.

It increases voter choice because they don't have to choose one or the other, but can choose between candidates who, for example, were both left wing, but may differ in their approach to education or defence.

In this context the AV preferences have a great deal of benefits.

People who are campaigning for FPTP don't want voter choice, they don't want a range of candidates. They want to control elections through selection committees and restricted voter choice to keep their jobs for life.

It's important that the electorate understand that the No campaign are dishonest and self-serving. They don't want better solutions for the country, they want power and control.

[Loz]

maxxi Wrote:

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

> Surely no fervent supporter of a main party, be it

> blue red or yellow, is going to think "I want a

> tory mp, but if that's not on the cards then a

> labour one sounds okay too".

Out of all of the possible combinations, that is probably the only one that rings true. However, I'm sure that many Tories have a preference between their vote going to Labour or LibDem, or Labour voters having a preference between Tories and LibDem.

But, as Huguenot says, this is especially good for the 10% of 'wasted' votes - those that currently go to smaller parties who do have a preference for one of the bigger parties. And also to an inestimable number of voters who currently put in a tactical vote for the big three, but would rather count themselves a Green, or a UKIP or an independent... whatever. They are the ones that AV will effectively re-enfranchise.