First Past the Post or AV

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

But I want Carnell and pistachio.

[PeckhamRose]

I have read all three pages of this thread to try and read and understand the opinions for and against and am just as confused about my opinion.

The concern I have about changing from the current system is that people will not understand it and make mistakes, deliberate or not, which could have disastrous consequences.

Could someone explain the difference between proportional representation and alternative voting, please?

[silverfox]

Can't really help you there PeckhamRose except to say that this referendum has nothing to do with PR.

However, you're right to be concerned and I advise you just to vote a big fat NO (only one x required here)

Put it like this: the men's 100 metres final in the Olympics will be won by the person who runs the fastest and breaks the tape first. If AV reasoning was applied to this this is unfair because the other seven racers lost. the reason the winner won was because he was the fastest. But he may of had longer legs, more stamina, been fitter, trained harder, a bigger lunch box etc. none of this matters. apply AV and give it to the fat asthmatic kid with eczema

[Loz]

Could someone explain the difference between proportional representation and alternative voting, please?

PR is only really useful where you are electing more than one candidate (e.g. in Australia it is used for electing Senators to the upper house, where each state returns 10 senators). It allots a representative based on the total number of votes. In theory, a party that gets, say, 15% of the vote should get 15% of the elected candidates. Note that PR is not on offer in the upcoming referendum.

AV is useful when electing one candidate, like for the current Westminster system of electing an MP. If, say, you have 5 candidates then instead of just placing an X next to your preferred candidate (as you currently do), you number the candidates in order of preference. Candidates with the lowest number of votes are eliminated and there votes redistributed based on the voters preferences until two candidates remain - one of which will have >50% of the vote.

As I said, PR plays no part in this referendum - you are being asked to decide whether to retain the current First Past the Post method or switch to the Alternative Vote method.

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

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

> Put it like this: the men's 100 metres final in

> the Olympics will be won by the person who runs

> the fastest and breaks the tape first. If AV

> reasoning was applied to this this is unfair

> because the other seven racers lost. the reason

> the winner won was because he was the fastest. But

> he may of had longer legs, more stamina, been

> fitter, trained harder, a bigger lunch box etc.

> none of this matters. apply AV and give it to the

> fat asthmatic kid with eczema

You really don't understand voting systems, do you?

[silverfox]

just looking at the latest pro-AV junk mail to come through my door (how many millions are being wasted on this?)

point two states under the heading 'A stronger voice' this philosophical gem:

"Ranking candidates in order gives you more say -in who comes in first and who comes in last. By ranking as many or as few candidates as you like, you can still have a say even if your favourite doesn't win"

This goes back to your ice cream example Loz where everyone was 'Forced' to have vanilla ice cream which hardly anyone wanted in the first place. Neo-fascism abounds in the AV lobby

See Loz's ice cream example above where, after three votes, more people ended up with an ice cream they didn't want (70%) than if they hadn't bothered to vote in the first place (60%).

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

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

> See Loz's ice cream example above where, after

> three votes, more people ended up with an ice

> cream they didn't want (70%) than if they hadn't

> bothered to vote in the first place (60%).

Again, you really don't understand voting systems, do you? Your 100m example actually makes more sense than this bizarre view on preferences.

But again, as before, I think you are purposefully feigning daftness. No one, but no one, can take this long to understand a relatively simple concept.

[Marmora Man]

First past the post for me - with two modifications:

1. Voting to be compulsory

2. All ballot papers to have a "none of the above" option - if this option is first in any constituency then the vote is re run.

[nashoi]

The Electoral Reform Society website gives good explanations of the various different systems and their pros and cons.

Not too surprisingly they back a yes vote, but their system of choice would be STV which manages to achieve a greater degree of proportionality whilst maintaining the link to constituencies. Rather ironically, if it wasn't for the House of Lords, we would have had STV in this country even before women had the vote.

[Marmora Man]

To add my previous post - for this forthcoming vote on AV - there should be a minimum threshold. I'd prefer 50% as a minimum but would settle for 35% - 40%. Otherwise apathy wins and the British Constitution could be changed simply because the issue isn't sufficiently interesting to anyone but a few politco geeks (like me - and other posters on here).

[silverfox]

Loz said: ".... No one, but no one, can take this long to understand a relatively simple concept."

Today's Sun says: 349-word solution to grasp AV

THE Alternative Vote system is so complicated the Electoral Commission took 349 WORDS to explain it.

By contrast, the current First Past the Post system was unravelled in 57.

The commission, overseeing the May 5 voting referendum, yesterday sent information booklets to 28 million homes.

The plain language experts it used took seven times longer to decipher AV.

Meanwhile, David Cameron attacked the system in a Swansea speech.

The PM cited Winston Churchill's view that AV meant "the most worthless votes go to the most worthless candidates".

He added competitors "coming second or third can end up winning", and said: "We wouldn't do it in the Olympics, we shouldn't do it in politics. We've got to vote no to this crazy system."

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3505610/Electoral-Commission-takes-349-words-to-explain-the-AV-system.html

[missus]

Quoting from The Sun is a slippery slope rahnd' these parts, squire!

[Loz]

He added competitors "coming second or third can end up winning", and said: "We wouldn't do it in the Olympics, we shouldn't do it in politics. We've got to vote no to this crazy system."

You do realise that the election of the host city for the Olympics was done via a form of AV? And that Cameron (and Milliband, for that matter) were both elected by forms of AV? In fact, Cameron himself cam second after the first round of MPs voting. Had they used FPTP then David Davis would be leader of the Tories.

The No camp talks a lot of rubbish.

[DJKillaQueen]

I'm voting yes.

[silverfox]

... And that Cameron (and Milliband, for that matter) were both elected by forms of AV? ...

Churchill was right. I rest my case.

[Loz]

The PM cited Winston Churchill's view that AV meant "the most worthless votes go to the most worthless candidates".

Can anyone explain this? It doesn't actually seem to make any sense.

[Marmora Man]

One drawback of AV is that 2nd / 3rd preference votes are given the same weight as first preference votes. This surely illogical I if I place candidates 1 - 4 in that order, then clearly I value candidate 4 less than I value candidate 1.

If, without weighting, candidate 4 wins I am only partially satisfied with his / her election - say 33%.

Of we have to have a complicated system, let's have a really complicated system that weights secind preference at 50%, 3rd preference at 33% and 4th preference at 25%.

I haven't time to calculate the difference it might make - but if we're talking about fairness this feels fairer than straight AV.

[silverfox]

Loz Wrote:

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

> The PM cited Winston Churchill's view that AV

> meant "the most worthless votes go to the most

> worthless candidates".

>

>

> Can anyone explain this? It doesn't actually seem

> to make any sense.

Certainly, think of your ice cream example - after wasting everybody's time shuffling votes around like a fairground conjurer hiding a marble under cups, everybody ends up with what nobody wanted in the first place.

[PeckhamRose]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> I'm voting yes.

Yes what?

[DJKillaQueen]

I'm voting for AV. The reason is that it will only make a difference in constituencies where there are small/ medium sized margins of votes. So if there was say a 15,000 vote majority under FPTP then it might swing less under AV. I also think as a system it will favour the Lib Dems and Lobour more that the Tories, and I hate the Tories. So hardly an impartial reason but it's an honest reason.

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

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

> Loz Wrote:

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

> -----

> > The PM cited Winston Churchill's view that AV

> > meant "the most worthless votes go to the most

> > worthless candidates".

> >

> >

> > Can anyone explain this? It doesn't actually

> seem

> > to make any sense.

>

> Certainly, think of your ice cream example - after

> wasting everybody's time shuffling votes around

> like a fairground conjurer hiding a marble under

> cups, everybody ends up with what nobody wanted in

> the first place.

Anyone want to try and explain silverfox's explanation?

And can anyone help explain to silverfox the meaning of the word 'preferences'. He seems to think it's a binary yes/no situation, that 'The icecream I like is chocolate, vanilla and strawberry, in that order' is the same as 'I hate vanilla'.

[Marmora Man]

Letter in today's paper

"I've just received a flyer from a bunch of comedians asking me to support AV. Is this some kind of joke?"

[silverfox]

Just got my Electoral Commission brochure through the door 'Local elections and Referendum'.

Page 4 explains the first past the post system.

Pages 5, 6, 7 and 8 explain what the Alernative Vote is and how it works.

I suppose if AV is introduced it will keep the vote counters in jobs and there'll be plenty of overtime.

[silverfox]

Interesting statement on page 8 of the above leaflet:

"Because voters don't have to rank all of the candidates, an election can be won under the 'alternative vote' system with less than half the total votes cast."

However unlikely or rarely this event may occur, it contradicts the whole justification for introducing the AV system in the first place, ie a minimum 50% of the vote is required.

Intellectually flawed or what?

[James Barber]

I'm in favour of a change in voting system and AV is a definite improvement.

Shame its only being proposed for parliamentary elections.

Many parts of the country have local elections on 5 May this year.

Many many 100's of local councillor seats have only one candidate standing - they've been delcared the winners without a single vote having to be cast. FPTP is the reason for this.

Under FPTP only a relatively few parliamentary seats change hands. With ever more focus on those few possibly changes without a change to voting system we'll see fewer and fewer seats being truly contested. And our democracry get ever weaker. This is partly why fewer voters are taking part and the turnouts have been declining for a number of decades.