First Past the Post or AV

[silverfox]

Quote:

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.

The reason for this is nobody else is standing surely? This would be the case if AV was in operation.

[Huguenot]

Frankly most people should vote yes simply because people like silverfox vote no.

silverfox's '100m' analogy is demonstrably stupid and manifestly undemocratic. In a constituency with 8 candidates, the winner would only need 17% of the votes to win. This means that 83% of the electorate did NOT want them to win. How fair is that? Being 'ruled' by a minority (and probaly extremist) candidate?

That's why people don't vote, because under the current system the majority of votes are worthless.

The AV system simply allows you to cast your vote again if your first choice candidate doesn't get sufficient support. That's it. Nothing more complicated than that.

It means that your opinion counts.

I don't understand why silverfox is talking rubbish about losers getting in. It's completely the opposite.

Actually, I do know. It's because in an AV system right wing extremists who think the answer to muggings is that everyone carry guns will NEVER get in. Instead, politicians will have to appeal to a wider base, will have to compromise and reflect their constituency needs instead of ideological claptrap.

silverfox is going to respond to this post with an even more stupid observation than his earlier ones, that's how stupid he is.

[Huguenot]

Frankly most people should vote yes simply because people like silverfox vote no.

silverfox's '100m' analogy is demonstrably stupid and manifestly undemocratic. There is no question about politicians being highly trained athletes who 'beat' everyone else and are thus 'best'.

Instead elections are about identifying the candidate who closest represents the views of the electorate.

In a constituency with 8 candidates, the winner would only need 17% of the votes to win. This means that 83% of the electorate did NOT want them to win. How fair is that? Being 'ruled' by a minority (and probaly extremist) candidate?

That's why people don't vote, because under the current system the majority of votes are worthless.

The AV system simply allows you to cast your vote again if your first choice candidate doesn't get sufficient support. That's it. Nothing more complicated than that. Your no.2 candidate gets your vote.

It means that your opinion counts.

Even MMs 'percentage' argument is daft, and a complication typical of people who don't want democratic government but instead want to make anything else seem overly complicated. The point is that the AV system says 'If I can't have X, I'll have Y'. That's it. Not 'I'll have Y 50%'. No.

I don't understand why silverfox is talking rubbish about losers getting in. It's got fcuk all to do with that. Elections aren't about 'winners' and 'losers' unless you're a dickhead.

Actually, I do know why he talks rubbish. It's because in an AV system right wing extremists who think the answer to muggings is that everyone carry guns will NEVER get in. Instead, politicians will have to appeal to a wider base, will have to compromise and reflect their constituency needs instead of ideological claptrap.

silverfox is going to respond to this post with an even more stupid observation than his earlier ones, that's how stupid he is.

Vote 'Yes' for AV just to avoid siding with the slack-jawed hypocritical retards.

[Huguenot]

How strange. A large chunk of my post is missing - is tht some bizarre technical fudget or did it get edited?

[silverfox]

You'll have to do better than that Huguenot.

Here we have one of the biggest constitutional changes proposed since the 1832 and 1867 Reform Acts and Women's Emancipation and Huguenot sums up the case for the 'Yes' vote:

"...Vote 'Yes' for AV just to avoid siding with the slack-jawed hypocritical retards."

Hardly an intellectually rigorous exposition of the arguments for AV. I'd leave the case for the 'Yes' vote to people such as Loz if I were you. Your unwelcome interference is more likely to drive the undecided voters to the 'No' camp.

[Marmora Man]

Actually, I do know why he talks rubbish. It's because in an AV system right wing extremists who think the answer to muggings is that everyone carry guns will NEVER get in. Instead, politicians will have to appeal to a wider base, will have to compromise and reflect their constituency needs instead of ideological claptrap.

Hugenot, sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree. I can't recall any UK government under FPTP being mouth frothing right wing extremists - so your point is poorly made. Equally, a rationalist such as yourself has often argued that others must not put words in your mouth - please don't pt words in other's mouth.

My suggestion of weighting the alternative votes was to stimulate debate - mathematically it won't work. However, it is disengenuous to suggest that if I rank 8 candidates in order of preference that I rate them equally, this is patently not the case - otherwise I couldn't rank them.

My fear is that AV will pander to the lowest common denominator - offering the electorate unaffordable goodies to win their votes - and bankrupting the country in the process of delivering their foolish commitment. It is not coincidental that Lib Dems are leading the charge toward AV (I know they really wanted proportional representation) as they have a strong history of promising what they cannot deliver - cf Abolishing Tuition Fees. In that case reality and the stronger will of the Conservative part of the Coalition prevailed - but an AV coalition may not have the will.

[Loz]

Marmora Man Wrote:

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

> My suggestion of weighting the alternative votes

> was to stimulate debate - mathematically it won't

> work. However, it is disengenuous to suggest that

> if I rank 8 candidates in order of preference that

> I rate them equally, this is patently not the case

> - otherwise I couldn't rank them.

You have to understand what AV is trying to replicate. Take the Olympic host city vote as a real life example. The vote is done in rounds of individual ballots - after each round the candidate city with the least number of votes is eliminated and the vote re-taken. For 2012, the voting went:

[pre]

City Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4

Moscow 15

New York City 19 16

Madrid 20 32 31

Paris 21 25 33 50

London 22 27 39 54

[/pre]

Now it would be bizarre to say to the people who voted Moscow in the first ballot that their vote was only worth half in the second round because they didn't get their first choice city. Ditto the people who voted New York in the second.

So, even in second, third, fourth, etc, round/ballot, all votes are considered of equal value. And still all counted equally. As it should be.

AV is the same, but with one major assumption: that people whose candidates have not been omitted do not change their vote between rounds. Thus, redistributed preferences are not 'getting their vote counted more than once', or choosing a lesser wanted candidate - just choosing from an available (though smaller) set of candidates, just like they did in the first round. And just like the first round/ballot, they can abstain from voting if they don't like any of the candidates on offer, as they don't need to number all squares.

[nashoi]

Surely if the there is a greater prospect of a coalition parties will need to reign in their more unlikely pre-election promises or suffer the fate of the Lib Dems over tuition fees (which will be lessoned learned for them). Certainly post election extreme policies which may bankrupt the country will be less, not more likely in a more balanced government.

[Loz]

Marmora Man Wrote:

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

> My fear is that AV will pander to the lowest

> common denominator - offering the electorate

> unaffordable goodies to win their votes - and

> bankrupting the country in the process of

> delivering their foolish commitment.

Why would you think that is any different to what happens under FPTP? Bring Australian, I've seen AV in action and really, the election process - and the shameless bribes offered to the electorate for their votes - are no different at all between Oz and the UK.

I mean, did you not think the 'free school dinners for all kids' in the last Southwark council election wasn't a shameless bribe to the electorate? No AV in sight there. It'll happen under any voting system.

[silverfox]

Sorry to keep picking on your examples Loz, but your Olympics example above shows what a complete waste of time AV is.

In round 1, FPTP, London won and Paris came second. After four ballots under AV the result was exactly the same.

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

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

> Sorry to keep picking on your examples Loz, but

> your Olympics example above shows what a complete

> waste of time AV is.

>

> In round 1, FPTP, London won and Paris came

> second. After four ballots under AV the result was

> exactly the same.

In that example, yes. Doesn't mean it will happen every time. For the 2014 Winter Olympics, the voting was:

[pre]

City Round 1 Round 2

Salzburg 25 ?

Pyeongchang 36 47

Sochi 34 51

[/pre]

So, to summarise your past few posts, if AV shows that candidate leading after one round still wins, to you that proves it is a waste of time. But if a candidate who is not leading after the first round wins on preferences, to you that proves it is terribly unfair.

Not closed minded at all then, silverfox... :)

[silverfox]

Doesn't sum up my points at all.

Query. In the Electoral Commission brochure it does not make reference to third, fourth and other ranked votes being taken into consideration, only second votes (presumably it thinks this will be enough). However, if a 50% majority isn't reached do third, fourth and possibly more ranked votes come into play?

It is not made clear in the brochure so how are people meant to make a decision on such a vital change?

[silverfox]

Anyone?

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

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

> Doesn't sum up my points at all.

"...after three votes more people ended up with an ice-cream they didn't want in the first place." and then earlier this evening, "Your Olympics example above shows what a complete waste of time AV is. [...] After four ballots under AV the result was exactly the same."

I think what I wrote seems like a pretty accurate summary of your position to me! B)

> Query. In the Electoral Commission brochure it

> does not make reference to third, fourth and other

> ranked votes being taken into consideration, only

> second votes (presumably it thinks this will be

> enough). However, if a 50% majority isn't reached

> do third, fourth and possibly more ranked votes

> come into play?

Yes. Which I suspect you know already, so this is obviously leading up to a weird, parallel-world take on this by silverfox...

[silverfox]

Okay, maybe some of you are finding that question a bit difficult. Let's try it from another angle.

In the Electoral Commission brochure it tells me I can vote for as many of the candidates that I wish, ranking them in order - ie, I can rank more than two people. Presumably this is all about empowering me, making me feel my vote counts. But then the brochure only talks about re-distributing the second votes of the eliminated candidate, no mention of third or fouth votes (ie, equally valid votes that really count and take my opinion into consideration).

Are we being sold a pig in a poke?

[silverfox]

Loz quote:

"I think what I wrote seems like a pretty accurate summary of your position to me!"

No Loz, it's just that every time you try to explain AV by way of an example you seem to shoot yourself in the foot by giving examples that strengthen the case for FPTP, ie forcing kids to eat ice-creams they didn't want and having four votes to reach the same result that was arrived at in the first place.

Loz quote (in reply to question, if a 50% majority isn't reached do third, fourth and possibly more ranked votes come into play?):

"Yes. Which I suspect you know already, so this is obviously leading up to a weird, parallel-world take on this by silverfox..."

Well why doesn't the Electoral Commission brochure explain this clearly. IE, instead of 4 pages explaining AV why don't they make it 100 pages and make a decent job of it. Not everybody is as clever as EDF members but their vote is just as important, assuming they know what they're voting about. And let's face it, the more we look at AV, the more it looks like an exercise in obfuscation.

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

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

> Loz quote:

> No Loz, it's just that every time you try to

> explain AV by way of an example you seem to shoot

> yourself in the foot by giving examples that

> strengthen the case for FPTP, ie forcing kids to

> eat ice-creams they didn't want and having four

> votes to reach the same result that was arrived at

> in the first place.

That's not it at all. You have been intransigent, obdurate and purposely daft throughout the thread. For each example I've given you made silly and frivolous observations - your completely ridiculous remark about the 2012 Olympic result being a case in point. Your 100m Olympic example was, quite frankly, one of the dumbest things I have ever read in relation to the referendum.

You're not here to debate or learn something about FPTP and AV. You just want to nitpick on non-issues because you have no argument of your own. You have nothing intelligent to add. You have been useful in allowing me to explain to other readers lots of good points about AV, but your time is over.

I will no long respond to your childish posts.

[silverfox]

Oh dear, first Huguenot and now Loz.

The pressure of fighting a losing battle must be getting to them.

Chin up Loz.

PS, I see the Prime Minister used the Olympic example, as above.

[katie1997]

silverfox Wrote:

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

> Anyone?

Well, where's Quids????? I'd like to hear his views after he started this interesting thread :)

[katie1997]

Btw, this thread has been very interesting (minus the insults). It has made me realise how long ago it was since I last learned anything about voting systems, we did the pros and cons of FPTP and PR many years ago at school.

Tonight, I listened to a programme on AV on R4 (for and against) - it was all about funding, transparency and apathy. Seems like the Electoral Reform Society changed their minds on AV, shock horror. Apparently a few years ago they said it was a 'minor step' towards PR (which was their previous aim).

Sadly, apathy will probably rule the day.

(The Apathy* Party looks forward to receiving your vote on 5 May. To register your vote - DO Nothing.)

* incorporating the UK Can't Be Ar5ed Party and the Why Bother Alliance

[katie1997]

FPTP and coconut.

[Loz]

katie1997 Wrote:

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

> Btw, this thread has been very interesting (minus

> the insults).

Sorry. I'm normally a very patient person (hey, I lasted 4 pages!) but even I have limits. But, as they say: never argue with an idiot - they drag you down to their level and then try to beat you with experience.

> Apparently a few years ago they said it

> was a 'minor step' towards PR (which was their

> previous aim).

That's probably correct... providing PR is your final aim. The ERS does like PR, but they're happy to support AV simply because it is an improvement on FPTP. I have some doubts about PR and whether it would work in the UK's House of Commons, especially given the fear a lot of people are currently expressing over coalitions.

I kind of like Australia's model - AV for the lower house and PR for the upper house. It gives AV's balance of fairness and stability in the lower house and PR's wider range of opinions in the upper house.

[silverfox]

Loz, another query (if you've fallen out with me please deputise an AV supporter to answer on behalf of the 'Yes' group):

Once a candidate has been eliminated can they be re-installed because the reallocation of votes make them the winner?

For example, assume four candidates with one of them the Monster Raving Looney Party which all voters put as their fourth choice.

Round 1 - no candidate gets 50% and MRLP candidate drops out. His second choice votes reallocated. Still inconclusive.

Round 2 - the second candidate is eliminated and second choice votes reallocated. Still inconclusive.

Round 3 - presumably a third candidate can't drop out and have his votes re-allocated as there would only be one candidate left. So back to the MRLP member and re-allocate his third votes etc

Could you get to the situation where, because everybody voted the MRLP member fourth choice he or she actually wins with 100% of the votes cast by virtue of the fouth choice votes being re-allocated?

Please advise a nitpicker with no arguments of his own.

[Loz]

Sorry - you've tried my patience too long. I am responding no more to you.

[silverfox]

Fair enough, you have been patient.

Wonder what the answer to the above question is though?