First Past the Post or AV

[Huguenot]

You're not interested in the answer to the above question silverfox. You're asking it in a delberate attempt to sow confusion and doubt where none is necessary.

I'll answer it for others.

In FPTP elections in the event of a tie, the returning officer must resolve the issue by a random selection. This usually amounts to tossing a coin or drawing lots.

In AV the returning officer will initially check the number of 'first place' preferences. If it's still a draw then a random method will be used.

Hence AV is more representative than FPTP in the event of a tie.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I'm terribly confused. In plain English, is there any hope of getting Harriet Harman out with the AV system?

[Huguenot]

For Heaven's sake PGC what exactly is confusing about this?

You vote for your first preference. If your first preference gets the least votes they'll be knocked out and your vote will be given to your second preference.

It's not fcuking confusing.

Trying to guess the outcome of an election is confusing regradless of whatever voting system you have, don't try and make this an issue of AV.

Regarding Harriet Harman, she was elected with 59% of voters putting her in first preference. AV would have no impact on her election, because the majority actually want her there.

AV is useful when a Tory bigot get's elected with 35% of the vote, because the sensible majority have mistakenly split their vote between Labout and Lib Dem. AV would probably prevent the bigot getting in.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Steady on old chap, a bigot is someone who is intolerant of others' views. Are you suggesting we shouldn't have a democracy because not everyone votes the same way as you?

[Huguenot]

What on earth are you talking about? Where did I suggest I didn't want democracy?

AV is the only democratic option on the table.

I take it you're intending to vote NO, hence you're feigning confusion where none exists, and trying to suggest that AV is undemocratic?

This is it? The sum total of the NO crowd? Just load of innuendo and rubbish? You and silverfox, PGC? I never would have thought it.

How very very sad.

[Huguenot]

It really stands out for me, that most of those arguing against AV on this thread have been manipulative and disingenuous.

Where those in favour of AV have been honest and open and worked hard to explain what are pretty simple ideas, those against have failed to come up with a sensible response between them.

It culminates with PGC suggesting it's undemocratic. How fcuking sane is that?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

No, I'm suggesting you are the bigot because you don't tolerate others' views. If you genuinely think someone is wrong, you won't get them to change their minds by being insulting.

I'm not sure yet which way I intend to vote. I am cowed by anything that smacks of a complicated mathematical formula which is what AV seems to me. I understand FPTP and am comfortable with it - possibly the lazy option, which is why I asked for simplicity.

[Huguenot]

There you go again.

There isn't any complicated mathematical formula. That's purely and simply a lie. An outright lie. I don't tolerate liars PGC.

You are entirely entitled to your view PGC, you are not entitled to lie with impunity.

I cannot believe the arrongance, conceit and self-regard that would allow people to come on here and tell lies to try and get their own way.

If you think that chastising liars is 'bigotry' then your moral compass is so buggered up it's tragic.

[silverfox]

I don't blame you being confused Peckhamgatecrasher and it's funny how the pro-AV group have started resorting to insults. Speaks volumes to my mind (claiming to extol the virtues of a 'simpler' more democratic system and then shouting and bullying, calling others stupid, daft, silly and refusing to answer questions etc).

Fair enough, call me stupid, daft, silly if you wish but can someone please explain to me what is meant by the bit in bold below which is the BBC's attempt to explain this 'simple' concept:

"...People can nominate as many preferences as they like. Only first preference votes are counted initially. Anyone getting more than 50% of these is elected automatically. If that doesn't happen, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their second choices allocated to the remaining candidates in a second round of counting. If one candidate then has more than 50% of the votes in this round they are elected. If not, the remaining candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their second preferences (or third preferences if they were the second choice of someone who voted for the first candidate to be eliminated) reallocated. This continues until one candidate has 50% or more of the vote in that round of counting..." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11243595)

So, some people's second preferences are being counted at the same time as others' third preferences??????????????????????????

I feel a headache coming on

(Edited - word vote changes to preferences to suit AV terminology)

[nashoi]

Silverfox try reading this post on Andrew Hickey's blog, particularly the example he gives.

[silverfox]

Thank you nashoi. I think you've done democracy a favour here.

I think this is one of the best explanations of how AV works I've seen. It's very cleverly put together and superficially very seductive. Note how there's no room for a FPTP objection in round 1 as, conveniently, the leaders are tied. Note also how all nine voters dutifully, lemming-like, put down four preferences. Nobody justs votes once for the candidate they would like to win. This is theory at its rose-tinted hypothetical best. Let's quote part of this in full:

"...

How It Works

Everyone is given a ballot on which is listed all the candidates who are standing, The voter then ranks them in order. If one candidate gets more than 50% of the first-preference votes, that candidate is the winner. Otherwise, the lowest-scoring candidate is knocked out, and the second-preference votes from them go to the other candidates. This carries on until one candidate has more than 50% of the votes. This means that whoever wins, more than half the voters think they?re not the worst alternative.

An example ? imagine we have four parties (Red, Blue, Yellow and Green) and nine voters who vote as follows:

Voter 1 Yellow Green Blue Red

Voter 2 Yellow Blue Red Green

Voter 3 Red Blue Yellow Green

Voter 4 Red Blue Green Yellow

Voter 5 Yellow Green Blue Red

Voter 6 Red Green Blue Yellow

Voter 7 Blue Green Yellow Red *

Voter 8 Blue Red Green Yellow

Voter 9 Green Red Yellow Blue

Round 1 ? We have 3 Yellow, 3 Red, 2 Blue and 1 Green first preferences. Green is eliminated as it has the fewest first preference votes, and the votes redistributed:

Voter 1 Yellow Blue Red

Voter 2 Yellow Blue Red

Voter 3 Red Blue Yellow

Voter 4 Red Blue Yellow

Voter 5 Yellow Blue Red

Voter 6 Red Blue Yellow

Voter 7 Blue Yellow Red

Voter 8 Blue Red Yellow

Voter 9 Red Yellow Blue

Round 2 ? We have 4 Red, 3 Yellow and 2 Blue , so Blue are eliminated

Voter 1 Yellow Red

Voter 2 Yellow Red

Voter 3 Red Yellow

Voter 4 Red Yellow

Voter 5 Yellow Red

Voter 6 Red Yellow

Voter 7 Yellow Red

Voter 8 Red Yellow

Voter 9 Red Yellow

We now have 5 Red votes, which is more than 50%, so Red wins..."

http://andrewhickey.info/2010/08/22/the-alternative-vote-system/

Now let's look at this objectively and find out what's really gone on here.

In Andrew Hickey's example, above, the Red candidate won. But let's look at what really happened.

Preference 1 - Six out of nine voters didn't want the Red candidate to win - twice as many people didn't vote for Red.

Preference 2 - Only two out of nine voters thought the Red candidate worthy of the second preference

Preference 3 - Only one of nine voters put Red down as a choice

Preference 4 - Again, twice as many people did not vote for Red

So, at every stage of the voting procedure Red has never achieved more than a third of the votes. But under this AV example Red has won.

Sorry folks, this does not make sense to me. The reason Red has won is because of a bureaucratic voting procedure that clearly, on this example, has nothing to do with the will of the people.

Okay, in fairness to AV promoters, such an example of a candidate getting 30-odd% and winning is not uncommon under FPTP. I agree. My point is how is AV an improvement? How does it enhance democracy?

In short, the AV camp hasn't made the case to convince us why we should abandon FPTP. I have been accused of having no ideas of my own. I don't have to. 'He who asserts must prove'. I'm not the one trying to convince the electorate that AV is a fairer system that empowers you on plainly dubious grounds.

So really we've come full circle back to Loz's ice cream example. The majority of people have ended up with what they didn't want in the first place.

(* explains why third vote has to be used instead of second - ie can't use green second preference as eliminated)

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

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

> So really we've come full circle back to Loz's ice

> cream example. The majority of people have ended

> up with what they didn't want in the first place.

Please cease misleading people as to my ice cream example. If you don't understand it, fine, but stop using it to back a statement that is not correct.

AV does two things... and in this order.

1) First it discovers if there is a candidate that has a majority. If that candidate does indeed command the vote of the majority of the electorate, then they will be elected.

2) If that fails, (and this is where it has the democratic advantage over FPTP) it seeks to discover which candidate is the most preferred. Or if you like, ensuring that a candidate that is least preferred does not get elected. The point of the ice-cream example is to show that, although chocolate would win under a FPTP regime, it is actually the most disliked by the *majority* of the electorate.

Because, under FPTP, the more candidates there are, the more likely a minority 'clique' can steal an election over more preferred choices. Going back to the ice-cream example, silverfox's assertion that, "The majority of people have ended up with what they didn't want in the first place" is just a false statement and belies logic. What the majority *didn't* want was chocolate - and FPTP would have declared the least-wanted candidate the winner.

AV remedies this loophole. And that make it the more superior voting system.

Think of it with a more significant implication. Going back to the ice-cream example (and for late-comers, it is here). Consider that 40% of the electorate love chocolate, but it is completely and fatally poisonous for the other 60%. Under FPTP the 'elected' flavour would be chocolate... which will kill the majority. How can that ever be democracy? Under AV, the danger is recognised, chocolate does not win and everyone lives. AV rocks.

[silverfox]

Loz said:

"...Please cease misleading people as to my ice cream example. If you don't understand it, fine, but stop using it to back a statement that is not correct... The point of the ice-cream example is to show that, although chocolate would win under a FPTP regime, it is actually the most disliked by the *majority* of the electorate... silverfox's assertion that, "The majority of people have ended up with what they didn't want in the first place" is just a false statement and belies logic. What the majority *didn't* want was chocolate - and FPTP would have declared the least-wanted candidate the winner..."

Loz, it's not that I misunderstand your example, your figures speak for themselves. Let's look at it again. At stage 1 of your example we have the following result. This is the children's real wish, their first preference. The only reason they voted differently at stage 2 was because they couldn't have what they wanted at stage 1. So,

1) Everyone votes and the outcome is chocolate (4), vanilla (3), strawberry (2) and pistachio (1).

Now this seems quite straight forward to me. The most popular choice is chocolate. 40% of people have voted for it. That means 60% of people didn't vote for it. 30% of people voted for vanilla. That means 70% of people didn't vote for vanilla.

Ergo, AV reasoning has resulted in more people ending up with a Vanilla ice cream they didn't want in the first place (70%) than would have been the case if the children hadn't taken the extra votes (60%).

How is that a false statement and belies logic? What strange logic allows you to conclude that 'What the majority *didn't* want was chocolate' if more people didn't want the vanilla they actually ended up with?

Andrew Hickey's example above is similar to this. If you look at the real intentions of the voters you have to look at the first preference. This is what they would really like to happen. Further preferences lack conviction on a sliding scale until we reach the scraping of the barrel. A person who is going to choose four different candidates probably doesn't know what they really want.

What is clear from Hickey's example is twice as many people didn't want Red with their first preferences. Therefore the majority of people have ended up with what they didn't want in the first place.

What's difficult or misleading about that?

[Huguenot]

silverfox is just deliberately trying to confuse people. It's such a pathetic sad waste.

I simply don't understand why people would fight so hard to prevent representative democracy.

Since the arguments in favour of AV are so compelling, then silverfox must think it's somehow in his interest to prevent it. Since the outcome of FPTP is not representative democracy, then silverfox must see retaining it as a way of getting 'his team' in power despite a minority backing.

The thing is, 'his team' don't care about silverfox at all. They have no interest in his existence. They're not going to welcome him into their private club and toast his contribution. In fact 'his team' use AV to settle their own internal activities (so they know it's best).

Instead of congratulating him, they are more likely to sneer at his gullibility and laugh behind his back.

[silverfox]

Quote: "Since the arguments in favour of AV are so compelling..."

I've just cited two examples above that don't appear very compeling to me. I'm struggling to see how it is an improvement on FPTP.

Not least the logistics. Hickey's nine voters are really 9,000 voters or more. How can the transfers of votes be monitored unless it's computerised. All you need is a Silverfox type character to ask for a recount and the whole system is thrown into confusion and hundreds of hours of re-checking and double-checking. So will it really be as simple as numbering 1-4 or more or will we need some form of lottery ticket type grid next to each candidate's name that needs carefully filling in so that a computer can read it?

The advantage of FPTP is dotty Aunt Doris doesn't even have to write her name, just put an X. There's a strong argument for keeping things simple so everyone understands what they're doing.

In short, in my humble opinion, putting all the preferences down is a bit like stabbing the paper with a pin to choose who to back in the Grand National. You're at the mercy of the Gods.

(Edited for rogue apostrophe, in case anyone mistook it for a rogue preference)

[Huguenot]

Not very compelling? You were prepared to force 'chocolate' on people when the majority didn't want it. The majority did not want it.

That's what you just don't get. You're willing to force people to do what the majority simply don't want. That's why there's no democracy in FPTP.

You think in some bizarre twisted way that giving people their second preferencce is giving them something they don't want. Unless you get this stupid view out of your head you're never going to understand AV.

AV allows something called a 'compromise'. Something grown-up intelligent people do.

Your statement about idiots like silverfox calling perpetual recounts applies equally whatever voting system you use, so I don't know why you bothered to bring that up. Fortunately most returning officers are wise enough to see people like that for what they really are.

[silverfox]

Quote:

"Not very compelling? You were prepared to force 'chocolate' on people when the majority didn't want it. The majority did not want it..."

Sorry Huguenot, maybe something's being lost in translation here. I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. You seem to be so sure that AV is a good thing in principle that your judgment is being clouded.

Look at the children's first preferences again. What is so difficult to understand about the fact that appling AV to the ice cream example has resulted in a worse result than if you left well alone?

AV is doing the forcing by insisting everybody (ie 100%) has vanilla when only 30% wanted it in the first place. Look at the figures - they are staring you in the face. You can squirm and wiggle as much as you like but AV has produced a worse result here.

Are you honestly saying you can't see that, a clever chap like you?

[Loz]

I notice, silverfox, that you conveniently ignored this bit. I suspect because it is hard to misconstrue and shows the underlying strength of AV.

Think of it with a more significant implication. Going back to the ice-cream example. Consider that, in the example, 40% of the electorate love chocolate, but it is completely and fatally poisonous for the other 60%. Under FPTP the 'elected' flavour would be chocolate... which will kill the majority. How can that ever be democracy? Under AV, the danger is recognised, chocolate does not win and everyone lives.

AV rocks.

Because you have big problems understanding the concepts of 'want', 'don't want' and 'prefer', bringing in the concept of poison should help you. People may prefer pistachio over vanilla (but don't really mind either), but when you bring into the equation the fact chocolate is poisonous to part of the electorate then even you should be able to get the concept of 'don't want'...

[Loz]

The 'poisonous chocolate' example is a really good one, as it shows what happens under FPTP when a popular vote is fragmented. Imagine this...

In a land not far a away, a right-wing racist party starts gaining popular support. The country has three main races, the Alphas, the Bravos and the Omegas. The Alphas and the Bravos get along very well, but the Omegas hate the Alphas and the Bravos and want them all deported back to the far away land from which their ancestors came.

When the next election for president came around, the Alphas, the Bravos and the Omegas all put forward their candidate. The Alpha and Bravo candidates put forward a programme of peace and prosperity, the Omega candidate a programme of enforced deportations and ethnic cleansing.

At this point, let's split into parallel universes...

In the FPTP universe, the Alpha and Bravo candidates poll 32% and 33% respectively. However, the Omega candidate polled 35% and, now in a position of power, put into place his horrific programme and those Alphas and Bravos that were not deported were hunted down and killed.

Over in the AV universe, the Alpha, Bravo and Omega candidates again poll 32%, 33% and 35% respectively. However, under the AV system the Alpha candidate was eliminated and his preferences redistributed. Since the Alphas all knew that the Omega's wanted them dead, they all put the Bravo candidate as number 2 on their vote. The final results was the Bravo candidate wins the election by 65% to 35% and peace continues.

This is taking things to the extreme, but it shows how a large minority cannot impose it's will upon the majority. Again, like the 'poisonous chocolate' example, once you bring life and death into it, the qualities of AV shine through, mainly by underlining the difference between 'preferred' and 'don't want'.

[frierntastic]

Loz,

That really is an awful example! Whether you believe in FPTP or AV, the point of an election is to represent (as best as possible) the public's will. In your example above, the Omega's, with 35% of the vote, clearly represent the most significant slice of public will.

You cannot debate FPTP and AV by turning parties into goodies and baddies!

[Loz]

frierntastic Wrote:

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

> Loz,

>

> That really is an awful example! Whether you

> believe in FPTP or AV, the point of an election is

> to represent (as best as possible) the public's

> will. In your example above, the Omega's, with

> 35% of the vote, clearly represent the most

> significant slice of public will.

>

> You cannot debate FPTP and AV by turning parties

> into goodies and baddies!

It is an extreme example, yes, but it does show how the 35% 'significant slice' can sometimes fails to show the complete and utter disagreement of the majority 65%. Can you not see that? Is understanding the wider picture not showing the true 'public will'?

It was not meant to be an emotional argument, but one that shows that the Alpha's preferred their own candidate over the Bravo candidate, but they definitely did not want the Omega candidate, for very good reasons. Silverfox has been clouding the issue of 'preference' and 'don't want' - this example makes it clearer which is which.

It's similar to the poisonous chocolate example I put together above.

[Loz]

How is that a false statement and belies logic? What strange logic allows you to conclude that 'What the majority *didn't* want was chocolate' if more people didn't want the vanilla they actually ended up with?

I refer you to point I have made previously...

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 strawberry, vanilla and chocolate, in that order' is the same as 'I don't want vanilla'.

AV shows that chocolate was the least popular flavour when you take all the opinions of all the voters into account. FPTP mistakenly makes chocolate the 'most popular' by only taking in the opinions of a large minority. For more help, see the 'poisonous chocolate' example.

[silverfox]

Would I be accused of trying to mislead and confuse the issue if I introduced the idea of Monty Python's dead parrot sketch?

Eg, my first preference would be to buy a live parrot (that is, I have made this my first preference because this is what I want, what I wish for). I don't want any other outcome so there's no need for me to make any other preferences. But if I did my last preference would be what I least want to happen, least wish for/desire, ie, to get a dead parrot.

If someone then tells me I've ended up with a dead parrot for the greater utilitarian good, no matter how much they shake the parrot to feign life, I'm not going to be very happy.

[Huguenot]

That has nothing to do with AV silverfox. More nonsense.

Whether it's FPTP or AV you may not have demonstrated a preference for the final winner, so you may not get what you want.

However, unlike FPTP, AV allows voters to nominate other preferences if their first choice candidate has insufficient support.

Regardless of the cretinous parrot example, your insistence that you don't accept votes 'for the greater utilitarian good' (the entire essence of majority rule) reveals how profoundly undemocratic your position is.

[Marmora Man]

Loz Wrote:

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

It is an extreme example, yes, but it does show how the 35% 'significant slice' can sometimes fails to show the complete and utter disagreement of the majority 65%. Can you not see that? Is understanding the wider picture not showing the true 'public will'?

It was not meant to be an emotional argument, but one that shows that the Alpha's preferred their own candidate over the Bravo candidate, but they definitely did not want the Omega candidate, for very good reasons. Silverfox has been clouding the issue of 'preference' and 'don't want' - this example makes it clearer which is which.

Loz, your many remarkable examples are "proving" nothing. You state that the 2 x 32% voters for Alpha & Bravo definitely didn't want Omega which had scored 35%.

Surely in a real political vote under AV the best you could state would be that some, possibly a majority, of either Alpha or Bravo voters preferred Alpha / Bravo somewhat more than they preferred Omega. AV is about ranking candidates it is not, and cannot, be a statement of moral, political or any other kind wish. The reasons behind the ranking will vary considerably - from my mother's approach to politics of "ooh I like him / her - they have nice hair" to the dedicated political geek that has weighed every ounce of every manifesto to the "I'll vote the way my father / class / work colleagues have always voted" with many other varieties.

The reality, which neither the YES camp or the NO camp seem prepared to acknowledge is that whatever the outcome of the AV referendum it won't make very much difference. In vast swathes of the country Conservative and Labour politicians will continue to be elected with 50% of the vote at first count - just as they do today under FPTP.

Personally, I still adhere to FTPT for simplicity and because it reflects the common decency of this country - where true fascist / marxist / other extremist political views find it very difficult to take hold.

There has been a regrettable tendency to regress to the mean over the last 30 years. Very few politicians seem to have the necessary backbone to take decisive action and, more importantly, stick to their decisions. Too much conciliation of noisy minorities leads to unfocussed and weak policies - and I fear AV politics will only exacerbate this tendency.

I don't want nice politicians - I want clever, decisive, quick witted politicians who explain clearly and honestly their plans and intentions. AV is unlikely to make politicians more honest - the need to be attractive to all will require a degree of obfuscation.

Problems - a few examples where strong policies, clearly state could make a difference.

We don't impose proper discipline in school because we must give everyone a chance.

We open universities to all, devaluing degrees while at the same time raising their costs, for the same reason.

We maintain open borders and weak deportation policies because it's easier than operating strong disciplines.

We interfere with internal problems in foreign countries without forethought - and then discover the cost is paid with servicemen's lives in our underfunded and ill equipped armed forces.

A strong policy to cut wasteful bureaucracy in the NHS by abolishing PCTs & Health Authorities is put on hold because Nick Clegg wants to be nice.

The NHS is at least 10% larger, and more costly, than it needs to be because most NHS managers, and DoH policians / Ministers are scared to discipline the slack and poor workers that abound.

AV politicians will change none of my particular concerns - and, regrettably, I doubt that FPTP politicians of today's calibre will either.