First Past the Post or AV

[silverfox]

Au contraire mon ami.

It's coming back to marmora man's point that the preferences cannot logically carry the same weight. preference 1 (or let's call a spade a spade - your real vote) is the outcome you really want, wish for, desire, covet etc, otherwise you wouldn't have voted that way. A second, third, fourth vote is a sliding scale of desperation, grasping at straws. Alternatively, the person putting these multiple preferences is an idiot who doesn't know what they want.

Under FPTP if I vote for x and x doesn't win I accept the result. More people preferred a different candidate than the one I chose. Fair enough. If the result of the Referendum is that AV is voted in (wins) I will accept the result but probably will only cast one vote in future AV elections without all the secondary preferences.

However, if these is a result under an AV election what do we make of that result in cases where the first preference votes didn't produce a clear winner with at least 50% of the votes?

As far as I can see we cannot meaningfully say it was the will of the majority - what the people wanted, wished for, desired etc. Rather the mathematical combinations of preferences under the rules of AV has produced an artificial result. In some respects it's a bit of a lottery than has had unintended consequences due to the mathematical combinations where second and third votes are counted together.

It is for this reason that I stated I would question being told by an AV supporter that the result is for the greater good. I'm not convinced the result is any such thing but a contrivance - arrived at by bureaucratic meddling.

It's the dead parrot being shaken by the hand of the person telling me it's for my own good if only I realised it. Or to put it another way - it's a horse that's been designed by a committee - A CAMEL!

[James Barber]

Spent yesterday canvassing with a group of like minded Yes campaigners in ED (between CPR, LL, EDG and Landcroft).

Overwhelmingly Yes supporters. It was really rare to have a No supporter.

Really nice to be campaigning for something different and what a gorgeous day to be doing it.

If anyone else wants to go knocking on doors or helping with a local stall for this YES campaign please let me know.

[Huguenot]

You make some extraordinary claims there Marmora Man. What's more, they've aready been made and refuted.

Being governed by a minority elected politican is by no means 'common decency', in fact it's a venal rip off.

AV is currently in use in several countries including Australia and has not resulted in fascists or marxists taking hold. There has been no 'conciliation of minorities' leading to weak policies. Australia's immigration policies are much stronger than the UK's.

In fact AV creates a stronger mandate for politicians allowing them to be more 'decisive'.

The issue with your list of 'problems' is that they were all generated under FPTP, not the Alternative Vote. Hence in listing them you've demonstrated the failings of FPTP not AV.

Incidentally, I am deeply troubled by what you 'want' in politicians. In fact your description of a militaristic leader immune to the needs of his electorate is profoundly undemocratic.

I'm consequently even more convinced that supporters of FPTP don't want democracy, they want power.

silverfox's comments are simply nonsense. But somewhat ugly in the sense that it is just so many more lies about 'complex mathematics'. Why are you lying silverfox?

[silverfox]

Why am I lying?

What I'm saying is once you get past a person's real vote (that is the first person they vote for) as far as I can see it becomes a numbers game, the result of which, I've yet to be convinced, bears any real relation to the will of the voters.

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

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

> Why am I lying?

>

> What I'm saying is once you get past a person's

> real vote (that is the first person they vote for)

> as far as I can see it becomes a numbers game, the

> result of which, I've yet to be convinced, bears

> any real relation to the will of the voters.

Hoorah! Marmora Man: you may not like my examples, but I've finally - *finally* - stopped silverfox trying to say that a second preference is the same as 'not wanting'. OK, he's yet to be convinced about AV - but then, he never will be.

*Goes and has a well-earned lie-down*

[Loz]

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.

You are right. AV will not be revolutionary. And that's not a bad thing, as the UK doesn't really do revolutionary. And yes, in the majority of cases, a move from FPTP to AV will not change the result. But two-thirds of MPs in 2010 were elected with less that 50% of the vote. Granted, those between 40% and 50% would probably pick up the necessary remaining preferences, but less than that, and certainly where the margin is less than 5%, then AV may make a difference. Unfortunately, I can't seem to dig out any figures how many seats this may apply to.

But all this slicing and dicing of preferences ignores the biggest impact that I think AV will make - that is, changing the way people place their FIRST preference. How many people currently vote Lab or Tory because 'no one else can win'? How many more people will vote Green, knowing that their second preference for Labour will hold? How many UKIP? How many SWP? How many Monster Raving Loony? And even how many - gulp - BNP? Given the paper-thin ideological differences between the three main parties, will new parties emerge with a wider political view?

Now, this may not change the overall landscape at Westminster (let's face it, we going to be dancing the Lab/Tory shuffle for a good few years yet), but now we can start to accurately see what sort of support the minor parties really have.

Now that may be a slight opening to Pandora's Box, but that's democracy for you.

[silverfox]

Good 'Say no to AV' ad on Telly earlier this evening. lots of confused faces all round. 9 out of 10 I'd say.

[Huguenot]

There is nothing cofusing about AV. If your first preference doesn't get enough support, your next preference receives your vote.

Simple, and many thanks for the chance to highlight its simplicity once more.

Loz is perfectly correct in saying that you can't apply the results of a FPTP election to a hypothetical AV election (as Marmora Man tries to do).

FPTP is dominated by tactical voting - some commentators claim that as much as 20% of voters don't vote for their first preference.

In that sense FPTP is much more opaque and complicated than AV. In FPTP people are having to choose candidates that they don't want on the basis of complex mathematical predictions and counts of other people's behaviour.

By contrast the simplicity of AV is astounding. It allows voters to be both honest and transparent.

[silverfox]

Here's something even more simple that doesn't require a leaflet through the door that takes four pages to (badly) explain it. Wait for it........

One man one vote

[Huguenot]

Ha ha, unlike in the silverfox household, universal suffrage was introduced in 1928. Every time you say something you give a little bit away about your core beliefs ;-)

As with universal suffrage, AV is about a fairer more representative system not tubthumping Victorians.

It is important to note that AV only offers 1 person 1 vote. So silverfox is bullshitting again.

Here's a smart summary I saw:

The difference is that AV gives you a vote that really counts and more of a say on who your local MP is. If your first choice gets knocked out your vote is transferred to your second preference. Whether you just vote 1 for your favourite candidate or list a preference for every candidate on the ballot only one vote will be counted.

If you go to the chip shop, and order cod and chips but they are out of cod, and you choose pie and chips instead, you have still only had one meal.

[Huguenot]

To answer one of Loz's questions earlier...

Approximately 2/3 of our current MPs were elected with a minority (i.e. less than 50% supporting them).

If that's not a massive fraud perpetrated on the British public, I don't know what is.

[Marmora Man]

Hugenot,

You must learn to read other's posts before you switch to rant. I did not claim that AV would lead to fascism / Marxism or other "isms" - I suggested that Britain was a country where such extremist views are difficult to take root.

Your condescending tone, coupled with implied and explicit abuse toward all anti AV posters does not advance your argument well. To suggest, as you appear to across the sum of your posts on this subject, that opposition to AV is anti democratic is quite ridiculous. Pro AV and anti AV are both perfectly rational political positions to hold - argue the merits of your case, don't insult your opponents and you may persuade others to agree with you.

At present in addition to voting NO on 5th May because that is what I genuinely believe is best, but I will be pleased to vote NO, knowing that it wil anger you.

[Huguenot]

Ha ha, more fool you if you make decisions about the democratic future of your country based on sulking over a disagreement on a web forum. :)

I read your post well thank you, and I'm perfectly equipped to recognise both explicit and implicit suggestions that you are making.

You implied that such extreme views have diffficulty taking root because of FPTP, and that AV would somehow make this more likely. I have simply pointed out that those assertions have no basis in truth nor evidence that would support them.

In fact it's a regular myth perpetuated by anti-AV campaigners.

The challenge with diuscussing AV is that its benefits are clearly and honestly demonstrated. Conversely the case against AV is disingenuous and deliberately untrue.

Here's some of those myths exposed:

You'll notice that most of them have already been presented by either you or silverfox as 'truths'.

Myth 1) AV is too confusing

Few people would be confused by this. Voters put a ?1? by their first choice, a ?2? by their second choice, a ?3? by their third choice and so on. The logic?s familiar enough to anyone who?s ever asked a friend to pop down to the shops for a coke and said, ?If they?re out of that I?ll have a lemonade.?

Some people have a very low estimation of the British public.

Myth 2) AV helps the extremists extend their influence

The BNP have already called on their supporters to back a ?No? vote. Currently because MPs can get elected with support from less than 1 in 3 voters, there is always a risk that extremist parties can get in.

The BNP have learnt this lesson, and have used it to scrape wins in town halls across Britain. With AV, no-one can get elected unless most people back them. Therefore the risk of extremist parties getting in by the back door is eliminated.

Myth 3) AV is an untried experiment

AV is a tried and tested system. In Britain millions of people in businesses, charities, and trade unions already use it. Political parties use it to elect their leaders. MPs themselves use it to elect their Speaker and their officials.

When politicians are the voters ? when they are electing their own leaders ? AV is the system they choose. When you need a real winner who needs to speak for the majority AV is the go-to system.

Myth 4) AV means some people get two votes

No. With AV everyone gets one vote. The difference is that AV gives you a vote that really counts and more of a say on who your local MP is. If your first choice gets knocked out your vote is transferred to your second preference. Whether you just vote 1 for your favourite candidate or list a preference for every candidate on the ballot only one vote will be counted.

If you go to the chip shop, and order cod and chips but they are out of cod, and you choose pie and chips instead, you have still only had one meal.

Myth 5) AV means more hung parliaments

No. Hung parliaments are no more likely with AV. And as you might have noticed First Past the Post has not given Britain any special immunity to hung parliaments.

Britain has experienced hung parliaments in the 1920s, 1970s and in 2010, and had periods in the 1950s, 1960s and 1990s where a single party was unable to effectively govern alone. Canada, which uses First Past the Post, has permanent hung parliaments. Australia uses AV, and has returned its first hung parliament in 38 elections.

Hung parliaments occur if enough voters support a third party. AV gives voters a greater say over candidates in their constituency. How they vote is up to them.

Myth 6) AV means more tactical voting

No. AV simply eliminates the need for it. Why should we have to abandon the party we actually support, to prevent the party we least support getting in? The dilemma facing millions of voters is often characterised as the choice between ?voting with your head or your heart?. AV allows people to do both.

AV offers an honest vote. It gives everyone a chance to vote sincerely for the candidates they really want knowing their vote can go further.

Myth 7) AV weakens the constituency link

No. AV keeps the link and makes it stronger. Politicians like to talk about their constituency link. And a lot of them seem to enjoy it a lot more than the voters.

Many of our MPs currently have a pretty dodgy link to their constituents. Barely a third of MPs can speak for the majority of their voters. AV strengthens the link by giving people the MPs they actually voted for. AV forces complacent MPs to take heed of the interests of their constituents because their jobs depend on it.

Myth 8) AV forces you to give a second preference

No. You can vote for as few or as many candidates as you like. AV gives you the freedom to vote sincerely for any number of candidates you feel are up to the job.

You aren?t forced to vote for any candidate you don?t want. If you only want to support one candidate you can. Just mark an ?X? as you did before.

Myth 9) AV means you end up with the least worst candidate

No. First Past the Post just lets in winners that most of voters didn?t want. AV ensures a winning candidate has to work harder and go further to secure support from a majority. That?s what?s needed to be ?best?, and may explain why politicians are so keen on AV when electing their own?

When Hollywood recently dumped First Past the Post for AV, they didn?t change the wording on the statuette to Academy Award for Least Worst Picture. They wanted a ?Best Picture? winner that could deliver on that promise.

[Loz]

Here's something even more simple that doesn't require a leaflet through the door that takes four pages to (badly) explain it. Wait for it........

One man one vote

Well, one person one vote is a principle enthusiastically upheld in Australia where they use successfully use AV. Simple.

[silverfox]

Preferences are votes- full stop.

If you put a tick next to more than one candidate you have made more than one vote. If this were not the case the second vote (preference in your terminology) couldn't logically be transferred to the candidate you've voted for a second time.

AV is deluding itself if it thinks one vote can be fragmented into sub-units.

PS the concept man is generally accepted to include woman as well, eg, the evolution of man, ascent of man etc

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

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

> Preferences are votes- full stop.

No they are not. They are expressions of wishes of how you want your vote to be cast.

If you leave ?100 in your will to your cousin, but in the event they are dead then you express a second preference for it to go to the cat home, you have not given away ?200, have you? It's the same here.

Or, if you like, if 100 people vote in an AV election with 10 candidates and, after redistribution of preferences, Candidate C defeats Candidate F by 53 votes to 47, where have all your 'extra' votes gone? Some voters' preferences will have been distributed numerous times, but in the end there are still 100 votes cast and 100 votes tallied.

[silverfox]

No Loz, if you wipe the AV sleep from your eyes you might see the world as it really is.

What really happens in an AV election as I understand it from you and Huguenot, is that if one candidate does not achieve 50% there is a second round of voting, and perhaps a third and a fouth.

All first votes have been cast and nobody has achieved 50%. So now some people are being given a second vote which is added to the cumulative total. If there is still no clear winner others are then given the chance to have a second vote when their third preferences are added to the cumulative total.

So, unfairly in my opinion, some people get one vote, others, who have used their vote at preference 1 are now allowed to vote a second time.

AV is like paying a shopkeeper with a ?5 note on a piece of elastic which snaps back into the purchaser's pocket.

It's not so much alternative voting but multi-voting for some. You can dress up this in fancy language like preferences but you can't disguise the reality of what's really happening here.

[Huguenot]

Eh what?

It's actually you that's trying to dress up reality with your talk of multiple voting and stealing from shopkeepers.

A preference is not an additional vote.

Unpopular candidates are excluded from the process, and all the votes are redistributed according to preference. For those whose candidate remains in the process, the vote is reapplied back to their candidate, it's not discarded.

AV gives you representative democracy. FPTP gives you minority government and a disenfranchised electorate.

[Loz]

All first votes have been cast and nobody has achieved 50%. So now some people are being given a second vote which is added to the cumulative total. If there is still no clear winner others are then given the chance to have a second vote when their third preferences are added to the cumulative total.

No, that's not correct - there is no 'cumulative total' that keeps increasing. The total number of votes at the end of each round of preference redistribution stays exactly the same. For example, in a four candidate election with 100 voters:

[pre]

Candidate Round 1 Round 2 Round 3

Mr A 40 45 55

Ms B 30 35 45

Dr C 20 20 --

Sir D 10 --

TOTAL VOTES 100 100 100

[/pre]

The total number of votes in each round remains at 100. It doesn't change.

One person, one vote.

[silverfox]

But gentlemen, you have to look at what has really happened here.

Poor old Sir D has only received 10 votes. That means, as unpopular as he is, 10 people have voted for him. Now it is possible that some of these 10 people didn't put down any preferences so their vote has gone (as it would under FPTP). However on your example the 10 have given preferences.

So, 10 people vote for Sir D and he's eliminated. How does Mr A and Ms B get an extra 5 votes each in Round 2? They have received the second votes made by those who voted for Sir D - not the first votes because they were for Sir D, but the second votes. These 10 people have been allowed for vote for more than one person. They have had two bites at the cherry. This is not one man/person one vote.

By couching it in the terminology of preferences you are trying to disguise the reality of what's gone on here. These 10 have voted for both Sir D and another candidate (and maybe a third etc). both their votes have been counted, in Round 1 and Round 2.

If this is only one vote it is a very schizophrenic vote.

[ianr]

> both their votes have been counted, in Round 1 and Round 2.

I suppose one way of answering this would be to say that, in this example, everyone has had a vote counted in both rounds one and two; and that in all cases everyone is given the opportunity of having a vote counted in every round.

[silverfox]

Another way to explain this is to take the result and work backwards.

So, in Round one there are 100 votes but by Round 3 both Mr A and Ms B have received an extra 15 votes each.

So really 130 votes have been used to determine the outcome not 100.

It is misleading to say only 100 votes have been used because some people have had two votes used. It is not good enough to say we'll ignore the first vote because it has been counted at Round 1.

[Huguenot]

No silverfox. I believe you're deliberately trying to make it seem confusing, but it's not.

To be honest, I genuinely think this 'question' is completely dishonest. You're not this stupid.

You mentioned earlier that you were prepared to keep calling a recount in an election to prevent the election being completed.

Here I believe that you are continuing to 'spoil' this thread. You have nothing constructive to add.

There are no extra votes. This is an election by preference.

Initially people were asked their preference amongst all four candidates.

People who voted were D or C had their candidate eliminated. Their preference was identified amongst the remaining candidates.

THESE ARE NOT SECOND VOTES. THEIR SINGLE VOTE IS A REQUEST TO LIST THEIR CANDIDATES IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE.

If they said they had no preference beyond the first candidate then they lost their influence.

If they had a preference the it was applied appropriately because this is representative democracy.

Their vote counts. This is representation.

[Loz]

How does Mr A and Ms B get an extra 5 votes each in Round 2?

The same way they got the other 40 votes in round 2 - they counted all the ballots a second time. The people that 'voted' for Mr A and Ms B also 'voted' for them again in round two. So, if you are determined to see it as two votes, then everybody gets two votes, or three votes, or whatever. But, when each persons ballot is counted in each round, there are exactly 100 votes. You can see that in the table. You are trying to conjure 'extra' votes when there are none.

Each voter gets the same number of votes: one. They fill in one ballot paper. The returning staff count the same ballot paper each time. In later rounds there are, however, less candidates to vote for so, in each round, your highest ranked remaining candidate is counted.

So in round two, when there are only three candidates left, why would you deny 10 people having their vote counted in the second round and only count 90 of the 100 votes? So much for your belief in one person one vote.

You are too set in your ways to understand that having one 'vote' does not just mean you can only mark one person on your ballot paper. A vote is a wider concept. In the London Mayoral elections you could note down two people (in preferred order) on the ballot - a simple form of AV. You don't hear anyone complaining some people got two votes there or that the concept was too complex to understand. At last years council elections, you could mark up to three candidates on your vote. Any cries of anguish about one person, one vote there? Nope.

See? You are already using different voting systems and you've survived so far. And the world, or at least UK democracy, hasn't ended.

[silverfox]

Am I the only one who finds the above incomprehensible mumbo jumbo?

Quote:

"...A vote is a wider concept..."

??????

I might as well be speaking with a Martian.