'Is AV really so complex? Or is it just confusion marketing?' blog discussion

Reaper

Having just read the "No" leaflet today I have to agree the arguments in it are flakey to the point of deception. I have yet to decide which way to vote and am now having to try hard to stick to the facts and not to let my annoyance with the leaflet influence my decision.

burgewhit

I know we're going through some tough times financially but should cost really come into it when talking about fairness. You wouldn't not take a criminal to court because it's too costly (in most cases!) Even if it does cost more to vote in a particular way if it's a fairer way, then so be it.

If a new system is confusing at first is that really justification for not using it. Most of us find new ideas and systems confusing, using them a few times helps us become clearer as it becomes the norm. Your old mother might not be around to see another election but you may be around to see many more and your children even more, but lets think about your poor old mother!

Coalition governments, (why are so many judging this on already) they're new, of course there will be teething problems. Personally I find parties towing the party line more annoying. A majority party may get more done but then look what Labour did to this country because it was so strong. MPs don't represent you they represent their party. If they went back to parliament and said this is what my constituents on the whole want so I'm voting on behalf of them, I wouldn't care what party they belonged to or how they were voted in. Do people really believe things would have been better under a different government, if the Cons got in by themselves, the uni fees (initially introduced under Labour) would still have gone up (and no I don't agree with them). Things are tough at the mo, they would have been tough under any government, don't be so scared of coalitions maybe we wouldn't be in this mess now if we'd had one before (and yes, I know it's a big maybe).

mrkbrrws

GooeyBlob wrote: »

Then again, they have already expressed a first preference, and that candidate has lost. That their second, third or fourth preferences can be counted while the second preferences of those backing the leading candidate are not taken into account is less fair than the system we already have.

If you back the leading candidate, why do you want to vote for someone else as well?

Even if for some reason you wanted to vote both for your favourite candidate who is winning and also for another candidate, that would give you two votes in the round which is unfair. One person, one vote (per round).

bristol_pilot

AV actually is very complicated. Not the mechanics of voting: puting 1,2,3 etc on a ballot paper instead of a cross. That is simple enough. But understanding all the ins and outs and all the complicated issues of what is right and fair is very complicatd indeed.

One complex question is this. Is it right that the winner of an election might be decided by the 2nd and 3rd preferences of people whose 1st preferences had been for extremist minority parties like the BNP? They get to vote several times, those who voted for the main parties only get to vote once.

Here is another complex question. Under certain complex scenarios, a vote in favour of a candidate can actually count against them - the system is non-monotonic. A voter potentially needs a very good understanding of the likely distribution of 1st, 2nd and 3rd preferences between all candidiates in order to know how to vote tactically to make their vote count in the way they wanted.

AV is no more and no less democratic than first past the post. Democracy refers to the ability of the electorate to sack the government, it has little to do with the counting system employed - only that there are free elections held and that the government cannot perpetuate itself. Both systems do this job.

It is clear that Martin is in favour of AV, but to claim that is not a complex matter ignores many issues.

bristol_pilot

znww5 wrote: »

I wonder what the policy implications would be if MPs were paid the national average wage of about £25,000 instead of the £65,000 or so which they awarded themselves?

What a brilliant suggestion. A parliament composed entirely of (a)landed gentry who don't need to earn a living and (b) those whose lack of ability and application in their day jobs led to them failing to earn the national average wage.

MPs should be paid MORE, so that the most able and capable people can afford to put themselves forward for election. Although I do think that we need far FEWER MPs. How about doubling the salary and halving the numbers.

rhyski

bristol_pilot wrote: »

One complex question is this. Is it right that the winner of an election might be decided by the 2nd and 3rd preferences of people whose 1st preferences had been for extremist minority parties like the BNP? They get to vote several times, those who voted for the main parties only get to vote once.

The circumstances in which BNP second preferences could decide an election are extremely rare - and crucially, equivalent circumstances could occur under First Past The Post.



This is explained fully here:
http://refusingthedefault.blogspot.com/2011/04/winning-fptp-elections-with-bnp-second.html

bristol_pilot wrote: »

Here is another complex question. Under certain complex scenarios, a vote in favour of a candidate can actually count against them - the system is non-monotonic. A voter potentially needs a very good understanding of the likely distribution of 1st, 2nd and 3rd preferences between all candidiates in order to know how to vote tactically to make their vote count in the way they wanted.

But tactical voting is a major problem with FPTP, much more so than with AV. AV removes the reasons for tactical voting that exist under FPTP.

bristol_pilot

Under FPTP it is impossible for a vote cast in favour of a candidate to cost that candidate the election. AV is one of very few voting systems where this is a possibility.

AV is a step in the direction of full PR - which is likely to see the BNP etc with seats in parliament.

bristol_pilot

rhyspaulburton wrote: »

equivalent circumstances could occur under First Past The Post.



This is explained fully here:
http://refusingthedefault.blogspot.com/2011/04/winning-fptp-elections-with-bnp-second.html

That link refers to 'equivalent circumstances' being those in which the BNP does not stand in the FPTP election, which is not equivalent circumstances at all.

Some recent elections have been won/lost on ~100 votes; BNP supporters deciding the outcome of an election is an unusual but not a remote possibility under AV.

Tactical voting will exist under either system; but under AV the voter may need to vote tactically to avoid accidentally voting against their preferred candidate. Non-monotonicity is such an ugly word.

rhyski

if anyone is interested in reading in-depth analysis of AV here are a couple of links:

Political Studies Association (27 page assessment, PDF download - which has a useful summary on page 2)
http://www.psa.ac.uk/PSAPubs/TheAlternativeVoteBriefingPaper.pdf

Institute for Public Policy Research: Assessing the case for the Alternative Vote (32 page PDF download)
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=w
eb&cd=1&ved=0CBkQFjAA&url=http%3A
%2F%2Fwww.ippr.org%2Fmembers%2Fdownload.asp%3
Ff%3D%2Fecomm%2Ffiles%2FRightAlternative-Asse
ssingAV_Apr2011.pdf%26a%3Dskip&rct=j&
q=av%20the%20right%20alternative%20.pdf&e
i=anevTdn_F8ao8AOKnrGQDw&usg=AFQjCNFYlAvl
kKDo-tUgSi5WAdWh8eXJqg&cad=rja

rhyski

bristol_pilot wrote: »

Tactical voting will exist under either system; but under AV the voter may need to vote tactically to avoid accidentally voting against their preferred candidate. Non-monotonicity is such an ugly word.

Non-monotonicity is the one disadvantage of AV over FPTP, however it's a rare AV election that's close enough to have this behaviour at all, and an exceptionally rare AV election where another candidate can actually take advantage of it.

If you want to avoid the need for tactical voting, AV is by far the better of the two.