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

InMyDreams

bristol_pilot wrote: »

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.

I am starting to agree (having been mulling over too many different scenarios tonight). But to make it even fairer would require even more complicated voting mechanics, which can't be good either.

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.

I guess it could be argued that the voters with most cause for complaint would be those who put the eventual 2nd place candidate as their number 1. Especially if the final winner was their least favourite. Not only did they not get their 1st choice, but their subsequent choices didn't get counted either as the other candidates they voted for were already eliminated.

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

You've lost me there.

bristol_pilot wrote: »

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.

Hmmm... so hopefully that would mean less tactical voting? I thought that was supposed to be an advantage of AV.

bristol_pilot wrote: »

AV is no more and no less democratic than first past the post.

I never thought AV was the *perfect* solution, and I'm starting to see why it's not even as good as it first appeared (to me), but overall it still seems more democratic than FPTP to me. Agreed, you only get your subsequent votes counted if those candidates are still in the running before your help, but with FPTP you wouldn't have had that voice at all.

And I don't agree that AV necessarily gives the MAJORITY of people their LEAST WORST candidate. If not enough people voted for that least worst candidate to keep them in the running, they won't get to see all those subsequent votes from voters whose favourite candidates are still in the race. But in my head, this is still better than purely FPTP.

Derivative

The problem with the argument that PR could result in the BNP having seats is that if our democracy was fair, the BNP would have seats.

If 5% of the populace vote for a party, that 5% should have their views represented. Denying that fact is denying democracy - it is a belief in the tyranny of the majority.

ndall

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.

On the other hand, it makes it even harder for extremists to get elected as parties need broad support to succeed under AV, they can't sneak in on less than a third of the vote like they can in FPTP. And everyone;s vote is counted once at each stage of the counting. No-one gets more votes than anyone else.

The real question is the effect the systemsl have on politics. AV discourages extremism by encouraging parties to appeal to a broad spectrum of the population, not just their core vote.

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.

FPTP has this problem too, but on a national level rather than a local level. Imagine at the last election if the Lib Dems had won more votes from Labour in Labour/Conservative marginals, they would have cut support for Labour in those places and handed a bunch of seats to the Conservatives. If this had happened in enough places the Conservatives would win enough extra seats to form a government on their own and the Lib Dems would have done themselves out of power by winning extra votes from the wrong people in the wrong places. Under AV the problem on a national level is solved because those voters the Lib Dems had converted from Labour would probably still have Labour as second choice. Sounds a little far-fetched but the scenario under AV is equally rare. In practical purposes under either system it's impossible to predict the effect well enough to exploit the quirk to your own advantage.

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.

That seems to be a rather unambitious definition of democracy. It can be more than just throwing out Governments you're fed up of once every 15 years. It can be about having a system that forces those in power to try to benefit more people more often.

dan2097

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 candidates in order to know how to vote tactically to make their vote count in the way they wanted.

Can you give a concrete example where this could happen. By my understanding whether someone is knocked out at each round is decided by first choice votes plus the lower preferences of voters whose candidate was knocked out. Your second or lower preference would have no effect until your first choice candidate had already been knocked out!

I am struggling to think of scenarios which won't just mean due to "tactical voting" you are more likely to get your second choice than your first.

JimmyTheWig

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.

I had to google non-monotonic to understand this, but I now see your point.
But I think you've answered it yourself. It's under certain complex scenarios that tactical voting becomes worth considering in AV.
However, in most FPTP tactical voting is worth considering.

JimmyTheWig

dan2097 wrote: »

Can you give a concrete example where this could happen. By my understanding whether someone is knocked out at each round is decided by first choice votes plus the lower preferences of voters whose candidate was knocked out. Your second or lower preference would have no effect until your first choice candidate had already been knocked out!

Call the candidates A, B and C in the order of people's first preferences.
C gets eliminated and their second preferences go mainly to B and B wins the AV election.
You want A to win. It might be worth putting C first and eliminating B in the first round, so that A can go on to win.

Imagine, for example, that A = Labour, B = Lib Dem, C = Tory. Consider where the second preferences might go and so consider who you would want to eliminate in the first round to get Labour elected.

melancholly

i think it's a weak response to say that AV will give power to the BNP. firstly, they oppose AV so i'd be surprised if it helps them. it also misses the point of the 'problem' with the BNP - the issue is that they have some levels of popularity. i think that's a shame as their history/policies are foul, but that's what democracy is. giving people the right to choose who they want. i'd sooner we had a society where people didn't make that choice, but we do. the voting system isn't the root of that problem.

i also think it's ridiculous to say that it means more governments will ignore election pledges. after the recent years of labour how can anyone think that a FPTP system makes politicians keep their promises is beyond me.

whether or not AV is better is a little less clear but i find the anti-AV arguements so personal (Clegg-bashing is a bit like Bush-bashing - far too easy at the moment!)/inaccurate/inflammatory that it doesn't want to make me associate my vote with them at all.

dan2097

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Call the candidates A, B and C in the order of people's first preferences.
C gets eliminated and their second preferences go mainly to B and B wins the AV election.
You want A to win. It might be worth putting C first and eliminating B in the first round, so that A can go on to win.

Imagine, for example, that A = Labour, B = Lib Dem, C = Tory. Consider where the second preferences might go and so consider who you would want to eliminate in the first round to get Labour elected.

That's similar to what I imagined. Although if A and B are quite opposed and C is in the middle. Eliminating B would give a lot of second preferences to C. With tactical voters giving their first preferences to C there is a very real possibility of C winning which IMO is a reasonable compromise.

I'm not sure whether or not this is actually a problem. It gives you the choice of trying to have a vote off between your preferred party and a party you don't want or trying to get a compromise party in. The fact that it is not possible to know which choice to make, as you don't know whether your preferred party will win outright against B is a slight flaw and seems to arise from your second preferences not effecting whether B or C continued to the final round. Without a significantly more complicated system I don't think this can be resolved though (Obviously your first preference and second preference cannot be taken into account simultaneously as that would involve 2 votes).

IanCr

Really good unbiased blog by Martin.
Still deciding myself. This is not an easy decision.
Understand that both major Political parties appointed their current leader on the AV system.
Otherwise David Davies and David ( not Ed ) Milliband would now be PM And Leader on FPTP!!
Interesting -- that is not being widely discussed ( well, I've only seen it mentioned once)

kermitfrog

IanCr wrote: »

Really good unbiased blog by Martin.

Unbiased????

He admits to being in favour of AV!