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

MrChips

Why should the "no" brigade have all the fun?!

melancholly

ndall wrote: »

No voter gets more votes than anyone else. Each person gets to vote once in each round. If you're lucky enough that your first choice got through, you obviously vote for them again. You have voted for the same person in both rounds of voting.

but if you only picked a first choice and they were knocked out in the first round, you would only be counted once.

(granted that would be a bit of a daft thing to do given the system - and ultimately down to that person's choice - but i do see why people make this criticism)

MrChips

As I think has already been posted, the AV system is equivalent to getting everyone in a room and asking them to vote for their preferred candidtate. If there is no candidate with more than 50% of votes, the least popular candidate is eliminated and everyone (not just those who didn't vote for the leading candidate) votes again. Repeat this process until a candidate gets more than 50% or until there are only two candidates standing (where by definition there will be a clear winner other than in the case of a tie).

If your candidate is eliminated and you don't want to vote for anyone else (e.g. equivalent to picking only one choice) then you leave the room and you have no further interest in the vote. That's up to you and is your personal preference, but if you do this you can't complain that everyone else got to vote again and you didn't.

Ellabelle

ndall wrote: »

Alternatively you might decide you like or dislike the two remaining candidates equally and can't be bothered to vote. You don't have a second preference, so you don't "turn out" for the second round. You are not being deprived of a vote, you're just choosing not to.

Its not about not being "bothered to vote" in more than one round.

Lets say there are four candidates representing four parties available on the ballot paper.

person A - Likes candiate '1'. Person A however finds the policies of candiates '2', '3' and '4' equally abhorent. Person A therefore can only vote for party '1'. Their political opinion precludes them from voting any further. They therefore get one vote and the opportunity to vote in one round.

person B - Likes candidate '2' best, candidate '3' second best, candidate '4' third best. Person B therefore gets three votes in three seperate rounds of voting. Three seperate chances to have a single (different) vote counted.

In conclusion, depending on a person's political views they could get the opportunity to vote in a varying number of 'rounds' in a general election. A person may have the legal right to register more than one preference but in practice their political views may wholy preclude them from doing so. This undermines the democratic concept of one person, one opportunity to vote.

MrChips

Ellabelle wrote: »

Its not about not being "bothered to vote" in more than one round.

Lets say there are four candidates representing four parties available on the ballot paper.

person A - Likes candiate '1'. Person A however finds the policies of candiates '2', '3' and '4' equally abhorent. Person A therefore can only vote for party '1'. Their political opinion precludes them from voting any further. They therefore get one vote and the opportunity to vote in one round.

person B - Likes candidate '2' best, candidate '3' second best, candidate '4' third best. Person B therefore gets three votes in three seperate rounds of voting. Three seperate chances to have a single (different) vote counted.

In conclusion, depending on a person's political views they could get the opportunity to vote in a varying number of 'rounds' in a general election. A person may have the legal right to register more than one preference but in practice their political views may wholy preclude them from doing so. This undermines the democratic concept of one person, one vote.

Mathematically, by opting out of the second round of voting person A is still getting a vote, but it is split 1/3 between candidates 2,3 and 4 as she can't choose between them. But let's not get technical...

If candidate 1 wouldn't have won under FPTP anyway, then person A is no more unhappy at the outcome (and potentially more happy if candidate 1 is the second choice of lots of other voters which leads to a victory for candidate 1 in the second round).

If candidate 1 would have won under FPTP then potentially person A could be disappointed by a change to AV. If (as you imply) the politics of candidate A are so polarising as to mean voters either want them to win at the exclusion of all others, or want to vote for any party other then theirs (let's say BNP for example), then if more than 50% are dead against candidate A I see it as a positive quality that it means that the majority view is upheld.

Ellabelle

MrChips wrote: »

Mathematically, by opting out of the second round of voting person A is still getting a vote, but it is split 1/3 between candidates 2,3 and 4 as she can't choose between them. But let's not get technical...

If candidate 1 wouldn't have won under FPTP anyway, then person A is no more unhappy at the outcome (and potentially more happy if candidate 1 is the second choice of lots of other voters which leads to a victory for candidate 1 in the second round).

If candidate 1 would have won under FPTP then potentially person A could be disappointed by a change to AV. If (as you imply) the politics of candidate A are so polarising as to mean voters either want them to win at the exclusion of all others, or want to vote for any party other then theirs (let's say BNP for example), then if more than 50% are dead against candidate A I see it as a positive quality that it means that the majority view is upheld.

For me this is about the principal of democracy (everyone getting an equal vote) rather than the actual outcome as perceived by each voter. I think the principal of a matter is almost always worth fighting for.

Ellabelle

Additionally to add a real life senario, I would only get 2 votes as I can only think of two parties that I would have any interest in being in government.

Yes I would prefer the Tories to the BNP - but I still don't want any part in the Tories being in government. If I add more than 2 preferences I am voting for the party I dislike the least (but still very much dislike).

It seems very daft to me to ask people to register a vote for a party they very much dislike (even if there are parties they dislike more). Of course people can choose to only register 1 or 2 preferences but then they are getting less votes than others.

GooeyBlob

rhyspaulburton wrote: »

Under AV the second preferences of the leading candidates would never be taken in to consideration (unless they were out-voted and therefore eliminated) - it just doesn't work like that.

Another reason why AV is such a terribly flawed system. If the 2nd, 3rd or 4th preferences of everybody else are banded together, another candidate might overtake the person who led on first preferences.

But if the 2nd preferences of the original winner's voters are taken into account, another candidate entirely may have won. Indeed, if the AV winner is the complete opposite of the leader of the candidate with most 1st preferences, the original winner's voters would place the AV winner so far down the ranking that he or she would have been eliminated in an early round, and the candidate who was eliminated in the penultimate round would probably score far more than 50% of votes. By counting 2nd preferences in a different order, and combining them with different 1st preferences, you can achieve totally different outcomes.

AV penalises candidates who are closest to the candidate with the most first preferences. To give some voters a chance to vote again, but deny that privilege to those whose first preference is the most popular candidate is grossly unfair.

bramblejam

I've waited all my life for PR and I really don't know what to do in this referendum. There's been no national debate about what we would like a new system to look like or what they do in other countries, or in different assemblies in the UK for that matter. We're just faced with Hobson's choice, like it or lump it. We needed a year of debate before a referendum. Are they talking about it yet in your office/ They're not in mine. And it'll take most of us more than a month to weigh up the pros and cons.

I've voted in STV elections at University, and a similar system in Municipal elections when I lived in Holland. It's not hard, we'll get the hang of it, practically everyone else has. I'd like to see proper PR and an end to the single-MP constituency system. My MP is now "out of play" for the next x years and has no power to get anything done on my behalf. So I'm effectively not represented. She was a good MP before the elections and if she was one of half a dozen MPs representing my city as a single constituency she could be good again. (She doesn't belong to a party I'd ever vote for but that's beside the point).

AV is a kind of primitive substitute for PR that about 4 countries use and one of those is phasing it out. It's beyond me why the Electoral Reform Society is backing it, in fact they're heavily behind the Yes campaign and Votes at 16. I can only assume they've been taken over by loonies in the same way the RSPCA was some years ago. Oh well, they do give a fairly good guide to different voting systems (and who uses them)
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=5

But what to do? Vote to stay with the rudimentary 18th century system we have today or vote for change at any price? Will AV be the start of incremental change? Will it be a step on the way to modern democracy? Or will we be stuck with it for another 300 years? Would a No vote be interpreted as not wanting any change at all ever (most likely)? Would a No victory lead to a better result in 20 years, as in the Welsh Assembly referenda?

Oh dear, another fine mess Tory Boy's got us into!

tomwakefield

melancholly wrote: »

but if you only picked a first choice and they were knocked out in the first round, you would only be counted once.

(granted that would be a bit of a daft thing to do given the system - and ultimately down to that person's choice - but i do see why people make this criticism)

And if you didn't vote in FPTP you would get 0 votes to active voters 1 vote. You can't criticize a system based on those who make full use of it getting "more" than those who choose not to.