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

mabrookes

Niksan wrote: »

As hjones2 said, it will do away with the safe seat scenario, and the current system will allow a candidate with 40% of votes to stand no matter if the other 60% would rather have someone else other than that candidate, AV makes sense to me, but as Martin puts it, those who are opposed to it are going to say it's so complicated it's not worthwhile, but that would be expected, making it clear would do them no favours.

But then again, if you prefer for one party to govern as you don't like the idea of coalitions, then I guess AV isn't the way. Maybe, I guess it depends on how people vote.

This is a very manipulative way of putting it. Your saying that a candidate with 40% can get in when 60% wanted someone else - which is technically true.

Of course the reality is that someone with 40% probably beat another 4 people all only getting small amounts with maybe one of them getting half of this.

Which is better - the system where the most wanted (and it is the most wanted out of them all) gets the chance to do what they believe should be done or one where someone much less popular gets lots of extra votes and gets in.

I really can't see how someone who may only have actually got 20% should beat someone who got 40% without it being plain stupidity.

tomwakefield

mabrookes wrote: »

This is a very manipulative way of putting it. Your saying that a candidate with 40% can get in when 60% wanted someone else - which is technically true.

Of course the reality is that someone with 40% probably beat another 4 people all only getting small amounts with maybe one of them getting half of this.

Which is better - the system where the most wanted (and it is the most wanted out of them all) gets the chance to do what they believe should be done or one where someone much less popular gets lots of extra votes and gets in.

I really can't see how someone who may only have actually got 20% should beat someone who got 40% without it being plain stupidity.

How about someone getting 42 more votes than another out of 53157 votes cast? Wouldn't it be better to get a better idea of who is more popular overall?

MrChips

They will only beat the one who got 40% if the other 60% prefer the other candidate. If 60% prefer the second candidate to the first candidate, I don't see why it is stupid for him/her to win?

MrChips

To repeat an example I made previously to illustrate this point, lets say there is a constiuency that is broadly 60% right wing and 40% left wing. Because there are more right wingers 2 put themselves up for election, while only 1 left winger comes forward.

60% of voters would prefer one of the 2 right wing candidates to win, but because there are two to choose from their vote is roughly split down the middle, 30% to each candidate. The minority 40% of the constituency vote for the left wing candidate and he wins.

To quote your theory, it would be stupid for anyone other than the left wing candidate to win, even though the majority of the constituency would prefer a right wing candidate and the only reason they didn't win was because the town was right wing leaning so there were more candidates from this political affiliation.

Derivative

That is exactly what everyone is missing.

Put aside this silly "people get two votes" tosh. Not only is it opinion and falsehood, it is much less important than ensuring the majority's opinion is taken into account.

If there are ten right wing parties and one left wing, 50% voters for each, under FPTP no right wing party will ever get in.

How is that right or fair?

FPTP encourages parties to merge, and merge, and merge until we're left with the silly system we have at present which is to have two or three parties that essentially have middling views.

MrChips

Or to quote another, contemporary, example. A conservative in a safe seat spends lots of parliamentary expenses on a top of the range duck pond. He knows that he is in such a safe seat that he could guarantee 40% of voters would still back him come what may.

The other 60% of the constituency are incensed and 10 independent candidates line up againsts him out of frustration. The MP gets his regular 40%, while the other 60% of voters are overwhelmed by the number of options against him and the independents get broadly 6% each. A landslide for Mr Duck Pond and another victory for FPTP

wozearly

EdgEy wrote: »

FPTP encourages parties to merge, and merge, and merge until we're left with the silly system we have at present which is to have two or three parties that essentially have middling views.

Its hard to see how FPTP is to blame for that - and if it is, its taken a couple of centuries to play out.

Arguably that's a charge better levelled at AV, where comparatively 'centrist' candidates are more likely to pick up second preferences from both right wing and left wing sides.

The movement towards the middle is more likely to reflect either a change in political beliefs in the UK with more people holding centrist views (probably true of the growing number of 'swing' voters), or voters across the board being less likely to support a particular political party, or even a particular 'wing' of party, consistently in each election. That forces parties to adopt stances which are considered appealing by a wider majority of people in order to attract voters...and the centre ground is the least controversial area on that scale.

If we wanted a system that encouraged candidates and/or parties of a less 'centrist' nature, PR is probably one of the better bets. Admittedly, that means we have to accept that if 5% of the public vote for the BNP (or whatever party we may personally dislike), then they're getting 5% of the seats...

mabrookes

EdgEy wrote: »

That is exactly what everyone is missing.

Put aside this silly "people get two votes" tosh. Not only is it opinion and falsehood, it is much less important than ensuring the majority's opinion is taken into account.

If there are ten right wing parties and one left wing, 50% voters for each, under FPTP no right wing party will ever get in.

How is that right or fair?

FPTP encourages parties to merge, and merge, and merge until we're left with the silly system we have at present which is to have two or three parties that essentially have middling views.

There is a reason people put themselves up for election - because you are voting for the person. Whoever gets the most votes then wins, that should be the end of the story.

It is not about left wing or right wing - regardless of whether people take this into account, it is about who you want to win out of the people up for election and the best person (not best side) should win.

And how often do you get that much difference in left and right wing parties being represented? Never, so why fix something that is unlikely to ever be a problem (and isn't anyway).

FPTP is the only one that takes the majority into consideration, the majority of people who vote for the candidate they want wins. I don't know how you can say it is not true that AV gives people more than one vote. As far as I can see if I vote for the number one person then that is the end of my involvement. Say my neighbour votes for the bottom candidate, they get a pat on the head for not supporting the winner and given another go!

I think AV would be a disaster for this country.

HairY

nomoneytoday wrote: »

IMHO it's a mechanism to get the Lib Dems more seats.

Tory voters generally don't Labour and vice versa. Some of these will have the LD as their 2nd choice.

You're asserting that people will completely arbitrarily, and without any thought whatsoever, put a '2' in the Lib Dem box instead of just sticking with a '1' in either the Tory or Labour boxes and leaving the others blank.

Pull the other one

Derivative

The view that people get "multiple votes" is silly. Really. It is like saying "get me a mars bar, otherwise a twix". How is only having the option to say "get me a mars bar" better?

There is no point engaging in debate if you cannot grasp that simple point.

Noone gets any more or less votes than anyone else. If you vote for the winner, your vote gets counted twice, three times, however many for the same candidate.

"I think AV will be a disaster" is just scaremongering. FPTP isn't a disaster. AV wouldn't be a disaster. It simply makes the process of voting more democratic and fairer to those who actually take into account anything but the top two parties.

I hate the fact AV is being used for political point scoring even more. I am a Conservative, that doesn't mean I support "No to AV". I'm not a fan of the Lib Dems, both in their NIMBY energy policy and their failure to uphold pledges (tuition fees anyone?).

Voting for AV is not voting for or against any party.