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

toasted-lion

jamesd wrote: »

It's not anywhere near as simple as that. You have to work out which order is most likely to produce the national government that you want. AV makes that task much harder because of its pro-coalition government and smaller party magnifying effects.

While more people wanted a dessert, none of them asked for a carrot cake with chocolate topping and Marmite decorations, which is what AV will produce. Unless you're unlucky and Marmite holds the balance of power and insists on being the whole topping, not just a bit of decoration, as the price for its support. Either way, nobody actually got what they voted for: they got a coalition instead, which lets the parties throw away their promises and makes it harder to completely throw out those who do badly.

Hey James, I think you've misunderstood his example. AV is a single-winner system, like FPTP, so there would only be one winner. In this case we can expect that the carrot cake voters will give their second choice to chocolate cake and so chocolate cake would win. It isn't the case that the two cakes and marmite combine to make a new cake which wins - only chocolate cake wins.

AV is not PR and it doesn't mean you end up with a mixture of everything, it's just a single winner system like we have now, but with a fairer way of deciding the winner.

Hope this helps.

Derivative

jamesd wrote: »

It's not anywhere near as simple as that. You have to work out which order is most likely to produce the national government that you want. AV makes that task much harder because of its pro-coalition government and smaller party magnifying effects.

Under FPTP, you have to work out if your vote is likely to result in a party you dislike winning. Really, both voting systems can be analysed to that extent.

The "No to AV" leaflets have similar tosh. They describe FPTP in around 20 words, and deliberately stretch the description of AV to a few paragraphs using complex language to distort the complexity of the system.

Irregardless, a more complex system is not necessarily "bad". Not all voters vote tactically, and not all voters will worry about the ins and outs of the system.

Thank you to toasted-lion for saving me a reply.

toasted-lion

MrChips wrote: »

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

This is the big problem with FPTP. Those 10 independents could all have almost identical beliefs - beliefs shared by the 60% who voted for them, but because they all stood instead of just one standing, none of them gets in. It's absolutely bonkers that having multiple candidates standing for similar things gives an advantage to the other candidate.

toasted-lion

Ellabelle wrote: »

Ta very much for the explanation, so is this example as AV is or not?

Oh dear i'm making myself seem as bit thick now!

Yes, this is an example of AV. The potential non-monotonicity of AV is one of the very few genuine arguments against it (unlike all the other completely invalid points the no campaign is making). This is from the PSA:

PSA wrote:

Non-monotonicity is devilish but not very important
An electoral system is non-monotonic if a candidate’s chances of election can be harmed by their winning more votes. FPTP does not have this feature, but AV can. Say that candidate A could win a runoff against B but not against C. A transfer of votes from B to A could eliminate B from the race, allowing C to win. Non-monotonic outcomes are undesirable, but research employing mathematical models suggests they should occur very rarely. One estimate is that such an outcome could occur in a UK constituency less than once a century. They are not therefore a major concern.

I personally agree with the PSA's claim that compared to FPTP this is not a major concern because (a) it is so unlikely, (b) even though this makes it theoretically possible to vote tactically, it would be difficult for party supporters to do so in an effective way without accurate predictions of the voting outcomes, (c) the current system, FPTP, is plagued with tactical voting!

But yes, it does present a theoretical flaw of the system, the only reason I can think of for why anybody might vote no that actually holds up in any way.

Fair play to you for taking the referendum seriously and really looking into the two options - if I can help explain anything else shout up!

kermitfrog

EdgEy wrote: »

It is as simple as that, for the voter.

No, no, the voter is being conned into believing AV is that simple. What they're not being told is what happens after the vote - the often bizarre consequences of that allegedly simple 1, 2, 3. This thread is full of examples.

So to sum up, if you don't care about the result of an election, an AV poll is as simple as 1, 2...er...?

.

jamesd

toasted-lion wrote: »

Hey James, I think you've misunderstood his example. AV is a single-winner system, like FPTP, so there would only be one winner.

That's the big lie that the yes campaign is using: ignoring the big picture and hoping that people won't notice.

At a local single MP level you're perfectly right. So is the yes campaign.

But at a national level you do need to consider how the AV system will be more likely to produce coalition governments and get nobody what they voted for. And it's the national level that I was writing about.

The national level is where the big decisions are made and is much more important.

Approximately nobody in the whole country voted for a Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition government but that's what we have. I'm not in favour of a system that makes coalition governments that let parties throw away their manifestos and pre-election promises more likely.

While Clegg is paying for his abandonment of a pre-election promise on student tuition fees in one way, by being one of the most unpopular politicians of recent years, that's not sufficient: it's a decision of his party and his party needs to pay the appropriate price for breaking its promises. In a democratic system, that way is being voted out of power, or other remedies, like not giving them a free gift of the system that puts them in power more often in the future.

And, just maybe, they might keep their word next time. They certainly won't if they aren't penalised appropriately for breaking it.

toasted-lion

jamesd wrote: »

While Clegg is paying for his abandonment of a pre-election promise on student tuition fees in one way, by being one of the most unpopular politicians of recent years, that's not sufficient: it's a decision of his party and his party needs to pay the appropriate price for breaking its promises. In a democratic system, that way is being voted out of power, or other remedies, like not giving them a free gift of the system that puts them in power more often in the future.

And, just maybe, they might keep their word next time. They certainly won't if they aren't penalised appropriately for breaking it.

I too hope that the liberal democrats suffer for going completely against something they had at the forefront of their campaign - it would send a necessary message to politicians of the future. But the way to do that is to not vote LD in future elections! This is a referendum about bringing in a fairer voting system, not about which politicians or parties you like.

jamesd wrote: »

Approximately nobody in the whole country voted for a Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition government but that's what we have. I'm not in favour of a system that makes coalition governments that let parties throw away their manifestos and pre-election promises more likely.

This happened under FPTP. What makes you think it is more likely to happen again under AV?

May I reiterate that AV is not a proportional system, and so there is no reason to believe we are less likely to get majority governments.

zagfles

toasted-lion wrote: »

I personally agree with the PSA's claim that compared to FPTP this is not a major concern because (a) it is so unlikely, (b) even though this makes it theoretically possible to vote tactically, it would be difficult for party supporters to do so in an effective way without accurate predictions of the voting outcomes, (c) the current system, FPTP, is plagued with tactical voting!

But yes, it does present a theoretical flaw of the system, the only reason I can think of for why anybody might vote no that actually holds up in any way.

Fair play to you for taking the referendum seriously and really looking into the two options - if I can help explain anything else shout up!

I think tactical voting could become worse under AV, because tactical votes can be hugely magnified. A tiny minority voting tactically could have a major effect on the outcome. Also, unlike FPTP, tactical voting can help your preferred candiate win.

In many constituencies the deciding factor in an AV election will be who is eliminated when there are 3 left, ie the 2nd/3rd place contest.

If your preferred party is in first place, then you want the party furthest politically from your to finish second. In that way their second preference votes are never counted.

As an example say Labour are way ahead in local polls at 40%. The Tories and the LDs are level at 30%. There is no doubt that Labour will get most first preferences. How should you vote?

Well, if the Tories are eliminated when there are 3 left, then most of their votes will likely go to the LD's, giving them victory. But if the LD's are eliminated, their votes will likely split more evenly, giving Labour the seat.

So if you are a Labour supporter, your best bet is to vote Conservative as your first preference! So the LDs get eliminated, giving Labour a shed load more votes than if the Tories were eliminated!

Yes, most people won't vote tactically, but those who do in situations like this will have far more of an effect than any tactical voting under FPTP.

jamesd

The proposed system reduces the disincentive for voting for parties that will get fewer (first choice) votes. That in turn makes it more likely that they will get an MP elected. That means that there will be more elections where small parties hold the balance of power and get to pick the next government, extracting whatever they can in exchange for their support.

While the system isn't specific to the Liberal Democrat party, that's the party that stands to gain most from the change - they are likely to be the swing party much more often than under the current system because they are likely to have more MPs, enough to be the deciding factor more often. Which is why they made that the core of their post-election negotiating and were willing to break other promises as part of getting another vote on it.

A yes vote is in large part a vote to let the Liberal Democrat party be kingmaker more often in the future. And to let both that party and whoever they ally with off the hook for keeping their future pre-election promises.

At the local level the change is fine or even good. At a national level it's not.

zagfles

toasted-lion wrote: »

While Clegg is paying for his abandonment of a pre-election promise on student tuition fees in one way, by being one of the most unpopular politicians of recent years, that's not sufficient: it's a decision of his party and his party needs to pay the appropriate price for breaking its promises. In a democratic system, that way is being voted out of power, or other remedies, like not giving them a free gift of the system that puts them in power more often in the future.

And, just maybe, they might keep their word next time. They certainly won't if they aren't penalised appropriately for breaking it.

Well Labour broke their manifesto promise over the exact same issue, and they didn't have the excuse of being in a coalition!