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

zagfles

toasted-lion wrote: »

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.



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.

Yes - I read an analysis which showed that AV wouldn't have changed any election result since the the 70's.

Ellabelle

Thank you very much to everyone who explained 'non-monotonicity' to me!

toasted-lion

zagfles wrote: »

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.

This is a real potential problem and I'm not saying it's of no concern, I just believe after researching and thinking enough that it won't actually happen with any significant frequency.

Let's remember that although this is a small flaw with AV, FPTP is completely flawed! It is ridiculous that having two similar candidates stand can eliminate both of their chances of getting in, even though a big majority might want a candidate with their credentials.

In FPTP, lots of people have to vote tactically every election. Some people in seats tightly contested between two parties daren't vote for any other party. AV eliminates this.

toasted-lion

jamesd wrote: »

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.

Parties that currently have lots of supporters in terms of policy but not many actual voters do stand to gain: it will no longer be a waste of time to vote for them. Parties with only a small percentage of supporters will not gain anything, especially extremist parties that polarise the electorate.

I can think of some parties that I'm confident fit into the second category, but it's difficult to know whether there are any in the first. It could be the case that parties such as UKIP and the Greens are already getting as many votes as they will ever get, in which case AV isn't really going to help them. However, maybe it's the case that right now, most Conservative voters actually prefer UKIP, but each individually doesn't want to waste their vote. Then surely it should really be the case that they do get in wherever they're actually the preferred party? It's not about whether one likes UKIP, it has to be agreed that if any kind of meaningful democracy is what we want, that should be able to happen.

But what AV doesn't mean, is that if the balance among such voters is actually 60-40 in favour of Conservative, we'll get that kind of ratio as MPs - it will still be predominantly Conservative. And if the balance is the other way round, UKIP would take the lion's share of seats.

The only thing that would lead to a plethora of parties getting in is big regional variations. But I don't see why you would think regional variation would increase under AV.

To conclude, I am not worried about suddenly seeing loads of small parties with 20 or so seats with which any party will need to bargain with to form a government - because AV does not increase proportionality. And if we do get a party that does come from nowhere to get 20 seats, it will be because in some regions of the UK they are the party the majority want, and it is only right that in that case they are represented.

AV is essentially the same as FPTP on the national level - it will still be made up of single winner local constituencies, and it will still be the case that the only reason for getting multiple parties will be regional variation. It is just a fairer way of choosing the party for each constituency based on what people in that constituency want. You said you agree with AV on a local level, well I don't think AV really comes into it on a national level, because we're not changing the system that characterises politics on a national level - choosing one most popular candidate from each constituency. All we're doing is using a fairer system to pick that winner from each constituency.

clouty

Some points I'd like to drop into the discussion, I'm sure others have made some of them, but not in my unique way

Anyway, my points (and I am with Martin on AV)

The Yes campaign is not as rich as the NO campaign. The Yes campaign has published it's funding sources, the NO campaign refuses to follow suit.

AV is not that complicated. here's the link to the Electoral Commission. They explain it in a video at the bottom of this page

The spin by the NO campaign on the cost of AV is just that. Spin. 130 million pounds will not be used on counting machines, 90 million pounds of that has already been spent and a no vote wont get that money back.


First past the post was fine while we just had the Whigs or the Tories to vote for. Nowadays there may be as many as ten candidates on a ballot paper. We need AV so that parliament better reflects the will of the people. At the moment MPs can be elected with 30% of the vote, leaving 70% of the vote unrepresented in the constituency.

Australia, with AV, has had less hung parliaments than we have here with first past the post.

If AV is good enough for party leadership elections, it's good enough for us plebs.

You don't have to give a second, third or fourth choice, if you don't want to. You can just vote for one candidate, if there's only one candidate you like.

Some of the votes for the winning candidate will indeed be second, or even third choices. I know that every election I have liked one candidate best, and there would be another one or two that were not bad, IMHO, but there's always some that in my opinion are dangerous. So if my not so bad candidate got elected with the help of my second or third choice, that would be entirely fine with me, so long as the one that was dangerous couldn't get my support, which they can't, of course.

magpiecottage

As Marcus Brigstocke said on Have I Got News For You, the No campaign have told me that I am too thick to understand the AV system.

Given that the Conservatives, who back it, were in power for much of the time I was educated and Labour, whose members are second most numerous in the No campaign, were in charge for the rest of it, perhaps they could explain why they failed to educate me to that level and why, despite all the improvements they bragg about, the electorate on the whole is still not intelligent enough to count to, maybe, ten if I am really spoilt for choice.


I was also given a map of the world which showed all the countries which do not have an AV system and, therefore, are, it seems, in line with what the No campaign think we should have.

They included such upstanding members of the international community as China, Libya, Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe.

clouty

LOL Magpiecottage. Thanks for the giggle x

wozearly

zagfles wrote: »

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.

Not necessarily - for arguments sake, assuming that you have a Right-wing candidate in first place against a Left-wing candidate and a Centre-Left candidate in 2nd / 3rd, and assuming people are voting solely based on political leanings towards left/right, then as the supporters of the 2nd / 3rd candidates are closer politically it doesn't matter which finishes third as each will transfer more votes to the other, making a candidate of their political leanings more likely to win overall, assuming that there are more people politically aligned to the left / centre left than there are to the right.

If not, its all a moot point as the right-wing candidate will win in any event.

If you favour a particular party / candidate that has the largest share of first preferences, then what you definitely don't want is a candidate of similar political leanings coming 2nd. That means the vote is ultimately decided by those who have different political leanings and so its more likely the similar opponent will win than it would be under FPTP.

This is only a bad thing, of course, if you're particularly partisan to your favoured candidate/party. In the round, I'd assume most right-wing voters would prefer a situation where one of two right wing candidates were elected, and vice versa for the left.

AV is ultimately better suited to reflect the wider breakdown of political views /allegiances amongst voters, and to inhibit the ability for a candidate or party who is widely disliked to win. Naturally, some voters and parties are not too fond of that idea.

zagfles

toasted-lion wrote: »

This is a real potential problem and I'm not saying it's of no concern, I just believe after researching and thinking enough that it won't actually happen with any significant frequency.

Let's remember that although this is a small flaw with AV, FPTP is completely flawed! It is ridiculous that having two similar candidates stand can eliminate both of their chances of getting in, even though a big majority might want a candidate with their credentials.

In FPTP, lots of people have to vote tactically every election. Some people in seats tightly contested between two parties daren't vote for any other party. AV eliminates this.

Yes AV is good for where there are 2 broad opinion groups, in allowing candidates within those groups to stand against each other without ruining each others' chances. It's also good for allowing people to express their preference for a minority party without wasting their vote.

But people who voted for the party which came second get short changed as they didn't win and they didn't get to express a preference for the other candidates. It doesn't seem right if a system better represents the views of those voting for a party which finishes third or fourth than it does of those finishing second.

Still, I'll be voting for AV as despite its flaws it's a bit better than FPTP.

zagfles

magpiecottage wrote: »

I was also given a map of the world which showed all the countries which do not have an AV system and, therefore, are, it seems, in line with what the No campaign think we should have.

They included such upstanding members of the international community as China, Libya, Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe.

Eh? Hardly any countries use AV. I think you mean countries who use FPTP, rather than countries who do not have AV.