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

kermitfrog

kevanf1 wrote: »

We still have not had the promised leaflet through our letterbox. so, I have had to research what AV is all about by asking people on other forums (had loads of biased opinions, sadly) and reading up on various websites (same again in some cases).

I started off in this process instinctively favouring FPTP over AV without too much factual information to validate my stance. I sought information from the campaigns on both sides and found, like you, mis-information, distortion, propaganda and downright deception. From both sides!

I then went to a body I had respected as independent, unbiased arbiters of electoral matters, the Electoral Reform Society. They were openly in favour of AV. Fair enough, I thought - they'd weighed the issues and come down on one side.

On examining their descriptions of the various electoral systems however, I found they listed the arguments for and against each one. Apart from AV! They had singled out AV as the only system where they felt they didn't have to present opposing arguments.

That's deception by the Electoral Reform Society - so it's no longer respected by me.

Obviously I had to make up my own mind and try to sift through all the propaganda, which I did by reading forums like this one, and opinions of people I respected (like Winston Churchill!).

One of the overwhelming features of the arguments I found was a prodigious attitude of self-righteousness from holier-than-thou AV supporters. Accusations that anti-AV advocates are from the 'nasty' side of society. Or else that they're ignorant.

My examination of the arguments, and the attitude of AV proponents, has solidified my original intention to vote 'No'!

irnbru_2

kermitfrog wrote: »

That's deception by the Electoral Reform Society - so it's no longer respected by me.

Their aims are:

• Ensure all votes have equal value
• Give effective representation to all significant points of view within the electorate
• Allow electors to vote for their preferred candidates without fear of wasting their votes
• Ensure the accountability of individual representatives to their electorates

kermitfrog wrote: »

Obviously I had to make up my own mind and try to sift through all the propaganda, which I did by reading forums like this one, and opinions of people I respected (like Winston Churchill!).

Can we put you down as YES in the Land-Value Tax referendum ....

kermitfrog wrote: »

My examination of the arguments

..... which is what it's all about.

zagfles

dggar wrote: »

I'm not allowed to post attachments so add h t t p : // www. to this:

totalpolitics.com/blog/156447/the-secret-av-escape-clause.thtml

It's an intersting read

Interesting but I don't think it's worth worrying about.

Getting fairer constituency sizes with AV is far more beneficial to the Tories than FPTP on current boundaries. As per the link I posted earlier, AV wouldn't have cost the Tories any of the elections they won in the 80/90's. Fairer boundaries would probably have won them the 2010 election. Now AV would probably harm Labour more than the Tories, since the remaining LD voters are likely to be more Tory inclined. Plus they'd pay a very heavy price if they circumvented the result of a referendum.

The other scenario is more feasable, ie a NO vote with LDs rebelling, since it would be FPTP regardless. But it would need a big rebellion, far more than the tuition fees one where nearly half the LD MPs refused to support the govt. It would basically have to be the collapse of the coalition. But PR for the Lords could placate the LDs...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/8469929/Will-Britain-get-an-elected-House-of-Lords.html

clouty

First, I'd like to second jeanmd's daughters eloquent post.

Irunbru asked

Do you think a NO vote will enhance the chances of a referendum on PR?

I think that if we don't get AV through this time, we can forget about changing the electoral system. If we do get AV, then I believe that it will be a step on the way to AV+ or PR.

To deal with the chestnut that AV will favour the minority extremist parties, here is a list copied from the No to AV facebook page which boast of the following support:
* Conservative Party
* British National Party
* Respect Party
* Communist Party
This campaign is creating strange bedfellows!

FPTP is used by 25% of 242 countries. They include Ghana, North Korea and the Congo... great for dictatorship creation...Nationmaster.com

The Yes campaign is not perfect, but they are telling less porkies that the No lot - check out this Channel 4 page "AV roundup - the truth behind the claims"

Jamesd, I believe your first point was dealt with by others.

Then go for a system that doesn't magnify the power of the least popular parties, not one that does.

See the strange bedfellows of the No campaign above. Then rethink. You missed my point about FPTP suiting the elite totally. It biases the system towards the two main parties. Supporters of minority parties find they either have to choose between the two main parties or risk wasting their vote.

FPTP only works in a two party state, which we ceased to be when the Labour Party was formed at the end of the Victorian era. The situation became critical with the resurgence of the Liberals post war, and now the rise of the Greens. Do you really want a large portion of the electorate to be disillusioned with politics? Because keeping the present system means exactly that. That is why many young people are behind the Yes campaign.

Our electoral system has been broken for years, for the reasons outlined in my last paragraph. The turnout has been shrinking. Why exactly do you think that is? Could it be that up to 70% of the electorate are not represented by the government of the day? Could it be that if your preferred candidate is not one of the two front runners, then it feels like a waste to vote for the candidate that you actually prefer, forcing a decision on tactical voting?

I believe we in the Yes campaign (and I have been canvassing in Eastbourne, and even there it is not as bleak as the recent poll described, for us) are fighting for a system that engages more of the population in Democracy. I believe if we keep FPTP the turn out will continue to fall and the alienation from politics will continue to grow. That can never be a good thing, surely?

Troublemaker66

djb77 wrote: »

If we do get AV and in an election over 50% of voters decide they only want to vote for one candidate because they do not prefer any of the other ones. No one could get a 50% majority - so who wins?

I don't get that reasoning. If over 50% wants one candidate, that candidate wins the constituency and gets in. The second and later preferences don't count in that scenario.

People say they don't want FPTP but don't like AV. I'm sorry, but that's all that is on offer this time. Except that if you vote for AV, you are buying time to change for something better. if you vote FPTP, you just kill the debate for another 20 years.

I think we need more and total coalitions where instead of one lot 'governing' the rest of us and getting their pet projects through, we get a real discussion of the issues and we stop being governed and start being represented. I know which I prefer.

kermitfrog

Troublemaker66 wrote: »

I don't get that reasoning.

Read the post following djb77's post and you will understand.

.

JimmyTheWig

Troublemaker66 wrote: »

I don't get that reasoning.

What djb77 means is if over 50% of voters decide they only want to vote for one candidate each, though not the same candidate as each other.
For example 100 people vote in an election with 6 candidates...
13 people vote for A and put no second preferences.
14 people vote for B and put no second preferences.
15 people vote for C and put no second preferences.
16 people vote for D and put no second preferences.
20 people vote for E and put D as second preference.
22 people vote for F and put D as second preference.

No-one has over 50% of the votes so A is eliminated. Their second preferences would get redistributed, but in this case there aren't any.
Still no-one has over 50% of the remaining votes, so B is eliminated.
As is C, then D.

We are left with 20 votes for E and 22 votes for F. F now has more than 50% of the remaining votes and is declared the winner.

djb77's point is that F has won with only 22% of the vote.
But the point is that they got more than 50% of the votes that were left in play.

Lotus-eater

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

djb77's point is that F has won with only 22% of the vote.

But that's the whole point surely. Those people who voted for others, get the chance to have a 2nd opinion. They don't have to.

zagfles

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

What djb77 means is if over 50% of voters decide they only want to vote for one candidate each, though not the same candidate as each other.
For example 100 people vote in an election with 6 candidates...
13 people vote for A and put no second preferences.
14 people vote for B and put no second preferences.
15 people vote for C and put no second preferences.
16 people vote for D and put no second preferences.
20 people vote for E and put D as second preference.
22 people vote for F and put D as second preference.

No-one has over 50% of the votes so A is eliminated. Their second preferences would get redistributed, but in this case there aren't any.
Still no-one has over 50% of the remaining votes, so B is eliminated.
As is C, then D.

We are left with 20 votes for E and 22 votes for F. F now has more than 50% of the remaining votes and is declared the winner.

djb77's point is that F has won with only 22% of the vote.
But the point is that they got more than 50% of the votes that were left in play.

And it also illustrates the point about finishing second being the worst place to finish under AV.

If 5 E voters had stayed at home and not bothered voting, then E voters would have got a better result. E would have finished third and so their second preferences would have counted in the final F vs D round, which would have meant that D would have won!

clouty

What djb77 means is if over 50% of voters decide they only want to vote for one candidate each, though not the same candidate as each other.
For example 100 people vote in an election with 6 candidates...
13 people vote for A and put no second preferences.
14 people vote for B and put no second preferences.
15 people vote for C and put no second preferences.
16 people vote for D and put no second preferences.
20 people vote for E and put D as second preference.
22 people vote for F and put D as second preference.

So under this hypothetical scenario 58 people would not exercise their right to express a second preference, out of an electorate of 100. That makes the math easy. 58% not taking the option of expressing a second preference. I would say that was pretty unlikely, as is the fairly even split of the first preference vote. It might happen, but then hell might freeze over too.
she loves to count