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

JimmyTheWig

zagfles wrote: »

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!

Remember that this is a highly contrived example.
It would be much easier to come up with a scenario in FPTP where it makes sense to vote tactically.

[Note, also, that if 5 of E's voters stayed at home, F voters would get a better result if 2 of them voted for E rather than F!]

anotherbaldrick

In my minor opinion I feel that with first past the post you know what the system will give you > The majority vote holder gets elected.
With AV, the system will give a variable result depending on the demographics of the particular constituency and the way the last candidates votes are redistributed. If he had some whacky supporters it might go horribly wrong. The only way it would be determined was for an election to be held under it and to see what happens as the outcome.
Therefore for a lot of people AV is a "pig in a poke" and not something they are comfortable with.

rhyski

anotherbaldrick wrote: »

In my minor opinion I feel that with first past the post you know what the system will give you > The majority vote holder gets elected.

You mean under FPTP the largest minority vote holder gets elected - not the majority. That's a big difference.

In the general election last year 434 of the 650 MPs elected received less than 50% of the vote. What AV will do is prevent a party with as low as 30% of the votes winning a seat, just because everyone else's votes were split across the other candidates in that constituency.

AV will ensure that the MAJORITY of people are happy with the result in their constituency, and eliminate the need to vote tactically to try to keep out the party they don't want (like people do year after year with FPTP). I would rather a system which eliminated this need for tactical voting.

anotherbaldrick wrote: »

With AV, the system will give a variable result depending on the demographics of the particular constituency and the way the last candidates votes are redistributed. If he had some whacky supporters it might go horribly wrong. The only way it would be determined was for an election to be held under it and to see what happens as the outcome.
Therefore for a lot of people AV is a "pig in a poke" and not something they are comfortable with.

The second preferences of the loosing candidate are only counted if no party has over 50% of the votes.. - any 'whacky' supporters votes would only usually make up a few percent of the total votes cast - this could hardly make things go 'horribly wrong'.

Minority parties will not gain seats under AV - unless they get over 50% support in that constituency - in which case, they deserve them. As has been mentioned, minority/extremist parties are MORE likely to gain seats under FPTP - if they end up with the largest minority. AV makes it HARDER for them to win seats.

I guess the only thing we can't predict is quite how people will vote under AV, given the freedom to vote for who they actually want to, without the need to vote tactically...

clouty

I think Anotherbaldrick has put his finger on why so many are saying they will vote NO in the referendum - it's the fear of change. I don't see how AV can be considered a "pig in a poke" though, when it has been explained all over the web, and is pretty simple, really. The Electoral Commission have a video link at the bottom of it's home page, and for cat lovers, this one was put up recently on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHuiDD_oTk&feature=youtu.be

AV results will reflect the wishes, to a greater or lesser extent, of the majority. FPTP often does not.

GooeyBlob

Latest ComRes poll:

Yes 40%
No 60%

Apparently, yes voters are more likely to change their minds. More info here:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23945214-no-to-av-camp-claims-record-20-percent-lead-in-poll.do

rhyski

GooeyBlob wrote: »

Latest ComRes poll:

Yes 40%
No 60%

Apparently, yes voters are more likely to change their minds. More info here:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23945214-no-to-av-camp-claims-record-20-percent-lead-in-poll.do

Where on earth did you get "yes voters are more likely to change their minds" from?
It says 22 per cent "don't knows", more say they are "inclined" to vote No than Yes
(probably because of the fear of change? who knows...)

Not that I trust polls in the slightest anyway.

kermitfrog

.

If the 'Yes' voters win the referendum, it will very likely be with a minority turnout. Will Nick Clegg then say that "we cannot accept the result because it wasn't supported by at least 50% of the electorate, and therefore does not represent what we stand for and betrays the very principle of the referendum."

Will he heck!

.

zagfles

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Remember that this is a highly contrived example.

Of course, but it's easy to find real world examples, some of which have already been mentioned in this thread, and see below...

It would be much easier to come up with a scenario in FPTP where it makes sense to vote tactically.

It's just as easy in AV.

In FPTP tactical voting is used where there is likely to be a close contest between 2 parties for first place, then voters of other parties decide which of the leading 2 they prefer.

Under AV tactical voting will be used where there's a clear leader but there's a close contest for 2nd place. And that's probably as common as a close contest for first place.

And under AV, a tactical vote can be used for 2 reasons, to get your second choice (as in FPTP), or even to help your first choice win! Under FPTP there is no way a tactical vote can help your first choice win.

As in the example of a constituency split 40/30/30 Lab/LD/Tory.

A Tory voter should realise there's no chance of the Tory getting elected, and so may vote LD tactically - hoping the LDs finish second and then get transferred votes from the Tory voters, which will probably give the LDs the seat. Whereas if the Tory finished second, the LD 2nd choices would split more evenly giving Labour the seat.

Similarly, a Labour voter could reason that the election depends on how many transferred votes they get from whoever finishes third. They'll obviously get far more transferred votes from LD voters than Tory voters, so they want the LD's finishing third. So voting Tory could help Labour win!

irnbru_2

kermitfrog wrote: »

If the 'Yes' voters win the referendum, it will very likely be with a minority turnout. Will Nick Clegg then say that "we cannot accept the result because it wasn't supported by at least 50% of the electorate, and therefore does not represent what we stand for and betrays the very principle of the referendum."

Will he heck!

Nor does he (or anyone else) have to as there's no minimum turnout required. Unlike FPTP, the referendum is won by the majority of votes cast.

Is David Cameron going to ensure that every eligable person is on the electoral register prior to having the boundaries redrawn?

kermitfrog

.

The question was rhetorical.

.