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

anotherbaldrick

Chris Hune threatened legal action over the "extraordinary allegation" by Chancellor George Osborne that expensive new voting machines would be needed to count the votes after an election held under AV rules.
But Foreign Secretary William Hague said "there was no doubt" that having a more complicated system "would cost more" and that it was a legitimate issue to raise in a campaign.
Former Labour Home Secretary David Blunkett, who is campaigning against AV, agreed the system would cost more in the long term, although he refused to specify a figure.
The official No campaign also includes trade unions, sports stars and some senior Labour figures.

Cool_Mint

Soubrette wrote: »

With respect - that's a terrible reason to vote for something:p

The key aspects to AV is that the eventual winner has to garner over 50% of the votes and until that happens there will be one candidate eliminated each round, the people who voted for the eliminated candidate will have their ballot papers added to the recount ie their number 2 vote becomes their number 1 vote etc.

If I vote for anyone except the last candidate, and that candidate is eliminated, then my number 2 count does not count - why should it - I have had my say in this round, only those people who have had their candidate (and therefore their vote) eliminated are entitled to have their second preferences counted.

Your explanation is how the no campaign are putting it - making it appear that some people will get more than one vote by using ambiguous language.

Actually you're right, reading back over what I wrote it does sound a bit ambiguous! Okay one more try:

In the current simple system a Party can get into power with just a tiny majority; if Labour got 32%, Liberals 32% and Conservatives 34% (yes I know that adds up to 99% but just for the sake of simplicity) then the Conservatives win because they got 2% more of the vote.

The problem with the current system is that all votes are not equal; you only get to vote for your local MP and the constituencies they run have different sized populations so if your area has a population of a squillion people and next door has a population of a hundred people and a donkey, their votes count a lot more than yours do, that's why the Parties campaign so hard in some areas of the Country and not others. It's a fix!

With AV voting a Party must have more than 50% of the votes to win so if the 1st Choice votes are 32%, 32%, 34% instead of the 34% being the winner the votes go into another round where they count up the 2nd choice votes - lowest scores gets knocked out and then if necessary the 3rd choice votes are counted to decide between the last two remaining Parties.

AV is not a perfect system and you would still only get to vote for one MP but the current "first past the post" system is controlled by whoever has the most money and influence to win the key seats; AV takes away their ability to win by a fraction of 1%.

Primarni

anotherbaldrick wrote: »

I must have missed that ! Was it in the Sun ?

You must not be in one of the vulnerable groups they have targetted with their ludicrous leaflets.

Soubrette

Cool_Mint wrote: »

Actually you're right, reading back over what I wrote it does sound a bit ambiguous! Okay one more try:

In the current simple system a Party can get into power with just a tiny majority; if Labour got 32%, Liberals 32% and Conservatives 34% (yes I know that adds up to 99% but just for the sake of simplicity) then the Conservatives win because they got 2% more of the vote.

The problem with the current system is that all votes are not equal; you only get to vote for your local MP and the constituencies they run have different sized populations so if your area has a population of a squillion people and next door has a population of a hundred people and a donkey, their votes count a lot more than yours do, that's why the Parties campaign so hard in some areas of the Country and not others. It's a fix!

With AV voting a Party must have more than 50% of the votes to win so if the 1st Choice votes are 32%, 32%, 34% instead of the 34% being the winner the votes go into another round where they count up the 2nd choice votes - lowest scores gets knocked out and then if necessary the 3rd choice votes are counted to decide between the last two remaining Parties.

AV is not a perfect system and you would still only get to vote for one MP but the current "first past the post" system is controlled by whoever has the most money and influence to win the key seats; AV takes away their ability to win by a fraction of 1%.

Your count only adds up to 98% - AV is concerned with 50% of those that vote so should always add up to 100%.

If two people tie then I expect it to be the same as now - numerous recounts and if it is a genuine tie then back to a reelection.

I agree, AV is marginally more democratic than FPTP, as I have a choice of poor or slightly less poor - I'm voting slightly less poor.

Soubrette

mark88man wrote: »

if people can't be bothered to vote, I don't think you should take them off the figures (implyin gthey were against Labour) - if anything you should add them on (as they obviously don't mind) who wins - so what you should have said was

Labour won in 2005 on 35% of votes cast meaning >60% didn't mind them them (assuming 75% polling turn out - which I think was right maybe even a bit high) and only 40% actively wanted someone else

I don't think 'don't mind' is a reasonable assessment either - tbh at this stage (if it were legal) I'd sell my vote to anyone voting for the main three because they are all the same - I want something different and they are not it - but only those 3 parties have any chance of getting in.

anotherbaldrick

Cool_Mint wrote: »

Actually you're right, reading back over what I wrote it does sound a bit ambiguous! Okay one more try:

With AV voting a Party must have more than 50% of the votes to win so if the 1st Choice votes are 32%, 32%, 34% instead of the 34% being the winner the votes go into another round where they count up the 2nd choice votes - lowest scores gets knocked out and then if necessary the 3rd choice votes are counted to decide between the last two remaining Parties.

I think you need to read the Electoral Reform Society explanation.
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55

zagfles

mark88man wrote: »

if people can't be bothered to vote, I don't think you should take them off the figures (implyin gthey were against Labour) - if anything you should add them on (as they obviously don't mind) who wins - so what you should have said was

Labour won in 2005 on 35% of votes cast meaning >60% didn't mind them them (assuming 75% polling turn out - which I think was right maybe even a bit high) and only 40% actively wanted someone else

How do you work that out? For a start assuming those who didn't vote "don't mind" is silly, for instance if you like a rock solid Labour or Tory seat there is little point in voting as it won't change the result, so many people don't bother, yet they could still hold strong views.

Secondly even if you assume this, on a 75% turnout, 35% voting Labour means they got 26.25% of the eligible vote plus 25% "don't minds", how is that ">60%"??

zagfles

Cool_Mint wrote: »

Actually you're right, reading back over what I wrote it does sound a bit ambiguous! Okay one more try:

In the current simple system a Party can get into power with just a tiny majority; if Labour got 32%, Liberals 32% and Conservatives 34% (yes I know that adds up to 99% but just for the sake of simplicity) then the Conservatives win because they got 2% more of the vote.

The problem with the current system is that all votes are not equal; you only get to vote for your local MP and the constituencies they run have different sized populations so if your area has a population of a squillion people and next door has a population of a hundred people and a donkey, their votes count a lot more than yours do, that's why the Parties campaign so hard in some areas of the Country and not others. It's a fix!

With AV voting a Party must have more than 50% of the votes to win so if the 1st Choice votes are 32%, 32%, 34% instead of the 34% being the winner the votes go into another round where they count up the 2nd choice votes - lowest scores gets knocked out and then if necessary the 3rd choice votes are counted to decide between the last two remaining Parties.

AV is not a perfect system and you would still only get to vote for one MP but the current "first past the post" system is controlled by whoever has the most money and influence to win the key seats; AV takes away their ability to win by a fraction of 1%.

The different sized consituency problem is going to fixed regardless of the AV result - to much whining from Labour MPs who want to retain the advantage of Labour seats generally being smaller.

But you can still "win by a fraction of 1%" under AV, like, 49.9% to 50.1%.

Soubrette

zagfles wrote: »

The different sized consituency problem is going to fixed regardless of the AV result - to much whining from Labour MPs who want to retain the advantage of Labour seats generally being smaller.

But you can still "win by a fraction of 1%" under AV, like, 49.9% to 50.1%.

Is AV better/worse or equal to FPTP in this respect though?

I would say better because that is the only count which would result in which someone could win by a fraction of 1%, under FPTP you could have a winner with a 0.1% vote difference all the way up to 50.1%

Although the reality is that the fraction of a vote could be much smaller - you just have to win by 1 vote for FPTP and you just have to win by over 50% for AV, which could also be 1 vote.

zagfles

Soubrette wrote: »

Is AV better/worse or equal to FPTP in this respect though?

I would say better because that is the only count which would result in which someone could win by a fraction of 1%, under FPTP you could have a winner with a 0.1% vote difference all the way up to 50.1%

Although the reality is that the fraction of a vote could be much smaller - you just have to win by 1 vote for FPTP and you just have to win by over 50% for AV, which could also be 1 vote.

You could "win" by a fraction of a % several times over with AV! For instance, very similar to the previous example, say first place votes were Tory 34%, Lab 33.1%, LD 32.9%.

So Labour beat the LDs into second place by a fraction of a %.

Then say the transferred LD votes split almost 50/50 Tory/Lab, but slightly in favour of Lab, making the end result Tory 49.9,% Lab 50.1%. So that's two "fractions of a %" wins in the same election!

If Labour had lost either of those "fraction of a %" counts, they'd have lost.

It also highlights that other anomily in AV, which is that the worst place to finish is second (ie lose the final round). Your views are better respresented if your party finishes 3rd or 4th.

For instance if 10% of Tory voters had stayed at home and not bothered voting, then the Tories would have finished 3rd and the transferred votes from the Tory voters would have probably gone mainly to the LDs, who'd have won the seat!