AV - whats the crack?


Status
Not open for further replies.
Assumed so, judging by the first sentence I read "Your taxes haven't paid for this leaflet."

Well, someone's paid for it, in a round about way I pretty sure that it probably was my taxes.

We have no idea who paid for it because, despite bleating about the six month non-disclosure rules, NotoAV have steadfastly refused to reveal their donors. Meanwhile, Yes to Fairer votes have anounced all of theirs.

I think it's a safe bet it will be tax dodging cúnts like Ashcroft though.
 
i wasnt going to bother voting on this but now ive seen ed milliband is campaigning for a yes vote along with his labour cronies i am now going to make the effort to vote no.
 
It is like, because whoever wins has at least a degree of consent from over 50% of the electorate. The people chose to pick that party as a second or third option, they did not have to pick an alternative choice. If it was compulsory to vote for one than one party i've be voting against AV.

Yes, but one of the points I was making (not too clearly on reflection) is that the order in which the minor/most unpopular parties go out can change who achieves the victory threshold first.

Several candidates could be capable of acheiving the required proportion of votes in any one election.

With respect, that's the most extreme scenario you can think of, and it's not much worse than the current system that saw a government get nothing like half the popular vote and still govern.

And of course, the extremes of FPTP are way less representative of the public will. AV isn't perfect, but it is a big step in the right direction.

I was going for the most simplistic scenario to illustrate a point.

A point which still stands, as mentioned in my reply to Christ on a Bike.

It's possible to reach the victory threshold before others simply because you were the second choice behind several unpopular parties who happend to get knocked out of the voting first.

If you support a minority party your first, second and third choices etc may all be counted. If you support a popular party it's possible your second choice won't even be considered.

It's certainly not fair.

I don't think it's a step in the right direction at all.
 
Yes, but one of the points I was making (not too clearly on reflection) is that the order in which the minor/most unpopular parties go out can change who achieves the victory threshold first.

Several candidates could be capable of acheiving the required proportion of votes in any one election.



I was going for the most simplistic scenario to illustrate a point.

A point which still stands, as mentioned in my reply to Christ on a Bike.

It's possible to reach the victory threshold before others simply because you were the second choice behind several unpopular parties who happend to get knocked out of the voting first.

If you support a minority party your first, second and third choices etc may all be counted. If you support a popular party it's possible your second choice won't even be considered.

It's certainly not fair.

I don't think it's a step in the right direction at all.

The same as it is now? As if you support a minority party you have the option of voting for your choice (and wasting your vote) or going for your 2nd/3rd choice to keep the other one out.
 
The same as it is now? As if you support a minority party you have the option of voting for your choice (and wasting your vote) or going for your 2nd/3rd choice to keep the other one out.

Yes, there is that option already. So does it need changing?

The new system will magnify and expand the importance of voters who support niche candidates beyond that of voters who support mainstream candidates. It's not a fair system.

One person. One vote. Each vote worth the same. That seems a fairer system to me.
 
I was going for the most simplistic scenario to illustrate a point.

A point which still stands, as mentioned in my reply to Christ on a Bike.

It's possible to reach the victory threshold before others simply because you were the second choice behind several unpopular parties who happend to get knocked out of the voting first.

If you support a minority party your first, second and third choices etc may all be counted. If you support a popular party it's possible your second choice won't even be considered.

It's certainly not fair.

I don't think it's a step in the right direction at all.

But it assumes a voting pattern that would be extremely likely to happen in real life - i.e. a sizable proportion of people choosing both a specific party, and not to exercise their other preferences. The only way that would happen is if a particular party instructed voters not to give preferences, and there'd be no benefit in doing that.

Anecdotally at least, I don't know anyone who does use at least some of the preferences when voting here. If you asked anyone who they were voting for in the last GE, the answer would typically be 'I'll give Seamus O'Lovelyman my first choice, Niamh Ni Quitegood my number 2, then I'll give The Fringe Party my 3 and 4 to stop The I Hate the Brits Alliance getting in'.

People here tend to vote in people, then use their preferences to try and keep out parties. And incidentally, turn out is usually very high compared to the UK. People really feel empowered as voters, cast iron safe seats don't really exist under STV, or at least not in the same rigid way as with FPTP.

But, you have your doubts, and you've got your reasons for them. At least you're not voting No due to all the toss about maternity wards and that.
 
But it assumes a voting pattern that would be extremely likely to happen in real life - i.e. a sizable proportion of people choosing both a specific party, and not to exercise their other preferences. The only way that would happen is if a particular party instructed voters not to give preferences, and there'd be no benefit in doing that.

Anecdotally at least, I don't know anyone who does use at least some of the preferences when voting here. If you asked anyone who they were voting for in the last GE, the answer would typically be 'I'll give Seamus O'Lovelyman my first choice, Niamh Ni Quitegood my number 2, then I'll give The Fringe Party my 3 and 4 to stop The I Hate the Brits Alliance getting in'.

People here tend to vote in people, then use their preferences to try and keep out parties. And incidentally, turn out is usually very high compared to the UK. People really feel empowered as voters, cast iron safe seats don't really exist under STV, or at least not in the same rigid way as with FPTP.

But, you have your doubts, and you've got your reasons for them. At least you're not voting No due to all the toss about maternity wards and that.

Well, it's partly about the maternity wards. I also like the vibrant, yet sickly, colour schemes they've used on their leaflets.
 
Anti-AV. A system in which the most popular first choice loses out is just a smack in the face for the constituents, for or against that candidate.

The second and third choices will inevitably be tactical votes designed to keep a main candidate out, potentially leading to confusing situations in which a minor candidate gets in.

At least with true PR in an enlarged constituency, the most popular candidates can't be kept out.
 
Well, it's partly about the maternity wards. I also like the vibrant, yet sickly, colour schemes they've used on their leaflets.

They are vomilicious.

Anti-AV. A system in which the most popular first choice loses out is just a smack in the face for the constituents, for or against that candidate.

The second and third choices will inevitably be tactical votes designed to keep a main candidate out, potentially leading to confusing situations in which a minor candidate gets in.

At least with true PR in an enlarged constituency, the most popular candidates can't be kept out.

That just is not true.
 
I think the SMB has helped me make up my mind.
Whilst neither system is perfect and I am not overly keen on siding with David Cameron, I think I am voting No.
I believe you should go with the power of your convictions and vote for who you want. If they don't get in, then they weren't popular enough.
There's nothing more frustrating than people who can't make their minds up whether at work, on the road or in Supermarkets. Basing our political system on ditherers is not the way forward for me.
 
Note I said 'potentially', but a first choice candidtate losing out will happen if AV is voted for and we'll be discussing further reform a few more years down the road.
 

Party A gets 40% of the vote.

Second preferences are then taken into account. The only way Party A won't get in is if no one at all gives them their second preference. That, in the real world, would not happen. I watched the Irish GE results come in, and if a party recorded a large vote (i.e. 30% or more) in the first round, then they got a seat by the 2nd or 3rd count without exception.

On the other hand, under FPTP, Party A get in despite the fact that, as far as we know, 60% didn't want them in. Isn't it a better system to find out what those 60% actually wanted?

Note I said 'potentially', but a first choice candidtate losing out will happen if AV is voted for and we'll be discussing further reform a few more years down the road.

I agree with that mind. Once you've had a taste of AV, you'll realise that it's absurd that you can't have STV, or similar.

I suspect that the No vote will win mind. Milliband is doing a typically shit job.
 
Logon or register to see this image


If the most popular party has 40% of the votes and the second largest has 39%. Then the least popular party will be disqualified and their votes will need to vote for someone else (second choice). Those votes COULD go to the 39% party but they could equally go to the 40% party.

This keeps happening (with the least popular party's supporters having to change their vote) until someone has more than 50% support.

The winner in AV is the one who gets more than 50% of the constituents at least finding them "acceptable" if not perfect.

This will avoid situations where two similar parties split the vote and a party gets in with a very small percentage of support. (For example: Tories 30%, Labour 29%, Greens 29%) assuming that all the greens would find Labour more acceptable than the tories.

It would mean parties would have to appeal to a much wider part of their constituency than they currently had to and not just require on VOTE FOR US TO KEEP THE TORIES OUT (or VOTE FOR US TO KEEP LABOUR OUT)
 
Interesting stuff. This debate lead me to look in to the situation in Australia and I found this very interesting link

http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/esy/esy_au

Definitely worth a read. It's basically made me change my mind from NO to YES. What we are voting for in the UK is NOT what they have in Australia, we are voting for optional AV meaning you can only vote for one person if you so wish. In Australia a ballot paper is discarded if all prefences are not completed. They have optional AV in 2 states for local elections and a majority of people choose just one candidate in these elections.

From what I gather this optional AV system in the UK is only going to deliver a different result in less than 5% of seats, if adopted in the UK, than FPTP. In these seats, obviously marginals, tactical voting will come in to play where each party will issue voting cards showing their voting preference. This will surely mean more Conservatives will lose seats, which is why Dave Cam is opposing it so strongly.
 
Party A gets 40% of the vote.

Second preferences are then taken into account. The only way Party A won't get in is if no one at all gives them their second preference. That, in the real world, would not happen. I watched the Irish GE results come in, and if a party recorded a large vote (i.e. 30% or more) in the first round, then they got a seat by the 2nd or 3rd count without exception.

On the other hand, under FPTP, Party A get in despite the fact that, as far as we know, 60% didn't want them in. Isn't it a better system to find out what those 60% actually wanted?

First Choices: Tories on 42%, Labour on 36% in a given costituency. Lib Dems back on 20% for sake of argument. Monster Raving Looney Party on 2%.

No result.

Second Choices: Monster Raving Looney Party people opt to split between Tory and Labour. Tories 43%, Labour 37%, Lib Dems 20%.

No result.

Third Choices:

Three Quaters of the Lib Dems opt for Labour to keep the Tories. Tories (43+5=)48%, Labour (37+15=)52%.

Labour wins.

How is the most popular candidate on first choice votes losing out fair?

At least with a PR system in an enlarged constituency, the most popular first choice isn't disregarded. Also, the wishes of the other voters aren't disregarded either and everyone has a say.

I'd rather stick with the current system until we can have a debate and vote on full PR.
 
If the most popular party has 40% of the votes and the second largest has 39%. Then the least popular party will be disqualified and their votes will need to vote for someone else (second choice). Those votes COULD go to the 39% party but they could equally go to the 40% party.

This keeps happening (with the least popular party's supporters having to change their vote) until someone has more than 50% support.

The winner in AV is the one who gets more than 50% of the constituents at least finding them "acceptable" if not perfect.

This will avoid situations where two similar parties split the vote and a party gets in with a very small percentage of support. (For example: Tories 30%, Labour 29%, Greens 29%) assuming that all the greens would find Labour more acceptable than the tories.

It would mean parties would have to appeal to a much wider part of their constituency than they currently had to and not just require on VOTE FOR US TO KEEP THE TORIES OUT (or VOTE FOR US TO KEEP LABOUR OUT)

I understand what you are saying, but the winner being decided possibly on third choices in worst case scenarios ahead of the most popular first choice can't possibly in the long run be palattable. As I've explained, we'd be better off going for full PR, as there is the potential for the most first choice views to be disregarded.
 
First Choices: Tories on 42%, Labour on 36% in a given costituency. Lib Dems back on 20% for sake of argument. Monster Raving Looney Party on 2%.

No result.

Second Choices: Monster Raving Looney Party people opt to split between Tory and Labour. Tories 43%, Labour 37%, Lib Dems 20%.

No result.

Third Choices:

Three Quaters of the Lib Dems opt for Labour to keep the Tories. Tories (43+5=)48%, Labour (37+15=)52%.

Labour wins.

How is the most popular candidate on first choice votes losing out fair?

At least with a PR system in an enlarged constituency, the most popular first choice isn't disregarded. Also, the wishes of the other voters aren't disregarded either and everyone has a say.

I'd rather stick with the current system until we can have a debate and vote on full PR.

Because outside of first preference, most people would prefer Labour over Tories.

Most popular first choice is already disregarded under FPTP anyway - essentially this happens at the ballot box unless you're voting one of the big 3. And as mentioned before, all we know under FPTP in your example given above is that 58% of the electorate didn't want the winners.

Having said that, your last line makes sense. AV is far from perfect, though I do think it's a significant improvement on FPTP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top