Alternative vote,sell it to me,or otherwise...

[Sassy Colin]

With the forthcoming Referendum on 5 May I am firmly in the undecided box.

So come on Politic'ards, pros & cons, which way should I vote for or against?

Perhaps a (gentle) mod would like to set up a poll for this?

btw last thread on this subject was 18 Feb but it wasn't really a pros & cons thread...

 

[Team Brian GB]

As I said in that previous thread my main concerns are regarding the balance of power, first past the post ensures strong, stable and responsible government and it allows for the regular transfer of power between the left and the right. Whilst it is likely that AV would do that as well it is less than certain, the fact that those addressing this are looking at it with the next election in mind or two elections in mind I find worrying, the yardstick for innovations like this should be what the ramifications are in ten, twenty, fifty elections time.

Plus I am not convinced on all the rules and regulations of AV. As far as I am aware, the vote counting goes on into someone surpasses 50% - once it gets to the second round they start reading the second preference votes of those candidates that got the least votes first time around. I might be wrong but I think they will stop as soon as somebody gets 50% without counting all the preferences in that round, even if another candidate got more second preferences than the eventual winner did.

If that is the case I really do not like it.

 

[Ubik]

Pros:

Forces a candidate to be preferred by 50% of the constituency - more representative.

Harder for seats to be safe with under 50% of the vote.

Eliminates need for tactical voting.

If you can count, it's pretty easy to vote.

Makes it harder for dodgy fringe parties like the BNP to stand a chance of winning a seat (very, very unlikely to win a majority of support anywhere).

Unlikely to result in hung parliaments.

Cons:

Not true PR so the real electoral reform people will want to change this before long too.

Some argue it's unfair to allow people to vote more than once.

Some argue it'll deter people from voting due to perceived complexity (though it shouldn't).



There are plenty more I'm sure but that's what comes to mind. I'm firmly in the "yes" camp.

 

[Team Brian GB]

I also do not like how your first/second/third etc. preference votes are all valued the same, a second preference vote should not be worth the same as a first preference vote.

 

[Sassy Colin]

I'm going to see if I can get a mod to put a poll on this...

 

[Ubik]

I also do not like how your first/second/third etc. preference votes are all valued the same, a second preference vote should not be worth the same as a first preference vote.

Why not? The point is to ensure that all polled people eventually agree on which candidate they wish to represent them. If you started devaluing the 2nd, 3rd preferences, it would defeat the whole object of the system - for a candidate to be approved by 50% of their constituents over a rival.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Forces a candidate to be preferred by 50% of the constituency - more representative.

Not really as it will all be about extents and degrees.

Eliminates need for tactical voting.

When you introduce more choice and complexity into the mix then tactical voting is definately going to increase, especially due to the added uncertainty that will result from it.

If you can count, it's pretty easy to vote.

True though inevitably the number of spoiled votes will increase and the regulations for counting votes would probably be ridiculous.

Makes it harder for dodgy fringe parties like the BNP to stand a chance of winning a seat (very, very unlikely to win a majority of support anywhere).

On the contrary it increases their chances as far more people would be willing to put them down as their second or third choices than their one and only, not that I expect it would drastically change their fortunes.

Unlikely to result in hung parliaments.

We would have hung parliaments far more often than we have had them since the Second World War.

 

[Red Defence]

Going to be a fair few confused voters and a fair few spoiled ballot papers.

Will encourage more tactical voting and will therefore not be truly representative at all.

There's something about this AV that I don't like at all...will think on it and come back later.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Why not? The point is to ensure that all polled people eventually agree on which candidate they wish to represent them. If you started devaluing the 2nd, 3rd preferences, it would defeat the whole object of the system - for a candidate to be approved by 50% of their constituents over a rival.

Because the voters in question do not consider them to be the best person available for the job, if I put one candidate first and another second I don't think they're the same so they shouldn't be allocated the same worth of vote. I know that makes it far more complicated but if you are going to go down this route it has to be done properly. I don't buy into the idea that someone has 50% support if their vote tally includes second/third/fourth preference votes.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Something else that would prove interesting is how long it would take people to vote, whilst that may sound frivilous and insignificant bear in mind there were thousands of people last year locked outside of polling stations across the country because they didn't get in due to queues before 10pm, if it takes on average another 20 seconds for someone to vote than they do now then over the time of a couple of hours that would build up to quite an additional backlog.

 

[Ubik]

Not really as it will all be about extents and degrees.

Hmm?

When you introduce more choice and complexity into the mix then tactical voting is definately going to increase, especially due to the added uncertainty that will result from it.

Why? Right now, if your preferred party's candidate stands no chance in your constituency, you might be tempted to vote for another party in order to defeat a party you really don't want to win. Here, you can put your first choice in, safe in the knowledge that you can still contribute to the final result by stating your preferences elsewhere. I guess you could define that as tactical should you wish, but in my view if it allows you to vote for your preferred party regardless of the situation it's far less tactical than the current system is.

On the contrary it increases their chances as far more people would be willing to put them down as their second or third choices than their one and only, not that I expect it would drastically change their fortunes.

Disagree, I do not believe that 50% of voters in any constituency would endorse the BNP. I believe it far more likely that they could win a seat in a troubled constituency under FPTP where they could take a very narrow minority.

We would have hung parliaments far more often than we have had them since the Second World War.

You may have some stats there that I'm unaware of, but my point remains that there is nothing inherent within the system that dictates a hung parliament would be more likely than FPTP (unlike PR).

Because the voters in question do not consider them to be the best person available for the job, if I put one candidate first and another second I don't think they're the same so they shouldn't be allocated the same worth of vote. I know that makes it far more complicated but if you are going to go down this route it has to be done properly. I don't buy into the idea that someone has 50% support if their vote tally includes second/third/fourth preference votes.

But it's a round based system. If you imagine it as happening in real time, after each round you'd be asked to vote again for your preference of the remaining candidates. When this gets down to the final 2, everyone is just asked "which of these two would you prefer?" The system would be completely pointless if you started halving the value of votes.

 

[peterstorey]

For me it's always labour first the rest nowhere. Like Brian I don't like this since it will tend to produce more middle-of-the-road indistinguishable politics.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Because the voters in question do not consider them to be the best person available for the job, if I put one candidate first and another second I don't think they're the same so they shouldn't be allocated the same worth of vote. I know that makes it far more complicated but if you are going to go down this route it has to be done properly. I don't buy into the idea that someone has 50% support if their vote tally includes second/third/fourth preference votes.

I think the idea is that a candidate is 'eliminated' after each round... so it's as if they were never on the ballot in the first place and people had been asked to cast their votes. The idea is that you get to a situation where the winning candidate would have beaten any other candidate in a straight 1 on 1 run off.

 

[Team Brian GB]

For me it's always labour first the rest nowhere. Like Brian I don't like this since it will tend to produce more middle-of-the-road indistinguishable politics.

Definately so, people complain that politicians are not firm enough in their convictions or give detailed or precise enough pledges and AV would make that far worse rather than better.

 

[Team Brian GB]

I think the idea is that a candidate is 'eliminated' after each round... so it's as if they were never on the ballot in the first place and people had been asked to cast their votes. The idea is that you get to a situation where the winning candidate would have beaten any other candidate in a straight 1 on 1 run off.

I understand that but it still doesn't square the circle that each of my preference votes are as valuable as every other despite being ranked.

 

[Red Defence]

I for one don't want to have to put 3 choices down on a ballot paper. In some regions you'll only get 3 or 4 standing anyway and it's quite likely there will be 2 of those that you don't want to give your vote too.

It's going to end up with "The Monster Raving Loony" party ending up with more support than is perhaps wise or intended.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

I understand that but it still doesn't square the circle that each of my preference votes are as valuable as every other despite being ranked.

No, they're not as valuable as it might not get beyond the first or second round. If it's a Labour vs Tory seat and I vote Labour, my lower preference votes are irrelevant.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

For me it's always labour first the rest nowhere. Like Brian I don't like this since it will tend to produce more middle-of-the-road indistinguishable politics.

First past the post gives you David Miliband. AV gives you Ed. Which is better I don't know.

 

[Sassy Colin]

I can't locate a mod at the moment to put a poll up, will try to sort it as soon as I can...

btw, not really convinced either way yet but I heard that the turnout may be as low as 15% on this. Maybe people don't really care as they would end up with the same old shit in the end anyway?

 

[Team Brian GB]

No, they're not as valuable as it might not get beyond the first or second round.

I know that but if it does go to second and third preferences then your 1st/2ns/3rd choices are all as valuable as each other.

I would be very surprised if tactical voting didn't go sky high if this went through as people would be trying to ensure their candidate wins and their closest rival loses, especially in marginals.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

I know that but if it does go to second and third preferences then your 1st/2ns/3rd choices are all as valuable as each other.

I would be very surprised if tactical voting didn't go sky high if this went through as people would be trying to ensure their candidate wins and their closest rival loses, especially in marginals.

Could you give an example of what kind of tactical voting you would expect and how it is worse than first past the post?

 

[Ubik]

I for one don't want to have to put 3 choices down on a ballot paper. In some regions you'll only get 3 or 4 standing anyway and it's quite likely there will be 2 of those that you don't want to give your vote too.

It's going to end up with "The Monster Raving Loony" party ending up with more support than is perhaps wise or intended.

You don't HAVE to do anything, you can just put a "1" in the box of your chosen candidate should you wish and leave it at that. The point is that if you want your vote to be redistributed should your candidate be eliminated, you can do so. If you don't, then don't.

If you put the Monsters as 4th choice and they get eliminated in the second round, your preference won't get allocated to them.

 

[Team Brian GB]

I can't locate a mod at the moment to put a poll up, will try to sort it as soon as I can...

btw, not really convinced either way yet but I heard that the turnout may be as low as 15% on this. Maybe people don't really care as they would end up with the same old shit in the end anyway?

Personally I would have waited until the next general election to ask this question to ensure a fairly even distribution of voters across the country. The devolved countries have their assembly elections so turnout will be (relatively) strong whilst in large parts of England it will be very low.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Could you give an example of what kind of tactical voting you would expect and how it is worse than first past the post?

Lets say there is currently a marginal constituency where a tory got 20,000 votes, labour 18,000, the lib dems 7,000, The Greens 2,000, some fringe candidate 500. If you are a Tory what are you going to do with your second vote and to what end will you use it for? If you are a Lib Dem what are you going to do with your first vote, let alone your second, what are the voters of the small parties going to do?

There are definately far more tactical considerations under AV than FPTP.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Lets say there is currently a marginal constituency where a tory got 20,000 votes, labour 18,000, the lib dems 7,000, The Greens 2,000, some fringe candidate 500. If you are a Tory what are you going to do with your second vote and to what end will you use it for? If you are a Lib Dem what are you going to do with your first vote, let alone your second, what are the voters of the small parties going to do?

There are definately far more tactical considerations under AV than FPTP.

Okay, let's take the example of your hypothetical seat.

Firstly the Tory voter has no tactical choice - their first choice candidate will be in until the final round. Same for Labour voters.

For someone who would genuinely prefer the Lib Dem or the Green candidate (and assuming they are sympathetic to other left-wing parties), why would they not put their genuine preferred candidate as their first choice? AV is the system that allows them to do so without being penalised. It's first past the post which makes them have to decide whether to 'waste' their vote on a certain to lose candidate or use their vote for Labour.

 

[Ubik]

Lets say there is currently a marginal constituency where a tory got 20,000 votes, labour 18,000, the lib dems 7,000, The Greens 2,000, some fringe candidate 500. If you are a Tory what are you going to do with your second vote and to what end will you use it for? If you are a Lib Dem what are you going to do with your first vote, let alone your second, what are the voters of the small parties going to do?

There are definately far more tactical considerations under AV than FPTP.

If you're a Lib Dem, you put the Lib Dems down first. What else would you do? Your votes only get redistributed once your candidate is eliminated, so there's no tactical consideration other than "who would I prefer should the Lib Dems be knocked out?".

If you're a Tory, I don't know where your second vote goes, depends on the person of course. EDIT - Mike has a good point on this one. Also, they're cleaning up at any rate from having no great competition on the right, whereas there are several vying for it on the left.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

I have heard a few people say 'AV means more tactical voting', but when I ask for an example of when it would be more beneficial to use tactical voting under AV than 'first past the post' they don't have an answer. It seems to me that AV tends to actually remove the need for tactical voting.

 

[Ubik]

I have heard a few people say 'AV means more tactical voting', but when I ask for an example of when it would be more beneficial to use tactical voting under AV than 'first past the post' they don't have an answer.

It just confuses me, since it seems patently obvious that the need for any real tactical voting as we know it is eliminated when you can rank your preferences. Sure, you can plot to get a particular party out of a seat, but that's not tactics, that's saying that a lot of people don't like a party and so it shouldn't win that seat anyway.

 

[Excal]

Imagine an 11-person constituency with 3 candidates; A, B, and C.

5 voters like Candidate A best. 3 of them, under AV voting, would choose B 2nd, 2 would choose C second.

3 voters like Candidate B best. All of them hate Candidate A, and choose candidate C 2nd.

3 voters like Candidate C best. All of them hate Candidate A, and choose candidate B 2nd.

Under FPTP, A is elected. Under AV, B is elected. Whichever you think is the correct outcome is what you should support.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Imagine an 11-person constituency with 3 candidates; A, B, and C.

5 voters like Candidate A best. 3 of them, under AV voting, would choose B 2nd, 2 would choose C second.

3 voters like Candidate B best. All of them hate Candidate A, and choose candidate C 2nd.

3 voters like Candidate C best. All of them hate Candidate A, and choose candidate B 2nd.

Under FPTP, A is elected. Under AV, B is elected. Whichever you think is the correct outcome is what you should support.

Yes, that's a pretty succinct way of putting it.

The way I look at it, if A were elected 6 people are really unhappy, whereas if B were elected then only the 2 voters wouldn't have chosen them.

 

[Red Defence]

You don't HAVE to do anything, you can just put a "1" in the box of your chosen candidate should you wish and leave it at that. The point is that if you want your vote to be redistributed should your candidate be eliminated, you can do so. If you don't, then don't.

If you put the Monsters as 4th choice and they get eliminated in the second round, your preference won't get allocated to them.

Yeah, I realise that. When I wote the post I was mainly thinking about about the different types of people voting.

You'll get the ones who aren't interested and don't want to think about it but know who they want so they'll vote for one candidate.

You'll get some others who can barely be bothered anyway....they will just put a first preference in and then something silly for the 2nd, in the hope of preventing the candidate they don't want from getting in. (I'm betting there's a good number of those).

You'll then get the ones who'll put the first two down and then something silly, followed by the ones who will think very carefully about it and fill it in properly, followed by the ones who have carefully listened to their party and followed their instructions on how to list the candidates in order to increase the chance of their candidate going through.

It's going to be a real mish mash of results which will give a false impression of the popularity of some candidates. I don't feel the results of the voting will necessarily represent people's actual desires.

Still, don't take anything I say too seriously atm...I've still got to think about it yet. These are just different voting reactions by people which are busily tossing themselves around in my head.

 

[peterstorey]

Yes, that's a pretty succinct way of putting it.

The way I look at it, if A were elected 6 people are really unhappy, whereas if B were elected then only the 2 voters wouldn't have chosen them.

Hardly compelling, they only chose them as 'next best' or 'least worst'. If I can't get my preference I don't want some not-as-bad-as-the-others candidate (particularly in real terms as we've seen what the LibDems will do in power)..

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Hardly compelling, they only chose them as 'next best' or 'least worst'. If I can't get my preference I don't want some not-as-bad-as-the-others candidate (particularly in real terms as we've seen what the LibDems will do in power)..

Then you would just put Labour as your first preference and no further preferences.

 

[peterstorey]

Then you would just put Labour as your first preference and no further preferences.

I know but that's just my vote, I think most people will use their options and produce a result as outlined by Excal.

 

[Excal]

Hardly compelling, they only chose them as 'next best' or 'least worst'. If I can't get my preference I don't want some not-as-bad-as-the-others candidate (particularly in real terms as we've seen what the LibDems will do in power)..

So if you can't get your way, you don't care who gets elected? Toys. Pram. Chucking thereof.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

I know but that's just my vote, I think most people will use their options and produce a result as outlined by Excal.

Only if they genuinely have further preferences I would have thought? You won't be seeing Tories on my ballot paper no matter how low down.

 

[peterstorey]

So if you can't get your way, you don't care who gets elected? Toys. Pram. Chucking thereof.

Yep, that's about it. If it's not Labour it might as well be Tory (see last election).

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Yep, that's about it. If it's not Labour it might as well be Tory (see last election).

As bad as the Lib Dems have been, it could still have been worse. A Tory majority would have meant inheritance tax being effectively scrapped, a marriage tax break and probably all sorts of other shit on top of what is already happening.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

And if we'd had AV the Tories wouldn't even be in government...

 

[Team Brian GB]

And if we'd had AV the Tories wouldn't even be in government...

There is no possible way to determine that, I know you've uploaded models of previous election results with AV applied to them but that doesn't really tell you anything. People probably would have voted differently under AV than FPTP and therefore it is impossible to know what would have happened.