AV arguments
Jane Vernon
somerat was asking where one could find all the pros and cons of AV set
out in a reasoned manner.
I haven't read it myself, but this might be the place:
--
Jane
The potter in the purple socks
email jane at cloth and clay dot co dot uk
http://twitter.com/purplepotter for Twitter and
http://clothandclay.blogspot.com/ for blog
http://www.clothandclay.co.uk/umra/cookbook.htm for recipes supplied by
umrats
Linda Fox
> Sorry I'm not able to put my mouse on the thread or post now, but
> somerat was asking where one could find all the pros and cons of AV set
> out in a reasoned manner.
>
> I haven't read it myself, but this might be the place:
>
> http://wrangl.com/av
>
the "no" arguments as excuses, though. And often silly excuses at that.
lff
Sally Thompson
(in article <910lsb...@mid.individual.net>):
> Sorry I'm not able to put my mouse on the thread or post now, but
> somerat was asking where one could find all the pros and cons of AV set
> out in a reasoned manner.
>
> I haven't read it myself, but this might be the place:
>
> http://wrangl.com/av
>
>
'Twas I, said the fly. Thank you! Bookmarked and will read thoroughly
later.
--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
BobE
That's interesting. You can still put a X next to a candidate.
I don't think that was stated on the guvm'nt leaflet.
Jane Vernon
Leaflet? I did a YouGov survey that told me all households would have a
leaflet. We haven't seen one, though.
Chris. McMillan
<sp...@nopotteratthisaddress.co.uk> writes
>On 17/04/2011 21:23, BobE wrote:
>> On Apr 17, 8:18 pm, Linda Fox<linda...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> On 17/04/2011 18:21, Jane Vernon wrote:> Sorry I'm not able to put
>>>my mouse on the thread or post now, but
>>>> somerat was asking where one could find all the pros and cons of AV set
>>>> out in a reasoned manner.
>>>
>>>> I haven't read it myself, but this might be the place:
>>>
>>>> http://wrangl.com/av
>>>
>>> That one seemed to be giving all the "yes" arguments as reasons and all
>>> the "no" arguments as excuses, though. And often silly excuses at that.
>>
>> That's interesting. You can still put a X next to a candidate.
>> I don't think that was stated on the guvm'nt leaflet.
>
>Leaflet? I did a YouGov survey that told me all households would have
>a leaflet. We haven't seen one, though.
>
councillors today of the right persuasion and I could have asked him
about it. I don't really understand it at all - and one of my friends
who does understand it wrote something about it for me and a few other
despairing friends - and its about as clear as mud.
Someone should write a book 'AV for Dummies'
Sincerely Chris
>
--
Chris
China Vision UK http://www.chinavisionuk.org
Beijing One Plus One Disabled Persons' Development Center
http://www.yijiayi.org
J. P. Gilliver (John)
<spa...@ntlworld.com> writes:
[]
>Someone should write a book 'AV for Dummies'
>
>Sincerely Chris
>>
>
Voters are asked to rank as many of the candidates as they wish, in
order. Of course, they are still free to only vote for one candidate if
they wish.
The votes are counted, looking only at who people put as their first
choice. If one of the candidates gets more than half the votes cast, he
or she wins - end of story.
If none of them have more than half the votes cast, the game of musical
chairs begins. Whichever candidate had _least_ first choice votes is
removed, but their votes aren't - apart from those votes which only
listed the one candidate, which are discarded. The votes for the removed
candidate which did list a second preference, are added to the first
preferences figures for the candidates who are left, based on the second
preferences indicated.
If one of the candidates now has more than half the votes that haven't
been discarded, s/he wins. Otherwise, again, whoever has the lowest
_total_ is again removed, and _their_ votes redistributed among the
remaining candidates, discarding any votes which _only_ listed the
removed candidates.
Repeat above paragraph until somebody's total _is_ more than half the
total votes remaining.
I hope that helps - it's just a paraphrase of the leaflet.
I'll try to give an example: let's say we have a CON, LAB, LIB, and BNP
candidate.
Assuming not more than half the votes cast put any of them as first
preference, and BNP has the fewest first preference, then BNP is out.
The votes that put BNP first are re-examined: any that _only_ put BNP
are discarded, and the remaining ones are added to the totals for the
other three, based on what people put as _second_ choice.
If now one of them has more {first-choice plus BNP-second-choice} than
half the total remaining votes, he wins. If not, whoever's total is
lowest is discarded, and their votes re-examined: let's say LIB. Any
votes that _only_ listed LIB, or LIB and BNP, are discarded, and the
rest - based on their second choices (if first was LIB) or third choices
(if BNP) - are redistributed between the remaining two.
I think you can guess the rest.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Anytime you want to know more about ancient S American testicles, just ask.
[ni...@nandj.freeserve.co.uk (Nick Atty), in UMRA, Thu, 19 Aug 1999 18:46:55
GMT]
BobE
<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
So: if, in a hypothetical case,
the first choices are
Blue 35%
Orange 30%
Red 25%
Purple 5%
Green 3%
White 1%
Everyone chooses Green for their second choice (except those what
voted Green as their first choice; they all put Purple as their second
choice).
So: White is eliminated and the votes now appear as before except
Green now have 4% of the vote.
Next: Green is eliminated even though everyone quite likes Green.
Next Purple goes
In fact, it is not until Red is eliminated and her supporters fifth
choices decides that Orange wins the seat with now 51% of the vote.
the Omrud
> In message <91123e...@mid.individual.net>, Jane Vernon
> <sp...@nopotteratthisaddress.co.uk> writes
>> On 17/04/2011 21:23, BobE wrote:
>>> On Apr 17, 8:18 pm, Linda Fox<linda...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>> On 17/04/2011 18:21, Jane Vernon wrote:> Sorry I'm not able to put
>>>> my mouse on the thread or post now, but
>>>>> somerat was asking where one could find all the pros and cons of AV
>>>>> set
>>>>> out in a reasoned manner.
>>>>
>>>>> I haven't read it myself, but this might be the place:
>>>>
>>>>> http://wrangl.com/av
>>>>
>>>> That one seemed to be giving all the "yes" arguments as reasons and all
>>>> the "no" arguments as excuses, though. And often silly excuses at that.
>>>
>>> That's interesting. You can still put a X next to a candidate.
>>> I don't think that was stated on the guvm'nt leaflet.
>>
>> Leaflet? I did a YouGov survey that told me all households would have
>> a leaflet. We haven't seen one, though.
>>
> Wish you'd written that last night, Jane. I saw one of our local
> councillors today of the right persuasion and I could have asked him
> about it. I don't really understand it at all - and one of my friends
> who does understand it wrote something about it for me and a few other
> despairing friends - and its about as clear as mud.
>
> Someone should write a book 'AV for Dummies'
I am a little surprised by some of the confusion - we used the same
scheme (then called Single Transferrable Vote) for union elections at
Manchester in the 70s.
--
David
Linda Fox
that only those who voted blue in first place actually wanted blue; most
of the others seem to have pretty well said that they didn't. Does that
sound right? So there were fewer people that didn't want orange than
didn't want blue? Presumably red's 2nd 3rd and 4th choices were purple
green and white?
lff
Sally Thompson
(in article <+tRwOWUD...@soft255.demon.co.uk>):
Thanks old bean. I haven't seen a guvmint leaflet either, but have had two
exhortations for me to vote No.
LFS
And in the 60s there, too. I have a feeling that we may also use it at
Brookes for committee elections but these are rarely contested these days.
The Woman's Hour discussion on this this morning also seemed remarkably
confused. One contributor observed that the franchise means that one is
entitled to cast a vote but there is no automatic entitlement to vote
for the winner, a point that seems to be ignored in the debate about
"lost" votes.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Alex
the options quite well. However, if you haven't got it, Victor will
excplain it to you online at
http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/referendum_2011.aspx?
Alex
Mark Williams
"the Omrud" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:iogtep$b16$1...@news.albasani.net...
Presumably nobody tried to think through all of the possible outcomes in the
70's. I don't think there is a lot of confusion over the mechanism, but how
it works when applied to an array of candidates who have already been
filtered by their parties can be difficult to analyse.
STV is a more general version of AV (because under STV there is usually more
than one winner). In a student election in my day there would be an array
of bearded woners (especially the women) ranging from right on Spartist
lefties through a spectrum of liberals with the occasional trustafarian Tory
wannabe and far-right nutjobs. The STV process would wittle those numbers
down to a student committee of six or so, usually ensuring that most of the
mainstream political cliques got elected.
I suspect that AV would work very differently where instead of a broad range
of politcal views the main 3 (or 8, 10) parties have already weeded out many
of those potential candidates with similar views to the parties preferred
candidate.
Mark Williams
"Linda Fox" <lind...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:KRTqp.51251$9z4....@newsfe14.ams2...
So AV works by choosing candidates on the basis of what the voters don't
want least rather than what they want the most? That doesn't sound right
either.
Nick Odell
That fits. After all most of them (the voters) will be watching the
debates on 'the least worst television in the world'
Nick
BobE
No mention of being able to just mark one candidate with a X.
the Omrud
I hadn't heard of that before, but I suspect it would be taken as an
obvious first preference, provided none of the other boxes are filled
in. Returning Officers are allowed to use their discretion if it's
obvious what the voter intended.
--
David
Derek Turner
> Sorry I'm not able to put my mouse on the thread or post now, but
> somerat was asking where one could find all the pros and cons of AV set
> out in a reasoned manner.
>
> I haven't read it myself, but this might be the place:
>
> http://wrangl.com/av
That's interesting!
Those of us who currently live outside the UK are entitled to vote at
general elections but have no say in the the system to be used in the
next GE because we are (understandably) not entitled to vote in any local
election. Nurse! I've been disenfranchised!
BrritSki
system requires mandatory multiple choices, but aiui 90% of the winners
of their elections would be the same result under fptp as av.
I doubt it will be much different in the UK when you consider a majority
of seats won't even go to a second count.
I think this is an argument for voting no, which is what I will do if I
get a postal vote and can return it in time, but it also means I won't
be too exercised if the system changes, although I understand the no
campaign is ahead in the polls.
BobE
Yebbut the http://wrangl.com/av site suggests it is officially ok.
At the counts I've attended, any possibly dubiously marked voting
slips are gathered up for the candidates to agree on whether they
should be acceptable. I suppose, if it came to it, it would be the
Returning Officer to make the final decision.
Linda Fox
settle for.
Surely there must have been times in some kind of election, even for
form captain at school, where you've thought "I'd most like Tom to win,
but I won't mind if it's Harry; I just hope, really pray, that it's not
Andy"? Think how you feel if Tom wins, think how you feel if Harry wins,
and think how you feel if Andy wins. If it's Harry, is your
disappointment that it's not Tom greater or less than your bile that
you've ended up with Andy? Based on "your" expression of your feelings
up ^there?
You aren't really going to get what the electorate as a whole positively
"wants the most" unless it's over 50%, that's agreed. What you will get
with AV, and what you always risk *not* getting with FPTP, is a winner
which the majority of the electorate "will be happy with"
I've just read the NO campaign leaflet and the amount of false reasoning
in it quite astonishing.
Excuse the masculine pronouns, it's just for shorthand.
If the candidate who gets the most votes polls more than the rest put
together, then he's the one "they want the most", no dispute. If he
doesn't get as many as the rest put together, he could in fact be the
one who "most" of them wouldn't elect even if the only other candidate
was Basil Brush.
Let's look at that NO leaflet. On page 3, the header is "the second or
third best can win under AV".
The flaw here is the word "best". The candidate in first place isn't
necessarily the "best" - not even if they're the most fancied. It's not
the same thing. So that line is tosh. Sadly (or not?) the election isn't
to get the "best" otherwise it would be an examination, not an election.
Lower down the page, is the heading "Under AV the votes of the least
popular candidate can decide who wins the election".
Er... "votes of the CANDIDATE"? They're not the votes of the flippin'
candidate, you plonkers, they're the votes of the people who put that
candidate at the top, or a little below, in many cases, one or several
other candidates. Who falls for this garbage?
On the back page it says "AV would give the LibDems extra seats" and an
attack on Nick Clegg who want it to "save his party" (actually, Dr NO,
it's my party too, don't I count?). Forgetting that he had already made
electoral reform a condition of supporting what would otherwise be a
minority government. Considering that AV producing a LibDem MP would
mean that more of the constituency would be "happy with" a LibDem than
ANY OTHER, what does that say about the people pushing the NO vote?
And finally, the biggest one of all. The picture of the winner in a
race, with the heading "the winner should be the one that comes first"
Totally false logic. Let me draw an analogy. I used to do this one when
I was teaching in school and when the pop charts were based entirely on
sales.
I used to ask them if they thought no.1 was the best record of the week,
and if they thought it was the most liked record of the week. A lot of
these kids (usually age 12-14) thought it was the best, and an alarming
number thought it was automatically the most liked.
I compared the charts with the football league tables. In order to stay
at the top of the league table, the team has to _perform_, to win
matches, all the time, not all laid out at the beginning of the season
for them to sit back and watch and see if it really does roll out as
well as they'd hoped. The records in the charts are not based on what
the "performers" did this week.They are based on the sales of what is
basically a fait accompli, performed and produced weeks, months or even
years ago. So not the same thing, so they're based on what the
*purchasers* did this week. Sometimes the performers couldn't have done
anything this week because they're dead now. If Bohemian Rhapsody was
"better" than Love Me Do last week, they haven't changed. It must still
be "better". Oh, so now you're telling me the charts are about what
people "think" is better this week, Tracey? Fair enough, on to the next bit.
I then compared the charts with a weekly chart of sales of chocolate
bars. Maybe this is better, as it does reflect what people like. But no,
it doesn't: if you like Mars bars better than any other, and your views
haven't changed over the period of three months, you will very likely
keep choosing Mars bars. You don't buy one Mars bar and say "this is my
favourite, I will keep it for ever and ever". On the whole, people don't
keep renewing their purchases of records. Once they've bought it,
they've got it, and if it's their favourite, they will still like it
best even if they boost their record collection with another one this
week. The line I read so often in response to my question "If a disc was
at number one last week, and this week it is at number four, what does
that mean?" was "it means they are tired of it and they are buying a
different record". It was this use of the present continuous that gave
away the lack of thought behind this.
So: number one in the charts is not - necessarily - the best. And it's
not - necessarily - the one people think is best. These charts are
misleading. Comparing the no.1 disc with the best-selling chocolate
(most liked) or the top of the league (best) is a false analogy.
And so is the comparison between the runners in a race and the
candidates in an election. It's a false analogy.
A race is a one-off performance between a group of runners. You could
run the same race on five days in succession and get five different
results. It depends solely on what the runners themselves do. If Usain
Bolt trips over in one of these races, he comes in last. It's not
affected by the cheers and boos and come-on-tims of the crowd.
In an election it is not the candidates whose performance is being
counted. It's the voters. And there it's not so simple. Because many
voters (a)can't quite make their mind up or (b)would really like Basil
Brush to win, but realise there are too few of them, and they're afraid
that if all Basil's fans vote for him, Silvio Berlusconi might get in by
a majority just smaller than Basil's total fan-base, so maybe they all
ought to vote for that nice Mr Nuncius in order not to have to go to
Silvio's "surgery" when they want to press for a change in the law on
fishpuns. Many voters are very likely to say "I don't mind who wins as
long as it's not so-and-so". So their performance is complex. They
frequently do have more than one idea.
On the same page, the sentence reads "It is wrong that the person who
came second or third can overtake the person with the most votes and be
allowed to win because the second, third or even lower choices or
supporters of extreme parties such as the BNP are counted again and
again and again"
Well, no they aren't, whoever wrote this piffle.
Each subsidiary choice is only counted once - by being added to the
party you cast it for. It can't be added more than once. And if the
party it goes to ends up in last place on that pass-through, that party
will be eliminated. All the papers used to elect that party, including
yours, will then have their NEXT choice added to another party: *a party
which has already managed not to come last twice*. And remember, *the
second, third and fourth choices of BNP supporters will NOT be for the
BNP.* (Or maybe more significant, but less grammatical, they will be for
"NOT the BNP", and eventually, unless the BNP supporter has not made
many choices, they will be votes for one of the major parties) So as the
elimination goes on, the candidates that not enough people could
tolerate enough to mark them as a choice will be whittled away.
I rather hope someone from the NO support would come round here
canvassing <evil grin>
Linda Fox
> I know the Australian experience is not exactly comparable as their
> system requires mandatory multiple choices, but aiui 90% of the winners
> of their elections would be the same result under fptp as av.
>
> I doubt it will be much different in the UK when you consider a majority
> of seats won't even go to a second count.
Do you mean that the majority of seats in the general election were won
on an overall majority? I don't know what the figures are.
>
> I think this is an argument for voting no
So sod the voters in those seats which wouldn't have an overall majority
then?
If there's an overall majority, they won't need to bother with counting
the rest of the votes, will they? I think it's a pretty poor argument
myself.
lff
Mark Williams
But it doesn't give you that. Imagine an election with 50 candidates where
there is no notable winner in the first round but one candidate is
everybody's second choice but nobody's first choice. By your reasoning that
person "ought" to be the winner but is actually eliminated in the first
round.
<snip>
> Each subsidiary choice is only counted once - by being added to the party
> you cast it for. It can't be added more than once. And if the party it
> goes to ends up in last place on that pass-through, that party will be
> eliminated. All the papers used to elect that party, including yours, will
> then have their NEXT choice added to another party: *a party which has
> already managed not to come last twice*.
Which is why the NO campaign say the vote is counted more than once. The
ballot paper of a voter whose vote is eliminated before the final round gets
to influence the vote in many different ways through their votes for the
eliminated candidates. The secondary preferences of a voter whose first
choice remains is not eliminated before the final round are never
considered.
Linda Fox
I don't think it quite follows, then, that they are the one that the
most people would be happy to settle for. Nobody, but nobody, actually
wanted that one most of all, and I think that's a strong deciding
factor. (And anyway, they still wouldn't get anywhere with FPTP either.)
I agree that one is a bit of an anomaly, but it does rather depend on
their getting no first votes at all, and I'm not sure the electoral
system can sustain that, can it? Don't they have to be nominated or
something? Don't they have to get a certain number of supporters to get
their name on the ballot paper? Or has that all changed now?
Do you think it's possible in reality, and not in hypothesis, that
someone that ALL the tory voters, and ALL the LD voters and ALL the
labour voters and the greens and the BNP wanted if their own guy didn't
get in, would not have anyone at all who actually wanted them the most?
lff
Jane Vernon
Personally, I'm dismayed at the thought that the yes vote might not win.
It had not occurred to me that most people would not see AV as fairer
than first past the post. AV means that everyone gets to vote on all
the possible variations of how many candidates there are.
I can see why some people are against it, though, if they support a
party whose members are frequently elected with less than 50% of the
vote. They want their people to continue getting voted in. I just
don't happen to think that's as fair. And yes, before you ask, that
would apply to me too, since my chosen candidate hasn't had more than
about 35% of the total vote, I think, even when he was elected.
Jane Vernon
No, I think it works on first you say what you'd want most but then if
you can't have it, you get to indicate what your least worst choices
are. You can indicate what you want least by not allocating that
candidate a number choice at all.
I'd prefer that very much to the present system where if I can't have my
first choice I have no further say in the matter.
Jane Vernon
Brilliant, Linda.
I just wish I thought that this kind of explanation would reach most
people.
Mark Williams
About 10 nominations I think, usually from party workers. But there is no
obligation on them to vote for you. Even so, the example still works with a
first round vote of 10, OK 11.
> Do you think it's possible in reality, and not in hypothesis, that someone
> that ALL the tory voters, and ALL the LD voters and ALL the labour voters
> and the greens and the BNP wanted if their own guy didn't get in, would
> not have anyone at all who actually wanted them the most?
Well let's look at another hypothetical constituency where 49.9% of the
electorate vote for the Blue candidate, 25% vote for the Yellow candidate
and the remaining 25.1% of the vote is taken by a motley assortment of Red,
Scarlet and Crimson parties. Because the Yellow candidate is a defector
from the Blue party none of the Blue voters put him as their second choice
and since the rest of the field are far too un-Blue, most of them don't put
any second choices.
On the other hand, because the Blue candidate is seen as quite a good MP and
the candidates of the various shades of Red parties all have reputations as
shysters and chancers, nearly all of the voters who put the Yellow candidate
as their first choice put the Blue candidate as second choice.
The Red, Scarlet and Crimson candidates realise that they each have little
chance of winning and tell all of their supporters to vote tactically and
put the other ruddy candidates as their second and third choices, putting
the Yellow party candidate as their fourth choice but omitting the Blue
candidate.
So we have a Blue candidate who is the first choice of 49.9% of voters and
the second choice of 25% of voters, and a Yellow candidate who is the first
choice of 25% of voters and the fourth choice of 25.1% of voters.
Who wins under AV? The Yellow candidate, of course, because AV is so much
fairer.
BobE
> On 18/04/2011 15:44, Mark Williams wrote:
> > ... Imagine an election with 50 candidates where
> > there is no notable winner in the first round but one candidate is
> > everybody's second choice but nobody's first choice. By your reasoning that
> > person "ought" to be the winner but is actually eliminated in the first
> > round.
>
BobE
That's why I gave Green 2% or therabouts.
In most constituencies where they can afford the deposit the GP get
about 1 - 3% of the vote in FPTP.
2% of 630 MPs is about 12 MPs. They have 1. Under AV they might get
none.
Roll on Proportional representation.
Mark Williams
"Jane Vernon" <sp...@nopotteratthisaddress.co.uk> wrote in message
news:913al2...@mid.individual.net...
I am afraid that is a fallacy. That doesn't apply to the choices of those
voters who support the losing candidate in the last round. Why should their
second and third choices not also be taken into account?
Linda Fox
you think under AV, in a constituency where the green is highly enough
regarded to win FPTP that they couldn't possibly win with AV? Remember
we're talking constituency by constituency and we probably have no way
of knowing whether all the opposition in that constituency (somewhere in
Brighton, as it?) was all fanatically anti-green, or whether many of
them, given a choice, would have voted Green as their second choice.
> Roll on Proportional representation.
Well, yes. Or better still, roll on some other method of government
rather than the adversarial politics which stops people who want the
same thing working together to find the best way of getting it, and
instead has them talking as though the other lot _doesn't_ want better
schools, or a fairer welfare system, or more law and order, and wasting
time and effort inventing crackpot alternative schemes because they
can't be seen agreeing with what the other side has recommended. So roll
on more cross-party working groups, and save the hot air for the things
they actually fundamentally disagree on.
lff
Linda Fox
taken away from any candidate, they're just reallocated and then added
on. When there are only two candidates left and one has 51% and one has
49%, what happens to the percentages if it turns out that the second
place candidate had 20% of their supporters giving second choice to the
one who "won", while the "winner" had no second-choice votes for the
"runner-up"? You can't add them on.
In a "two-horse race" (and as you know I don't like that analogy) there
would be no alternative votes needed because nobody would get
eliminated. I think what you're describing is a situation where, if 45%
say "I'd like Mark but I don't particularly mind if Linda gets elected"
and 55% say "I want Linda and I REALLY don't want Mark", then I'd win;
but if 45% say they want me and definitely DON'T want you, but 55% say
they don't much mind, but given a choice they'd go for you, then you win.
In the first scenario, more people have been spared what they don't
want. In the second scenario, more people have still been spared what
they don't want, in that they didn't "not-want" either situation. In
other words less than 50% said they didn't want you.
lff
Mark Williams
I don't see we need to work out the second choices of anybody. There may
well be other candidates who didn't stand (or were prevented from standing
by the party system who would actually be elected in preference to the
people who are elected. We don't take them into account either.
Any voting system is going to give a less than perfect choice and AV suffers
just as many imperfections as FPTP, so I don't see any merit in changing. AV
seems to encourage tactical voting (vote for "me", then vote for "this" one
so "that" one doesn't get in), which is just plain wrong. You shuld be
voting for the people you want to win against the people you don't want to
win.
Linda Fox
The only difference here is that you get a chance to vote for your
_real_ choice, and if he still comes in third and gets eliminated, your
vote will go to the one you might have felt obliged to vote for in FPTP
- the end result might be the same, but your favoured candidate will
have a better showing which means a lot in terms of forward planning.
It's in the places where tactical voting has been so much used in FPTP
that the true picture is obscured - this has happened as much in the
libdems' favour as to their detriment.
lff
BrritSki
> On 18/04/2011 14:03, BrritSki wrote:
>
>> I know the Australian experience is not exactly comparable as their
>> system requires mandatory multiple choices, but aiui 90% of the winners
>> of their elections would be the same result under fptp as av.
>>
>> I doubt it will be much different in the UK when you consider a majority
>> of seats won't even go to a second count.
>
> Do you mean that the majority of seats in the general election were won
> on an overall majority? I don't know what the figures are.
I don't have a reference, but I read it somewhere and it doesn't seem
unreasonable if you think of the large number of places where they only
ever vote one way and hardly ever change.
>>
>> I think this is an argument for voting no
>
> So sod the voters in those seats which wouldn't have an overall majority
> then?
> If there's an overall majority, they won't need to bother with counting
> the rest of the votes, will they? I think it's a pretty poor argument
> myself.
The argument is that if it doesn't make much difference why change ? I
think the cost arguments are probably overdone, but it is more complex
(even if understandable) and will cost more, and we're not exactly
swimming in money at the moment.
BrritSki
seem to want to make that sort of decision in fptp, but was prepared to
for av.
Linda Fox
You're saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and assuming that we will
accept that as meaning it ain't broke. A sizeable proportion of the
population don't agree with you.
I think you're saying "it suits me, so we should keep it". I wonder, if
we already had AV, would you want to campaign for FPTP?
lff
Mark Williams
Not to nearly the same extent. In AV everybody gets the chance tovote
tactically, many times on the same ballot sheet.
> The only difference here is that you get a chance to vote for your _real_
> choice, and if he still comes in third and gets eliminated, your vote will
> go to the one you might have felt obliged to vote for in FPTP - the end
> result might be the same,
So why change.
but your favoured candidate will
> have a better showing which means a lot in terms of forward planning.
??? I am not sure what you meant by that but if the only advantage of AV is
that it helps with "forward planning" in some unspecified way, the I am
quite happy to stick with FPTP.
> It's in the places where tactical voting has been so much used in FPTP
> that the true picture is obscured - this has happened as much in the
> libdems' favour as to their detriment.
Who are they?
Stephanie Mitchell
> On 17/04/2011 23:00, Chris. McMillan wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In message <91123eFlv...@mid.individual.net>, Jane Vernon
> > <s...@nopotteratthisaddress.co.uk> writes
> >> On 17/04/2011 21:23, BobE wrote:
> >>> On Apr 17, 8:18 pm, Linda Fox<linda...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 17/04/2011 18:21, Jane Vernon wrote:> Sorry I'm not able to put
> >>>> my mouse on the thread or post now, but
> >>>>> somerat was asking where one could find all the pros and cons of AV
> >>>>> set
> >>>>> out in a reasoned manner.
>
> >>>>> I haven't read it myself, but this might be the place:
>
> >>>>>http://wrangl.com/av
>
> >>>> the "no" arguments as excuses, though. And often silly excuses at that.
>
> >>> That's interesting. You can still put a X next to a candidate.
> >>> I don't think that was stated on the guvm'nt leaflet.
>
> >> Leaflet? I did a YouGov survey that told me all households would have
> >> a leaflet. We haven't seen one, though.
>
> > Wish you'd written that last night, Jane. I saw one of our local
> > councillors today of the right persuasion and I could have asked him
> > about it. I don't really understand it at all - and one of my friends
> > who does understand it wrote something about it for me and a few other
> > despairing friends - and its about as clear as mud.
>
> > Someone should write a book 'AV for Dummies'
>
> scheme (then called Single Transferrable Vote) for union elections at
> Manchester in the 70s.
I think we used it at university to vote for members of some sort of
student council or student union. As the organisation itself was
largely powerless it was all the more insulting to make the voting
system so complicated that you never knew where your vote was actually
going. My recollection is that every year leaflets and explanations
proliferated and voting interest plummeted. I think the system was
called by someone's surname, which is lost to me now, but perhaps that
name was of some American person connected with its promotion or
introduction, as university for me was in the US.
I don't recall anyone thinking the system was particularly
commendable.
I do recall it being further discussed in the mid-1990s in Hong Kong,
when various voting systems were being hotly discussed (to what point,
one might add -- but that's a whole nother topic) -- and a large
newspaper spread rather convincingly pointed out that, wherever the
voting population have slightly unclear opinions -- then different
systems will give different results. None manifestly more impressive
or persuasive than the others.
Not, mind you, that I'm grumpy about any of this.
best,
Stephanie
Stephanie Mitchell
That's not true -- I'm an outside-the-UK voter and Manchester City
Council very kindly sent a 'let us know if you want to vote on this'
letter and have promised me a ballot.
Are they making a horrible mistake?
cheers,
Stephanie
carolet
> "the Omrud" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:iogtep$b16$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> On 17/04/2011 23:00, Chris. McMillan wrote:
>>> <sp...@nopotteratthisaddress.co.uk> writes
>>>> On 17/04/2011 21:23, BobE wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 17, 8:18 pm, Linda Fox<linda...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>>> put my mouse on the thread or post now, but
>>>>>>> somerat was asking where one could find all the pros and cons
>>>>>>> of AV set
>>>>>>> out in a reasoned manner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I haven't read it myself, but this might be the place:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://wrangl.com/av
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and all
>>>>>> the "no" arguments as excuses, though. And often silly excuses at
>>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's interesting. You can still put a X next to a candidate.
>>>>> I don't think that was stated on the guvm'nt leaflet.
>>>>
>>>> Leaflet? I did a YouGov survey that told me all households would
>>>> have a leaflet. We haven't seen one, though.
>>>>
>>> Wish you'd written that last night, Jane. I saw one of our local
>>> councillors today of the right persuasion and I could have asked him
>>> about it. I don't really understand it at all - and one of my
>>> friends who does understand it wrote something about it for me and
>>> a few other despairing friends - and its about as clear as mud.
>>>
>>> Someone should write a book 'AV for Dummies'
>>
>> I am a little surprised by some of the confusion - we used the same
>> scheme (then called Single Transferrable Vote) for union elections
>> at Manchester in the 70s.
>
> in the 70's. I don't think there is a lot of confusion over the
> mechanism, but how it works when applied to an array of candidates
> who have already been filtered by their parties can be difficult to
> analyse.
> STV is a more general version of AV (because under STV there is
> usually more than one winner). In a student election in my day there
> would be an array of bearded woners (especially the women) ranging
> from right on Spartist lefties through a spectrum of liberals with
> the occasional trustafarian Tory wannabe and far-right nutjobs. The
> STV process would wittle those numbers down to a student committee of
> six or so, usually ensuring that most of the mainstream political
> cliques got elected.
> I suspect that AV would work very differently where instead of a
> broad range of politcal views the main 3 (or 8, 10) parties have
> already weeded out many of those potential candidates with similar
> views to the parties preferred candidate.
Under AV it would be quite possible for a party to put up two or three
candidates. Presumably most voters would rank these candidates in a similar
position, 1, 2 and 3 or 7, 8 and 9. In either case the electorate gets to
chose between the candidates for a single party as well as between parties.
I don't suppose they would though.
If a non-local is imposed on a constituency, though, you might find a local
with similar beliefs standing and taking their votes.
--
CaroleT
Chris Brown
"Derek Turner" <frd...@cesmail.net> wrote in message
news:912q91...@mid.individual.net...
Technically, this is also true of anyone born after the 6th of May 1993 or
anyone with a pending citizenship allocation, say. It's how the cookie
crumbles I suppose.
Chris
--
"Back next week with another ridiculous tie knot"
J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
>> Roll on Proportional representation.
(I presume they've gone for AV rather than [presumably list-based] full
PR as they want to retain some element of local representation.)
>Well, yes. Or better still, roll on some other method of government
>rather than the adversarial politics which stops people who want the
>same thing working together to find the best way of getting it, and
>instead has them talking as though the other lot _doesn't_ want better
>schools, or a fairer welfare system, or more law and order, and wasting
>time and effort inventing crackpot alternative schemes because they
>can't be seen agreeing with what the other side has recommended. So
>roll on more cross-party working groups, and save the hot air for the
>things they actually fundamentally disagree on.
>
>lff
Well said - but it'll never happen )-:. [As I've already said, the party
system at all has little to recommend it, IMO.]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Freedom of the press is limited to those who have one.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
<spa...@your.peril> writes:
[]
>Any voting system is going to give a less than perfect choice and AV suffers
I'd agree with the first part of that ...
>just as many imperfections as FPTP, so I don't see any merit in changing. AV
... but not the second.
>seems to encourage tactical voting (vote for "me", then vote for "this" one
>so "that" one doesn't get in), which is just plain wrong. You shuld be
>voting for the people you want to win against the people you don't want to
>win.
>
But what if I'm fairly equivocal about two of the candidates, but
definitely don't want a third?
J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
>> I rather hope someone from the NO support would come round here
>> canvassing <evil grin>
>
>
>Brilliant, Linda.
>
>I just wish I thought that this kind of explanation would reach most
>people.
>
>
(mostly) favour the no.
carolet
When I was reading about all the various possible voting systems a while
back, I think I read that it had been proved mathematically that no voting
system is fair. The fairest ones are generally more complicated to
understand. So it is a question of compromising between fairness and
simplicity.
There are, I believe, various popular television programs where the viewers
vote on the contestants each week and the least popular singer, dancer or
canary polisher is voted off. The following week they come back and do it
all again, and another one is voted off, until only one is left. People seem
to understand that concept.
Similarly we could, in theory, have an election each week. We'd lose one
candidate at each election and we would all return to the polls the
following week to vote between those who are left, until we have a winner.
All AV does is speed up this process and reduced the cost, by giving you all
of your votes together at the start. Clearly you mark your favoured
candidate with a 1. Then you think who would I vote for in the second week
if he's been knocked out in the first week, and your mark her with a 2. Then
you think who would I vote for in the third week if my two favourites are
knocked in the first two weeks, and your mark him with a 3, etc. Is that
really so very complicated?
--
CaroleT
Mark Williams
>>
> I think this very much hangs on whether it _would_ make much difference.
> You're saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and assuming that we will
> accept that as meaning it ain't broke. A sizeable proportion of the
> population don't agree with you.
>
> I think you're saying "it suits me, so we should keep it". I wonder, if we
> already had AV, would you want to campaign for FPTP?
I think I'm saying FPTP isn't perfect, but AV is not a great step forward,
and there are examples that are not too hard to think up where the result
under is patently absurd, so it might even be a step backward. Winning a
seat with less than 50% of the vote under FPTP isn't really such a bad
thing, and in my opinion better than winning with 10% first choice votes and
41% second third and fourth choice votes.
Why is that? Because elections aren't about choosing which flavour of citrus
fruit juice you are going to have for breakfast (all generally the same but
you might have a slight preference ne way or trhe other). Electoral
candidates vary widely in their political views so a second choice probably
doesn't reflect your views, and your third choice even less so, and so on.
An MP who wins on that basis can't really claim that he has the support of
his voters for his (party's) policies if most of thevoters actually
expressed a prior preference for somebofy else's policies.
The idea that passing the arbitrary 51% mark is some how more representative
is a fabrication of politicians. They don't have the expressed support of
51% of the registered voters in the constituency (probably closer to
25%-30%), and they probably don't really have that because many of their
votes may be second or third votes that probably arose from tactical voting
rather than outright support.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
<spa...@your.peril> writes:
[]
>I think I'm saying FPTP isn't perfect, but AV is not a great step forward,
>and there are examples that are not too hard to think up where the result
>under is patently absurd, so it might even be a step backward. Winning a
>seat with less than 50% of the vote under FPTP isn't really such a bad
>thing, and in my opinion better than winning with 10% first choice votes and
>41% second third and fourth choice votes.
I fear we'll just have to disagree on that.
>
>Why is that? Because elections aren't about choosing which flavour of citrus
>fruit juice you are going to have for breakfast (all generally the same but
>you might have a slight preference ne way or trhe other). Electoral
>candidates vary widely in their political views so a second choice probably
>doesn't reflect your views, and your third choice even less so, and so on.
My first choice might only match 60% of my views (or, actually, more
likely only 30%), my second choice 50% (25%), though.
[]
>The idea that passing the arbitrary 51% mark is some how more representative
>is a fabrication of politicians. They don't have the expressed support of
>51% of the registered voters in the constituency (probably closer to
>25%-30%), and they probably don't really have that because many of their
>votes may be second or third votes that probably arose from tactical voting
>rather than outright support.
>
Again, we'll just have to disagree. (I do concede that there will be
more tactical voting under AV, but I think the amount of it will still
be small.)
the Omrud
>>>
>> I think this very much hangs on whether it _would_ make much difference.
>> You're saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and assuming that we will
>> accept that as meaning it ain't broke. A sizeable proportion of the
>> population don't agree with you.
>>
>> I think you're saying "it suits me, so we should keep it". I wonder, if we
>> already had AV, would you want to campaign for FPTP?
>
> I think I'm saying FPTP isn't perfect, but AV is not a great step forward,
> and there are examples that are not too hard to think up where the result
> under is patently absurd, so it might even be a step backward. Winning a
> seat with less than 50% of the vote under FPTP isn't really such a bad
> thing, and in my opinion better than winning with 10% first choice votes and
> 41% second third and fourth choice votes.
But is that actually likely to happen? I suspect that in nearly every
case, the second choice votes will hand a win to the person who started
with the highest or second highest vote from first choice votes.
--
David
J. P. Gilliver (John)
<chez_c...@btinternet.com> writes:
[]
>There are, I believe, various popular television programs where the viewers
>vote on the contestants each week and the least popular singer, dancer or
>canary polisher is voted off. The following week they come back and do it
>all again, and another one is voted off, until only one is left. People seem
>to understand that concept.
>
>Similarly we could, in theory, have an election each week. We'd lose one
>candidate at each election and we would all return to the polls the
>following week to vote between those who are left, until we have a winner.
>All AV does is speed up this process and reduced the cost, by giving you all
>of your votes together at the start. Clearly you mark your favoured
>candidate with a 1. Then you think who would I vote for in the second week
>if he's been knocked out in the first week, and your mark her with a 2. Then
>you think who would I vote for in the third week if my two favourites are
>knocked in the first two weeks, and your mark him with a 3, etc. Is that
>really so very complicated?
>
>
>
good one - and also gives the point that people _are_ willing to "vote
negatively".
(And before they all say it: yes, I know it's more important than a
dance contest or whatever.)
I loved "canary polisher" - did you just think of it, or is it a quote?
Mark Williams
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:JmrNsgKs...@soft255.demon.co.uk...
> In message <uoCdnSW_PJsXDzHQ...@bt.com>, Mark Williams
> <spa...@your.peril> writes:
> []
>>Any voting system is going to give a less than perfect choice and AV
>>suffers
>
> I'd agree with the first part of that ...
>
>>just as many imperfections as FPTP, so I don't see any merit in changing.
>>AV
>
> ... but not the second.
>
>>seems to encourage tactical voting (vote for "me", then vote for "this"
>>one
>>so "that" one doesn't get in), which is just plain wrong. You shuld be
>>voting for the people you want to win against the people you don't want to
>>win.
>>
> But what if I'm fairly equivocal about two of the candidates, but
> definitely don't want a third?
The essence of voting is that you vote "for" candidates, not that you vote
against them. The essence of the party system is that by having an
established voting bloc that nominates a candidate who they purport will
represent a political segment of the political there will not be a multitude
of candidates with similar views at every election. If depite this you are
still torn between 2 candidates that is just bad luck on your part. I don't
see why the voting system should adapt itself so that you should be made to
feel your vote has been decisive, and I don't see why your ballot paper
should be used to vote first for candidate A, then to switch to candidate B
when candidate C's voters get no chance to switch their votes.
chris mcmillan
(John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> writes
>In message <llCyjOTv...@chris.mcmillan>, Chris. McMillan
>[]
>>Someone should write a book 'AV for Dummies'
>>
>>Sincerely Chris
>>>
>>
>I'll have a go. (Well, a post not a book!)
>
Sincerely Chris
--
Chris
China Vision UK http://www.chinavisionuk.org
Beijing One Plus One Disabled Persons' Development Center
http://www.yijiayi.org
Mark Williams
That is hardly a recommendation. If there is a blatant flaw in the system,
saying it is unlikely to happen doesn't give any reassurance. One of the
certainties will be that if there is a change in the voting system,
political parties will adapt their behaviour to exploit any opportunities
that they see, so basing any decision on what we think is likely or unlikely
could be unwise.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
<spa...@your.peril> writes:
[]
>> But what if I'm fairly equivocal about two of the candidates, but
>> definitely don't want a third?
>
>The essence of voting is that you vote "for" candidates, not that you vote
>against them. The essence of the party system is that by having an
That has been the case so far, yes. But who is to say that is the best
way? As someone pointed out, we seem quite content to vote against in TV
show votes.
>established voting bloc that nominates a candidate who they purport will
>represent a political segment of the political there will not be a multitude
>of candidates with similar views at every election. If depite this you are
Well, I think the party system is flawed - and might improve under a
different system.
>still torn between 2 candidates that is just bad luck on your part. I don't
(Humph.)
>see why the voting system should adapt itself so that you should be made to
>feel your vote has been decisive, and I don't see why your ballot paper
>should be used to vote first for candidate A, then to switch to candidate B
>when candidate C's voters get no chance to switch their votes.
>
Well, I could say "that's just bad luck on their part" - but I'll say,
instead, since it happens to be the case - they DO get a chance to
switch their votes! The only votes that get discarded when candidate C
is eliminated are the ones who _only_ listed candidate C; if they listed
A or B as second preference, they _do_ get counted (i. e. "get the
chance to switch their votes"). More generally, at each stage the only
votes that are discarded when a candidate is eliminated are those which
_only_ list the candidates that have been eliminated so far.
Linda Fox
If by candidate C you mean the one currently in pole position, why would
there be a need for them to "switch" their votes, as you erroneously put
it? That suggests taking them away from the candidate who is still in
the running. What AV is doing is whittling it down to a "two horse race"
at which point it ought to be clear. If there are only two candidates,
they won't be doing any eliminating, will they? By the time you get to
the last two the situation is the same.
lff
J. P. Gilliver (John)
>In message <+tRwOWUD...@soft255.demon.co.uk>, "J. P. Gilliver
>(John)" <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In message <llCyjOTv...@chris.mcmillan>, Chris. McMillan
>><spa...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>>[]
>>>Someone should write a book 'AV for Dummies'
>>>
>>>Sincerely Chris
>>>>
>>>
>>I'll have a go. (Well, a post not a book!)
>>
>Thanks JPG. I get it now - in theory anyway.
>
>Sincerely Chris
I'm pleased that I have enlightened at least two 'rats. (Of course,
whether convinced in favour of yes is up to you, though I do hope so.)
Jo Lonergan
>On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 18:21:18 +0100, Jane Vernon wrote:
>
>> Sorry I'm not able to put my mouse on the thread or post now, but
>> somerat was asking where one could find all the pros and cons of AV set
>> out in a reasoned manner.
>>
>> I haven't read it myself, but this might be the place:
>>
>> http://wrangl.com/av
>
>That's interesting!
>
>Those of us who currently live outside the UK are entitled to vote at
>general elections but have no say in the the system to be used in the
>next GE because we are (understandably) not entitled to vote in any local
>election. Nurse! I've been disenfranchised!
ITYM those of us who have been living outside the UK for not more than 15 years.
The rest are completely disfranchised.
--
Jo
carolet
I just wanted something silly to finish it off and that is what sprang to
mind. If it is a quote it is a sunconscious one.
--
CaroleT
BrritSki
Agreed, and we'll find out exactly how many on each side in the referendum.
>
> I think you're saying "it suits me, so we should keep it". I wonder, if
> we already had AV, would you want to campaign for FPTP?
>
Who knows, as I said I'm not greatly concerned either way as I really
don't think it will make much difference either way. If it does, I'll
judge whether I think the change is an improvement or not. If for
example there were to be more coalitions I don't think that would be good.
> lff
BrritSki
that it's going to make a difference. It won't. No matter how you vote
or whatever the system the government always gets in :(
There was a plaintive plea I saw the other day from a Labour MP who
already worked 16 hour days 6 days a week and asking how he could be
expected to work harder.
OTOH you will always get wankers like Gordon Brown (Kirkcaldy, 64.5%)
who are essentially refusing to do their jobs because they're not
standing again.
Linda Fox
Oh, I'm not sure I agree there - we just need to work out how to make
coalitions work properly. ISTM that this one isn't working properly at
all and Nick Clegg is being blamed for a lot that is arguably beyond his
control, far more than he could have anticipated.
lff
Linda Fox
Been out in the warm weather too long, Carolet?
(Budgie-buffers, anyone?)
lff
J. P. Gilliver (John)
<Brri...@iname.com> writes:
[]
>I think a lot of the people wanting av have a very naive expectation
>that it's going to make a difference. It won't. No matter how you vote
>or whatever the system the government always gets in :(
True (-:, and whatever system, it is going to be fiddled to some extent.
I happen to think something other than FPTP would be _better_, though
(and not just _anything_, but I think AV is one of the things that would
be better).
>
>There was a plaintive plea I saw the other day from a Labour MP who
>already worked 16 hour days 6 days a week and asking how he could be
>expected to work harder.
[What, only 16/6? Slacker ... (-:] I'm sure that, actually, most of
those who get in - despite what the yellower press would have us believe
- do work hard and conscientiously once they are in. The mechanism for
choosing them probably has little to do with that.
>
>OTOH you will always get wankers like Gordon Brown (Kirkcaldy, 64.5%)
>who are essentially refusing to do their jobs because they're not
>standing again.
OTTH (hi Zaphod!), you sometimes get the best value out of those who are
not standing again, because they don't have to worry about keeping
everyone happy so that they will get in again!
J. P. Gilliver (John)
>On 19/04/2011 01:16, carolet wrote:
>> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>>> I loved "canary polisher" - did you just think of it, or is it a
>>> quote?
>>
>> I just wanted something silly to finish it off and that is what sprang to
>> mind. If it is a quote it is a sunconscious one.
Nice mind, then.
>>
>Been out in the warm weather too long, Carolet?
>
>(Budgie-buffers, anyone?)
>
>lff
>
I know that swimming-trunks of other than the boxer-shorts design are in
Australia called budgie-_smugglers_ ...
Jane Vernon
> "Linda Fox"<lind...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:gpYqp.13476$tp6....@newsfe25.ams2...
>> On 18/04/2011 15:44, Mark Williams wrote:
>>> "Linda Fox"<lind...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ExXqp.14055$Vm5....@newsfe30.ams2...
>>>> On 18/04/2011 12:32, Mark Williams wrote:
>>>>> "Linda Fox"<lind...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:KRTqp.51251$9z4....@newsfe14.ams2...
>>>>>> On 18/04/2011 08:39, BobE wrote:
>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 11:40 pm, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>>>>>>> <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message<llCyjOTvL2qNF...@chris.mcmillan>, Chris.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> []>Someone should write a book 'AV for Dummies'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sincerely Chris
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll have a go. (Well, a post not a book!)
>>>>>>>>
There will be extreme examples where AV doesn't work out well. That's
why PR would be even better.
However, I don't think this is one of them. It *is* fairer that the
yellow candidate wins because 51% of the electorate would prefer
anything to the blue candidate and that's what they get.
--
Jane
The potter in the purple socks
email jane at cloth and clay dot co dot uk
http://twitter.com/purplepotter for Twitter and
http://clothandclay.blogspot.com/ for blog
http://www.clothandclay.co.uk/umra/cookbook.htm for recipes supplied by
umrats
the Omrud
And, of course, that paragraph could also be used to reject FTPT.
--
David
Jane Vernon
> "Jane Vernon"<sp...@nopotteratthisaddress.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:913al2...@mid.individual.net...
>> can't have it, you get to indicate what your least worst choices are.
>
> I am afraid that is a fallacy. That doesn't apply to the choices of those
> voters who support the losing candidate in the last round. Why should their
> second and third choices not also be taken into account?
>
>
>
Ah, I'm afraid it's you who are reinforcing the main "no" fallacy. You
talk about each 'round' and I think that's a very helpful way to look at
it.
In *every* 'round' each voter gets *only one vote.*
In the first round, each voter's first choice is where that single vote
goes.
In this example, those who voted blue as their first choice vote blue in
every round.
Those who voted orange as their first choice vote orange in every round.
Just as with those who voted blue, there's no reason to ask them what
their second or third choices would be as their first choice is still
standing in the election so that's who they're voting for.
Those who voted for other colours have the opportunity to vote
differently than their first choice in rounds when their first choice is
no longer standing.
Everyone still has only one vote in each round. It's just that blue and
orange's supporters are still voting blue and orange.
You can effectively abstain if you don't allocate a number to all the
colours and your first one or two get eliminated. That's a perfectly
valid position, IMO.
Chris J Dixon
>I know that swimming-trunks of other than the boxer-shorts design are in
>Australia called budgie-_smugglers_ ...
Yes, but they seem to think that thongs belong on the feet!
Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/30 M B+ G+ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar+ T+ H0 ?Q
ch...@cdixon.me.uk
Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.
Jane Vernon
>> away from any candidate, they're just reallocated and then added on. When
>> there are only two candidates left and one has 51% and one has 49%, what
>> happens to the percentages if it turns out that the second place candidate
>> had 20% of their supporters giving second choice to the one who "won",
>> while the "winner" had no second-choice votes for the "runner-up"? You
>> can't add them on.
>
> I don't see we need to work out the second choices of anybody. There may
> well be other candidates who didn't stand (or were prevented from standing
> by the party system who would actually be elected in preference to the
> people who are elected. We don't take them into account either.
>
> Any voting system is going to give a less than perfect choice and AV suffers
> so "that" one doesn't get in), which is just plain wrong. You shuld be
> voting for the people you want to win against the people you don't want to
> win.
>
>
AV encourages less tactical voting than our present system, though.
Tactical voting has been going on here for years and years and years
because of the FPTP and the determination not to let our worst nightmare
get elected. Many of us have over the years not voted for the person we
thought the best candidate because we didn't think they'd actually win
FPTP and so we voted for someone else in order to try to keep out our
worst nightmare. And lost.
This way we get at least to register our votes for our best candidates
in the first place. Then, when that candidate is no longer standing, we
can vote for someone else if we like. Or we don't have to. We can
still just put "1" against a single candidate if we don't mind which of
the others gets in instead.
Having your vote 'count' can mean exactly that, having the first choice
counted so that everyone can see that a large number of people support
the fourth choice candidate, say. At the moment the poor old fourth
choice candidate often looks really unpopular because we have voted
tactically and not shown that we really do value his policies.
Jane Vernon
> Mark Williams wrote:
>> "the Omrud"<usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> On 17/04/2011 23:00, Chris. McMillan wrote:
>>>> In message<91123e...@mid.individual.net>, Jane Vernon
>>>> <sp...@nopotteratthisaddress.co.uk> writes
>>>>> On 17/04/2011 21:23, BobE wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 17, 8:18 pm, Linda Fox<linda...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17/04/2011 18:21, Jane Vernon wrote:> Sorry I'm not able to
>>>>>>> put my mouse on the thread or post now, but
>>>>>>>> somerat was asking where one could find all the pros and cons
>>>>>>>> of AV set
>>>>>>>> out in a reasoned manner.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I haven't read it myself, but this might be the place:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://wrangl.com/av
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and all
>>>>>>> the "no" arguments as excuses, though. And often silly excuses at
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's interesting. You can still put a X next to a candidate.
>>>>>> I don't think that was stated on the guvm'nt leaflet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Leaflet? I did a YouGov survey that told me all households would
>>>>> have a leaflet. We haven't seen one, though.
>>>>>
>>>> Wish you'd written that last night, Jane. I saw one of our local
>>>> councillors today of the right persuasion and I could have asked him
>>>> about it. I don't really understand it at all - and one of my
>>>> friends who does understand it wrote something about it for me and
>>>> a few other despairing friends - and its about as clear as mud.
>>>>
>>>> Someone should write a book 'AV for Dummies'
>>>
>>> scheme (then called Single Transferrable Vote) for union elections
>>> at Manchester in the 70s.
>>
>> Presumably nobody tried to think through all of the possible outcomes
>> in the 70's. I don't think there is a lot of confusion over the
>> mechanism, but how it works when applied to an array of candidates
>> who have already been filtered by their parties can be difficult to
>> analyse.
>> STV is a more general version of AV (because under STV there is
>> usually more than one winner). In a student election in my day there
>> would be an array of bearded woners (especially the women) ranging
>> from right on Spartist lefties through a spectrum of liberals with
>> the occasional trustafarian Tory wannabe and far-right nutjobs. The
>> STV process would wittle those numbers down to a student committee of
>> six or so, usually ensuring that most of the mainstream political
>> cliques got elected.
>> I suspect that AV would work very differently where instead of a
>> broad range of politcal views the main 3 (or 8, 10) parties have
>> already weeded out many of those potential candidates with similar
>> views to the parties preferred candidate.
>
> Under AV it would be quite possible for a party to put up two or three
> candidates. Presumably most voters would rank these candidates in a similar
> position, 1, 2 and 3 or 7, 8 and 9. In either case the electorate gets to
> chose between the candidates for a single party as well as between parties.
>
> I don't suppose they would though.
>
> If a non-local is imposed on a constituency, though, you might find a local
> with similar beliefs standing and taking their votes.
>
That's an interesting point, and another one in favour of AV, I think.
BrritSki
More wishful thinking ! :)
BrritSki
could be all sorts of unexpected consequences...
Marjorie
> On 18/04/2011 19:06, BobE wrote:
>> On Apr 18, 7:01 pm, BobE<bobemble...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 18, 4:03 pm, Linda Fox<linda...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 18/04/2011 15:44, Mark Williams wrote:
>>>>> there is no notable winner in the first round but one candidate is
>>>>> everybody's second choice but nobody's first choice. By your
>>>>> reasoning that
>>>>> person "ought" to be the winner but is actually eliminated in the
>>>>> first
>>>>> round.
>>>
>>>> their getting no first votes at all, and I'm not sure the electoral
>>>> system can sustain that, can it? Don't they have to be nominated or
>>>> something? Don't they have to get a certain number of supporters to get
>>>> their name on the ballot paper? Or has that all changed now?
>>
>> In most constituencies where they can afford the deposit the GP get
>> about 1 - 3% of the vote in FPTP.
>> 2% of 630 MPs is about 12 MPs. They have 1. Under AV they might get
>> none.
> I think it's pretty staggering that they managed to get one, though. Do
> you think under AV, in a constituency where the green is highly enough
> regarded to win FPTP that they couldn't possibly win with AV? Remember
> we're talking constituency by constituency and we probably have no way
> of knowing whether all the opposition in that constituency (somewhere in
> Brighton, as it?) was all fanatically anti-green, or whether many of
> them, given a choice, would have voted Green as their second choice.
>
>
>> Roll on Proportional representation.
> Well, yes. Or better still, roll on some other method of government
> rather than the adversarial politics which stops people who want the
> same thing working together to find the best way of getting it, and
> instead has them talking as though the other lot _doesn't_ want better
> schools, or a fairer welfare system, or more law and order, and wasting
> time and effort inventing crackpot alternative schemes because they
> can't be seen agreeing with what the other side has recommended. So roll
> on more cross-party working groups, and save the hot air for the things
> they actually fundamentally disagree on.
Well said, Linda. It's tiresome to hear each party solemnly declare that
it is in favour of good schools, a healthier nation, a greener
environment, cleaner streets, fairer taxation, and even vaguer concepts
like "families" or "happiness", etc, as if the other parties were
actually against these things.
--
Marjorie
To reply, replace dontusethisaddress with marje
Derek Turner
> ITYM those of us who have been living outside the UK for not more than
> 15 years. The rest are completely disfranchised.
Along with peers, lunatics and prisoners :)
Jane Vernon
> news:JmrNsgKs...@soft255.demon.co.uk...
>> In message<uoCdnSW_PJsXDzHQ...@bt.com>, Mark Williams
>> <spa...@your.peril> writes:
>> []
>>> Any voting system is going to give a less than perfect choice and AV
>>> suffers
>>
>> I'd agree with the first part of that ...
>>
>>> just as many imperfections as FPTP, so I don't see any merit in changing.
>>> AV
>>
>> ... but not the second.
>>
>>> seems to encourage tactical voting (vote for "me", then vote for "this"
>>> one
>>> so "that" one doesn't get in), which is just plain wrong. You shuld be
>>> voting for the people you want to win against the people you don't want to
>>> win.
>>>
>> But what if I'm fairly equivocal about two of the candidates, but
>> definitely don't want a third?
>
> The essence of voting is that you vote "for" candidates, not that you vote
> against them.
Why do you say that? I think voting is often a case of against someone.
Nobody might have the policies I think would really be good but
somebody might have policies I think would be really bad. I still feel
I've a right to a vote. What I'm hoping for is someone whose policies
are not really bad in my view.
Jane Vernon
It would have made a difference here, though admittedly not in the
direction you would have liked :) We would almost certainly have
retained our excellent MP, (Labour) and the Green Party candidate would
not have lost his deposit.
Mark Williams
Um .. wrong. 25.1% prefer anything other than the Blueand 25% prefer only
one other over the Blue candidate. In fact 49.9% expressed no preference
for the Yellow candidate while only 25.1% expressed no preference for the
Blue candidate. One of the problems with AV is that if "negative" or second
preferences are important, then the negative and second preferences of the
voters for the loser in the final round are not taken into account.
On the other hand the Blue candidate is the first or second choice of 74.9%
of the voters who expressed any preference and has twice as many first
preference votes as any other candidate.
I would say that is much worse than anything under AV.
Mark Williams
Because somebody is going have to stand up in parliament. I would rather
that was somebody who was chosen for who they are, not for who they are not.
Mark Williams
Or even FPTP. Agreed, but as others have said, I think most of our
electoral problems come from the party system not from the electoral system.
I would be strongly opposed to a movc towards multi member seats with
proportional representation because of the power that it gives to parties
and those who wangle themselves positions at the top of the party list.
A bit like working for the mafia but with a lower chance of being taken out
by a rival gang.
BrritSki
I've nothing against excellent MPs being retained (of any hue, Mum
always voted for Dave Nellis(t) in Coventry because she thought he was a
good constituency MP - an increasingly rare beast), but I don't think it
will make much difference in the overall scheme of things. You obviously
have a very particular set of circumstances in yr constituency where AV
may (or may not) help, but I would guess there will be a similar number
of seats where AV will cause grief.
> and the Green Party candidate would not have lost his deposit.
Always a good thing imo :)
Did you see the news about green bio-fuels causing 100s of 1000s of
deaths and increases in chronic hunger and absolute poverty ?
<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/19/biofuels-policy-may-kill-200000-per-year-in-the-third-world/>
the Omrud
Not all of them, these days. Hereditary peers can vote (and indeed
become MPs) unless they are members of the House of Lords. David
Archer, for example. Prisoners are the subject of an argument with the
ECHR (I think) at the moment. I'm not sure there is any longer a legal
definition of a lunatic.
--
David
BrritSki
would've beaten Balls under av:
<http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2011/04/antony-calvert-why-i-oppose-av-even-though-it-might-have-helped-me-beat-ed-balls.html>
Jane Vernon
Not yet, but I will look.
Jane Vernon
Well, I agree that that is better, but I don't think FPTP achieves that
if the winner gets, say, only 35% of the votes.
Jane Vernon
Oh yes, sorry, you're right.
AS I said, though, there will always be cases where the system is not
ideal. I just think there would be fewer of these with AV than with FPTP.
Mark Williams
"Mark Williams" <spa...@your.peril> wrote in message
news:lqqdndXOMfCW7DDQ...@bt.com...
I meant to say "than anything under FPTP".
BobE
wrote:
>
> There will be extreme examples where AV doesn't work out well. That's
> why PR would be even better.
>
Every voter gets 10 votes.
They can distribute these among the candidates, but can give no more
than 5 to any one candidate.
They don't have to use all ten votes.
Tory boy could give 5 to the Conservative and 2 to the BNP.
Hippy Bob could give 5 to the Green, 2 to ukip and 1 to the Lib Dems.
Wooly Libby could give 5 to the Lib Dem and 4 to the Green and 1 to
the Independent.
At the count they just have to add up the number of votes for each
candidate.
Steve Hague
>>> You're saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and assuming that we will
>>> accept that as meaning it ain't broke. A sizeable proportion of the
>>> population don't agree with you.
>>
>> referendum.
>>>
>>> we already had AV, would you want to campaign for FPTP?
>>>
>> don't think it will make much difference either way. If it does, I'll
>> judge whether I think the change is an improvement or not. If for
>> example there were to be more coalitions I don't think that would be
>> good.
>
> Oh, I'm not sure I agree there - we just need to work out how to make
> and Nick Clegg is being blamed for a lot that is arguably beyond his
> control, far more than he could have anticipated.
>
> lff
I agree with you about Clegg. I dislike the man, but I don't really see how
he could have done much differently. I think he acted on behalf of the
country and may well have sunk the LibDems as a credible force come the next
GE.
Steve
BrritSki
> "Linda Fox"<lind...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> Oh, I'm not sure I agree there - we just need to work out how to make
>> coalitions work properly. ISTM that this one isn't working properly at all
>> and Nick Clegg is being blamed for a lot that is arguably beyond his
>> control, far more than he could have anticipated.
>>
>> lff
>
> I agree with you about Clegg. I dislike the man, but I don't really see how
> he could have done much differently. I think he acted on behalf of the
> country and may well have sunk the LibDems as a credible force come the next
> GE.
<languid wave>
Steve Brooks
I think coalitions are, in many ways, quite good things. Of course, they
turn party manifestos into wish lists rather than commitments. But that's
pretty much the case now anyway.
--
SB
badriya
<smit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 18, 2:48 pm, Derek Turner <frde...@cesmail.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 18:21:18 +0100, Jane Vernon wrote:
>> > Sorry I'm not able to put my mouse on the thread or post now, but
>> > somerat was asking where one could find all the pros and cons of AV set
>> > out in a reasoned manner.
>>
>> > I haven't read it myself, but this might be the place:
>>
>> >http://wrangl.com/av
>>
>> That's interesting!
>>
>> Those of us who currently live outside the UK are entitled to vote at
>> general elections but have no say in the the system to be used in the
>> next GE because we are (understandably) not entitled to vote in any local
>> election. Nurse! I've been disenfranchised!
>
>That's not true -- I'm an outside-the-UK voter and Manchester City
>Council very kindly sent a 'let us know if you want to vote on this'
>letter and have promised me a ballot.
>
>Are they making a horrible mistake?
>
>cheers,
>Stephanie
I got my voting papers today and I think I screwed them up. I tore
off the bit that says don't tear this off before reading the
instructions. It was tearable off so...I tore it. I put it in the
envelope with the rest but I suppose that is a yes vote won't be
counted? I haven't posted it yet and am wondering whether to open the
envelope and staple it back on...
--
Vicky
Steve Brooks
"Linda Fox" wrote
> coalitions work properly. ISTM that this one isn't working properly at all
> and Nick Clegg is being blamed for a lot that is arguably beyond his
> control, far more than he could have anticipated.
Whereas I think it's working reasonably well[1]. We are getting a mix of Con
and Lib-Dem policies. And the compromises required in coalition seem to me
to be rubbing the rougher edges off the policies of both sides. I also don't
have a problem with the back-tracking, rethinking on the hoof and supposed
U-turns. To me they are a sign of negotiation and consideration going on and
because of that we'll probably end up with a better final result than we
would if any one party had a large majority and was able to steamroller its
dafter ideas through parliament regardless. One of the problems with our
system IMO is that it gives the Prime Minister far more power than any
individual ought to wield in a (near enough) peacetime government. Coalition
helps to mitigate that.
I agree that the opprobrium showered on Nick Clegg is (mostly) ridiculous.
What did people expect of the junior partner?
[1] That's not to say that I agree with everything they're doing. But that's
been true of every government I can remember.
--
SB
Rosemary Miskin
<sp...@nopotteratthisaddress.co.uk> wrote:
> Leaflet? I did a YouGov survey that told me all households would have a
> leaflet. We haven't seen one, though.
ours came late last week. It seems to explain things fairly clearly.
Rosemary
--
Rosemary Miskin ZFC Sm mis...@orpheusmail.co.uk
Loughborough, UK http://miskin.orpheusweb.co.uk
Andrew B.
Telegraph, which could be summarised briefly as:
a) Changing from FPTP to AV won't make much difference in practice,
b) Most people don't really care which side wins, though some people
evidently think it's a huge deal, for reasons they haven't made
especially clear, because...
c) ... The "Yes" campaign isn't very convincing, but...
d) ... The "No" campaign is dreadful, and may convince people to vote
"Yes".
Steve Brooks
"BobE" wrote
Bit of a swerve but -
Why would Hippy Bob give 2 votes to UKIP? I'll admit I've not read their
manifesto but they've never struck me as terribly attractive to the hippy
community.
--
SB
Steve Brooks
"Mark Williams" wrote
<snip>
> The essence of voting is that you vote "for" candidates, not that you vote
> against them.
That's rarely how I've voted. I suppose a lot depends on which constituency
you happen to live in.
I don't understand your objection to tactical voting.
--
SB
BobE
Just got this via facebook:-
http://twitpic.com/4md9vy
:-)
Dumrat
> On 18 Apr 2011 12:48:33 GMT, Derek Turner <frd...@cesmail.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 18:21:18 +0100, Jane Vernon wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry I'm not able to put my mouse on the thread or post now, but
>>> somerat was asking where one could find all the pros and cons of AV set
>>> out in a reasoned manner.
>>>
>>> I haven't read it myself, but this might be the place:
>>>
>>> http://wrangl.com/av
>> That's interesting!
>>
>> Those of us who currently live outside the UK are entitled to vote at
>> general elections but have no say in the the system to be used in the
>> next GE because we are (understandably) not entitled to vote in any local
>> election. Nurse! I've been disenfranchised!
>
> The rest are completely disfranchised.
>
--
Salaam Alaykum,
Anne, Exceptionally Traditionally-built Dumrat