Alternative vote - yes or no?

[geoff332]

Why do I think there will be more hung parliaments? Simply because I predict that under AV there will be an increase in support for the Liberal Party. My guess is that voting will be split 3 ways with an increase in the number of Liberal MPs. I also think that the Liberals will benefit from the long tail of smaller parties that can only increase under AV. Please note, I am not basing this on the experience in Australia, I am basing this on my prediction. Make your own prediction and see if you think that Liberal support and the number of Liberal MPs would rise under AV.

OK - at least that's clear.

So you would rather have an electoral system that probably benefits Labour and definitely benefits the Tories. I know that's not explicitly what you've said, but it's the simple fact.

Wooly question, but I'll guess what Geoff really means. Let's assume that a party has a majority of MPs in the House of Commons but their MPs received only 40% of the vote. The reason they are in power is because that is the current system in the UK - they are legally entitled to run the country.

No, it was a much deeper question. you are arguing not that that is the case, but that it should be the case - that any system which makes the proportion of MPs reflect the proportion of the popular vote must be limited by ensuring that one party has a majority in each parliament. This is a position that really needs to be defended (particularly in light of the fact that most other democracies can and do operate perfectly well with coalition Governments: are you suggesting the British aren't capable of handling this?)

It is an assumption that Geoff have made that a party needs the support of more than 50% of the vote - currently that is not the case.

Please don't try and guess at what I assume. You will probably be - as you are here - wrong.

Therefore the ruling party has a mandate from the electorate, however, it is true that it's not been provided by 50% of the electorate.

The ruling party has a legal mandate, based on the current system. What I want to know is why you you are claiming that giving the party ruling power despite having a minority support is more fair than a system that provides representation to all parties based on their electoral support?

1. Make all constituencies the same size.

I agree - but it will have no affect on the potential for a hung parliament. Just because all electorates are the same size will not mean that any given party will get a majority support.

Curiously, this change benefits the Tories more than anyone else.

2. Make it compulsory to vote.

I'm not sure I agree with this - mostly because it never really works in practice and just adds an unnecessary administrative burden to try and enforce a futile law.

Surely it's more sensible to work to ensure that people are politically engaged (in NZ, for example, voter turnout is usually very high - and we're one of the more apathetic countries I've lived in).

3. Introduce run-off voting where we keep voting until someone gets more than 50% of the vote.

A couple of studies coming out of the last election compared the impact of run-off voting between the top two candidates (based on exit polls, among other things) and the actual result. The net effect would have been to have more LibDems in parliament, at the expense of both Conservative and Labour candidates. In general, run-off voting is likely to produce very similar results to AV - which makes your opposition to AV quite strange.

This is the issue: all of your solutions are not solutions to the problem you identify. They are all changes to the system but have nothing to do with the actual problem that you identify. Your final solution is so laughably similar to AV that it makes all of your arguments ring very, very hollow.

So, I ask again: how would you prevent coalition Governments?

[Dreadful Scathe]

p.s. While I'm making the above changes I think I'll re-introduce the death penalty and re-instate a monarchy in Scotland and Wales*.

We have a monarchy, its the same as the rest of the UK. Baring another jacobite uprising I don't see an independent monarchy being at all likely.

As for death penalty - no civilised country is likely to go for that. Murder is generally though of as wrong, even state sponsored murder.

[Andy McGregor]

No, it was a much deeper question. you are arguing not that that is the case, but that it should be the case - that any system which makes the proportion of MPs reflect the proportion of the popular vote must be limited by ensuring that one party has a majority in each parliament. This is a position that really needs to be defended (particularly in light of the fact that most other democracies can and do operate perfectly well with coalition Governments: are you suggesting the British aren't capable of handling this?)

Please don't try and guess at what I assume. You will probably be - as you are here - wrong.

If you ask a less wooly question I will not have to make assumptions.

As I said, I don't like coalition governments and have said why I don't like them.

So, I ask again: how would you prevent coalition Governments?

And I say, again: I can not prevent coalition governments.

But we are debating AV and I believe that AV will mean we get more of them in the UK.

[Andy McGregor]

We have a monarchy, its the same as the rest of the UK. Baring another jacobite uprising I don't see an independent monarchy being at all likely.

As for death penalty - no civilised country is likely to go for that. Murder is generally though of as wrong, even state sponsored murder.

I was using irony. As I was in a world of fantasy I thought I'd introduce a few things we don't need...

.. except a single Ireland. We need that - and free fuel & chocolate.

[geoff332]

But we are debating AV and I believe that AV will mean we get more of them in the UK.

So what really matters is having one party in Government at a time.

Why did you even bother making arguments about the fairness or otherwise of AV if all that matters is having a single party Government?

[DJ Mike]

But we are debating AV and I believe that AV will mean we get more of them in the UK.

Andy, actually this is something AV doesn't cause (although AV+ or STV might and definitely PLPR would) - plenty of research has been done into previous elections, and under AV it actually led to more landslide victories for governments than coalitions. Only in the 1992 election were we very likely to have had a coalition.

It comes down to the fact that governments are formed from MPs, not votes. And believe it or not, AV would do very little to change the already staunch support Labour or Conservative supporters receive in many constituencies. The only thing it would dramatically swing are the cases where three or more candidates are often neck and neck. In those cases you would start to see the candidate with more secondary support emerge.

Coalition governments are not a pivotal reason to choose FPTP or AV in this case as they actually present little difference, due to the way our constituences are currently divided.

[Dreadful Scathe]

I was using irony. As I was in a world of fantasy I thought I'd introduce a few things we don't need...

.. except a single Ireland. We need that - and free fuel & chocolate.

Yes i did get it, but replied anyway because i felt like dismissing the points in case anyone agreed.

Back to AV.


on and this ...some good points.

I especially don't like the "its too complicated" argument of the NO campaign. Basically it's "we know you're too stupid". Yeah, thanks.

[DavidY]

This whole subject makes me very sad because I used to understand the Maths of this sort of thing quite well, and I've now forgotten all of it.

However it's probably worth mentioning Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, which states a few assumptions for what constitutes a fair voting system (all of which look quite reasonable), and then proves mathematically that it's impossible to devise a voting system (or at least one of the type where voters express preferences for one candidate over another) that satisfies those assumptions. See here for more info...

All of which doesn't make a case for either AV or FPTP, but it does suggest that both voting systems will have flaws because all voting systems are likely to have flaws.

[Franck]

For those of you still unsure about AV, this website:

An A to Z of rubbish arguments from no2av

has a comprehensive rebuttal of the spurious arguments presented by the No2AV side, which it seems has been unable to present any arguments as to why FPTP is better than AV, only FUD (Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt) to prevent any change they're afraid of.

(Whoops, just realised Dreadful Scathe had already linked to that website! Still worth pointing out again though.)

[Andy McGregor]

So what really matters is having one party in Government at a time.

Why did you even bother making arguments about the fairness or otherwise of AV if all that matters is having a single party Government?

This is putting words into my mouth

What really matters is that we vote FOR a single candidate to represent us. The rest of the stuff from me is supporting arguments. Did I mention I want to be able to vote FOR a single candidate to fill the single job? No second guessing, not second choices: one person, one vote.

p.s. When I get time I will be asking Geoff (use of the missing capital is a kindness on my part) some questions about the many assumptions he as made and throw-away lines he's, erm, thrown away.

[Andy McGregor]

Yes i did get it, but replied anyway because i felt like dismissing the points in case anyone agreed.

Don't worry, nobody on here ever agrees with me

"... here I am, brain the size of a planet, and they ask me to 'open the door' ".

[meghann]

This whole subject makes me very sad because I used to understand the Maths of this sort of thing quite well, and I've now forgotten all of it.

However it's probably worth mentioning Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, which states a few assumptions for what constitutes a fair voting system (all of which look quite reasonable), and then proves mathematically that it's impossible to devise a voting system (or at least one of the type where voters express preferences for one candidate over another) that satisfies those assumptions. See here for more info...

All of which doesn't make a case for either AV or FPTP, but it does suggest that both voting systems will have flaws because all voting systems are likely to have flaws.

There is one system, called the random ballot, which is fair in terms of proportional representation. Basically all voters vote for their preferred party and one ballot paper is picked at random from each constituency. This basically acts as a random sampling of the popuation. Of course, it isn't fair for other reasons...

More information here http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/sh...-in-on-uk.html

[bigdjiver]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...ode_6/?t=9m22s


Apparently Cameron did not win leadership under FPTP

[DavidY]

There is one system, called the random ballot, which is fair in terms of proportional representation. Basically all voters vote for their preferred party and one ballot paper is picked at random from each constituency. This basically acts as a random sampling of the popuation. Of course, it isn't fair for other reasons...

Well indeed. It would make recounts more interesting, for one thing.

Although it depends what you mean by 'fair' - at one level picking a voter at random out of each constituency is fair, although even the article proposing the system points out that it would annoy lots of people - more than under FPTP.

More information here http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/sh...-in-on-uk.html

Ah that's interesting - and also links to a (very long!) blog post on the merits of AV over FPTP, also from a mathematical perspective.

[meghann]

Although it depends what you mean by 'fair' - at one level picking a voter at random out of each constituency is fair, although even the article proposing the system points out that it would annoy lots of people - more than under FPTP.

This is true - to me, at least, it instinctively feels unfair because on the surface it seems like not everyone's vote is being counted. Mathematically, of course, they're contributing to the population from which the sample vote is drawn, so they are being counted indirectly.

I don't think this would be a good way of encouraging more people to use their vote, though, given that the chances of their vote being used in an obvious way are so small.

I don't mean to imply that people are stupid; only that statistics and probability often seem obscure and non-intuitive, and the human brain seems to be wired to misinterpret them. (That was the subject of another New Scientist article, but I can't find it now.)

[Andy McGregor]

- and also links to a (very long!) blog post on the merits of AV over FPTP, also from a mathematical perspective.

I read through this blog. I didn't refute, or even mention, my objection to AV*. However, I loved this line.

a short, succinct, punchy statement that is wrong trumps a longer and ever so slightly complicated explanation of why it is wrong.

*My objection to AV is that I have only one choice as the person to represent me. I don't want to have my choice and the choice of other like-minded voters muddied by people's second, third, fourth, etc, choices.

[David Bailey]

What really matters is that we vote FOR a single candidate to represent us. The rest of the stuff from me is supporting arguments. Did I mention I want to be able to vote FOR a single candidate to fill the single job? No second guessing, not second choices: one person, one vote.

You can still do that under AV. Just refuse to exercise 2nd - nth choices.

[frodo]

You can still do that under AV. Just refuse to exercise 2nd - nth choices.

Not really. That would be 1 person - 7/8 (or so) of a vote (unless 'none of the above' was treated as a virtual candidate).

[Andy McGregor]

You can still do that under AV. Just refuse to exercise 2nd - nth choices.

Unforturnately it means that everyone else gets more say in who becomes MY MP. One person, one vote. How simple is that?

[NZ Monkey]

Not really. That would be 1 person - 7/8 (or so) of a vote (unless 'none of the above' was treated as a virtual candidate).

No, it's still one vote. The only difference is that it will be counted at the point where it will make a difference if your first choice doesn't get enough votes.

Comparing it to FPTP it enables you to vote for the person you actually want and still fall back on old fashioned tactical voting if you need to.

Compared to run off elections it let's you put your order of preference on one sheet of paper rather than having to come back a second time to do exactly that in a second round of elections.