Alternative vote - yes or no?

[NZ Monkey]

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

If you deliberately choose not to excersise your full power of voting then perhaps, depending on how popular your preferred candidate is. That's your own daft fault though. I doubt you'd have much sympathy for someone who complains about the government but didn't bother voting themselves, given you think it should be compulsory to vote. It looks to me like a double standard you have here.

[Andy McGregor]

If you deliberately choose not to excersise your full power of voting then perhaps, depending on how popular your preferred candidate is. That's your own daft fault though. I doubt you'd have much sympathy for someone who complains about the government but didn't bother voting themselves, given you think it should be compulsory to vote. It looks to me like a double standard you have here.

I do not have double standards. I am not refusing to vote or refusing to rank candidates past my first choice. I am rejecting the proposition that I support AV and simply vote for one candidate if AV is adopted. I am giving my reasons for rejecting AV - having to rank the candidates is one of the reasons I'm rejecting AV.

So where, NZ Monkey, are my 'double standards'? And were am I being 'daft'? I am consistently sticking to my original proposition. One person, one vote. I am rejecting AV - some people are trying to convince me to vote for AV and then vote for one candidate under AV - now that would be daft!

[NZ Monkey]

I do not have double standards. I am not refusing to vote or refusing to rank candidates past my first choice. I am rejecting the proposition that I support AV and simply vote for one candidate if AV is adopted. I am giving my reasons for rejecting AV - having to rank the candidates is one of the reasons I'm rejecting AV.

So where, NZ Monkey, are my 'double standards'? And were am I being 'daft'? I am consistently sticking to my original proposition. One person, one vote. I am rejecting AV - some people are trying to convince me to vote for AV and then vote for one candidate under AV - now that would be daft!

The double standard is that you're happy to cast a single vote, watch your candidate get knocked out of the competition and then go back to the ballot to cast a second vote for someone else in round two of a run-off...... but not give any preferences other your first choice in round one.

Fair enough point about your opposition to only placing one preference under AV though. I wasn't reading closely enough between exam preperation to pick that up. However, as things stand even that is no worse than choosing Bobo The Clown as your candidate when the rest of the electorate is voting tactically to keep somebody specific out. Your vote is just as effectively "wasted" in that scenario under FPTP anyway.

I really don't understand this "One Person. One Vote" line (in the sand) though. Under any system being discussed you only get one vote. The difference being how early it gets thown out of the game. If anything that system should act to curb tactical voting and potententially lead to a clearer picture of what the electorate wants over time, which can only be a good thing.

If you choose to abstain after a certain point then so be it. Sure, your vote is then counting for less than someone who ranked all the way to the end, but it counted for everything you wanted it for. If you have no opinion after the first choice then presumably you'd be equally unhappy with whichever of the remaining candidates win. Just like it works in FPTP already.

[DJ Mike]

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.

It's not always one vote, it's only one vote if you actually care to rank all the candidates (i.e. you support all of them to *some* degree). If you choose not to rank a candidate and all your supported candidates lose, your vote is discarded.

Now, that is obviously a choice but it means we'll be electing people into office on a supposed "majority" of votes, but the reality is that a minority of people may still have voted for them!

Whichever way you look at it, AV really doesn't solve the minority leading the majority issue any better than FPTP. If you force people to rank every candidate, you can end up with a winner that the majority appear to support but actually a lot of people really didn't (they were just forced to rank him/her). If you don't force people to rank every candidate, you'll end up with a winner by majority but only from the the remaining votes which could easily be a minority.

With FPTP, you have a clear connection with your vote and the percentage your candidate got - so even though your candidate loses, you know very clearly what percentage of the vote they commanded. Under AV that really isn't so simple any more - again, disconnection with the voting process and the MP you get.

[Andy McGregor]

The double standard is that you're happy to cast a single vote, watch your candidate get knocked out of the competition and then go back to the ballot to cast a second vote for someone else in round two of a run-off...... but not give any preferences other your first choice in round one.

Which part of "I'm against AV" is that bit that's a "double standard"?. I don't want AV and have never said how I would vote under AV. Someone else suggested how I should vote under AV. My answer was "I don't want AV". I ask again: where is my "double standard"?

[Andy McGregor]

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.

My questions for Geoff;

1. Under AV there is the mechanism for putting someone in power who didn't get the most votes. That person gets the job because they were more people's second choice. Second choice means that the people didn't want them to be their representative, they just liked them more than the rest of the field - but not as much as their first choice. How does being more people's second choice give them more of a mandate than winning under FPTP but not having a majority?

2. How is AV better than run-off voting?

3. How is AV elections and no change in the House of Commons going to produce better governments than proper proportional representation*.

4. Explain how we will not get more hung parliaments under AV bearing in mind the prevailing view seems to be that the Liberals will end up with more MPs? You are welcome to prove that the prevailing view is incorrect.

My requests for an explanation of throw away lines in earlier postings by Geoff will follow once I've received satisfactory answers to the above questions.

*Please don't feel you need to defend or support PR, just explain how introducing AV is better.

[cederic]

It's not always one vote, it's only one vote if you actually care to rank all the candidates (i.e. you support all of them to *some* degree). If you choose not to rank a candidate and all your supported candidates lose, your vote is discarded.

Your vote is not 'discarded'. Your vote is counted as "none of the above".

You specifically made the choice to vote for only one candidate. You have exactly as many votes as someone that expresses a second, third and fourth choice; at each point your vote is included in the tally. By not adding your vote to a second choice candidate you are helping to eliminate someone else from the race.

If it helps, don't compare your single-choice vote to someone else's "first, second, third choice" vote. Compare your single choice vote to someone else's "I don't want any of these" intentionally spoiled ballot paper.

They've expressed a clear and decisive voting preference. If your sole choice is eliminated after the first round, you too have made that clear and decisive voting preference.

Nobody's vote is "discarded". Nobody votes more than once. Nobody votes less than once (unless they're lazy, indisposed or in prison).

[Andy McGregor]

Your vote is not 'discarded'. Your vote is counted as "none of the above".

You specifically made the choice to vote for only one candidate. You have exactly as many votes as someone that expresses a second, third and fourth choice; at each point your vote is included in the tally. By not adding your vote to a second choice candidate you are helping to eliminate someone else from the race.

If it helps, don't compare your single-choice vote to someone else's "first, second, third choice" vote. Compare your single choice vote to someone else's "I don't want any of these" intentionally spoiled ballot paper.

IF this was correct we could end up with no winner. All 51% of people would have to do would be turn up and place their unmarked ballot paper in the ballot box.

AFAIK, spoilt papers are not counted in FPTP. Do they get counted in in AV?

[DJ Mike]

Your vote is not 'discarded'. Your vote is counted as "none of the above".

No, it is discarded - otherwise you wouldn't have the claim that someone would be elected with 50% of the vote which is patently untrue under AV unless that 50% only comes from the remaining votes.

Put another way, if nobody were to put anything but a 1st preference, you would be exactly where you were under FPTP - a person elected with a minority of the votes. But under AV they can dress that up as >50% because all but the two highest candidates would be 'eliminated'.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Second choice means that the people didn't want them to be their representative, they just liked them more than the rest of the field - but not as much as their first choice.

You say that the voter "liked them" yet "didn't want them" at the same time That makes no sense. That's one extremely confused or mentally ill voter.

Your mindset is all FPTP. With AV people do not need to put down a candidate as their 2nd choice if they do not want them to be their representative. Other than in your mentally ill example, why would they ?

[Andy McGregor]

You say that the voter "liked them" yet "didn't want them" at the same time That makes no sense. That's one extremely confused or mentally ill voter.

"More", they like them more than the people ranked lower. But they aren't their choice. It might be more accurate to say that the voters disliked their second choice less than they disliked their third choice, etc. In other works, they didn't want their second choice to represent them, they wanted their first choice, that's why they placed them first.

In an election we are being asked to choose someone to represent us. Under AV we are being asked to say who we'd select if our first choice wasn't a candidate. That's how ranking works. And that's how AV works. If your first choice is eliminated your second choice counts as if it was your first choice - but it wasn't. If you'd wanted them to be your representative you'd have made them your first choice.

Your mindset is all FPTP. With AV people do not need to put down a candidate as their 2nd choice if they do not want them to be their representative. Other than in your mentally ill example, why would they ?

Under AV you DO need to put down your other choices. If you do not you will have no further influence over the election once your first choice is eliminated from the poll. You never want your second choice to be your representative, that's why you placed them second. However, you will need to do the ranking because you probably want some other candidate even less than your second choice - under AV you would have to carry on this process until you don't care.

[Dreadful Scathe]

In an election we are being asked to choose someone to represent us.

No. We are asked to vote for the person we hate the least, and this is why voter numbers are so low.

[Andy McGregor]

No. We are asked to vote for the person we hate the least, and this is why voter numbers are so low.

If this were true it would be even worse under AV. We place the person we hated the least in first place, then we'd have to decide who we hated even more and rank them in ascending order of hatred. How would this increase voter turnout?

My answer is that we need to make voting a compulsory part of citizenship.

[DJ Mike]

My answer is that we need to make voting a compulsory part of citizenship.

At the total expense of voter satisfaction and connection with politics? It would turn our political system into a laughing stock.

Oh right... Australia...

[philsmove]

Its polling day
Could a mod add a poll

[straycat]

Thank you all for your contributions and arguments. I have to say I was completely noncommittal (and probably more NO-oriented) when I first saw this thread, but reading it, and the further reading it inspired me to do has changed my mind.

So that was a yes from me.

[Dreadful Scathe]

If this were true it would be even worse under AV. We place the person we hated the least in first place, then we'd have to decide who we hated even more and rank them in ascending order of hatred. How would this increase voter turnout?

Because our hatred is noted Hatred is harsh though - this sums it up perfectly.

[Andy McGregor]

Thank you all for your contributions and arguments. I have to say I was completely noncommittal (and probably more NO-oriented) when I first saw this thread, but reading it, and the further reading it inspired me to do has changed my mind.

So that was a yes from me.

I'm sorry. If I'd realised anybody was going to take any notice of this thread I'd have worked harder to get you to see the nonsense of AV. Because nonsense it is. Let's hope the no vote wins.

As was quoted earlier;

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

Putting it simply, in elections we are asked to choose who we WANT to represent us. Of course there are people who we want less and there are people who we want much less. Under AV, if we can't have our first choice because they are the most unpopular, we get to have our second choice treated as if they were our first choice (which they weren't) and our vote is transferred to someone we don't want to represent us - however, we don't want them less than we didn't want the other candidates - but we still didn't want them, otherwise we'd have put them first.

[straycat]

I'm sorry. If I'd realised anybody was going to take any notice of this thread I'd have worked harder to get you to see the nonsense of AV. Because nonsense it is. Let's hope the no vote wins.

Don't beat yourself up - you worked pretty hard. Other people convinced me more effectively, is all.

Don't get me wrong - I don't think AV is the best solution they could have picked, I'm baffled as to why it's being done this way - and if there'd been a 'forget this voting stuff for now, and save the NHS' box, that's where my vote would have gone.

I am, however, convinced that AV is a better option than FPTP. Hence my vote.

[DJ Mike]

It's funny, all the technical debate about FPTP vs AV made me swing to FPTP.

Ultimately the difference between them is more philosophical than anything else - either you want a system which extols a simple, executive vote, or a system which extols hedging your bets across all your preferences.