Wolfie Smith
Sociable Worker
I agree AV is rubbish, but to my mind slightly less rubbish than pure FPTP.
Yes/No to AV - Urban Votes
- Thread starter Fingers
- Start date
I agree AV is rubbish, but to my mind slightly less rubbish than pure FPTP.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Why does your mind say that, though?
Did you discount stuff like this? -
Jenkins Commission verdict on AV: http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm40/4090/chap-5.htm#c5-a
Report on AV in Australia: http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/esy/esy_au
And if so, why? What grounds?
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Wolfie is obviously entitled to his opinions. It's just that this "fairer" mantra (not just from him) has been devoid of evidence.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Wolfie is obviously entitled to his opinions. It's just that this "fairer" mantra (not just from him) has been devoid of evidence.
Looking at it from a purely mathematical point of view, it can be seen to be fairer because it is producing a result on the basis of more information. More information is fed by voters into the electoral system, and that information is then weighed in the fairest (in a mathematical sense) way.
I'm guessing that is what many posters mean by 'fairer'. Effectively, it removes the need to ever vote tactically, which I think is a very good thing – I think a system that forces people into tactical voting is profoundly undemocratic, and clearly is not taking enough information at the polling booth to produce an equitable result.
I would throw that question back at the anti-AVers: Why would you object to being asked to give more information about your wishes?
Wolfie Smith
Sociable Worker
Jenkins left it broadly neutral about whether AV was more or less proportional. He said it it COULD be less proportional sometimes, and ergo more proportional others. I've never claimed that AV is more proportional.
I've briefly read your Australian link a couple of times (at work) and I'm not quite getting why you've posted it up so much. In an nutshell what's the point I'm missing?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
it's chimeric though, it doesn't actually significate anything except "a few more people can feel good about voting".
And yet, in Australia, there's the same problem as here. The main parties exercise hegemony at national level, as well as in many of the states at state government level. What's the point of seats changing hands with a slightly greater regularity if all that means is that neo-lib cunt A holds the seat rather than neo-lib cunt B?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Very little point, VP. But again, that's not an argument to vote for the current system, and the way this referendum has been arranged, it really is a vote for AV or for the current system. Clearly there is an option missing on the ballot paper, but is the absence of a 'neither of the above' option a reason to vote 'no'?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Quite.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Unfortunately, electoral politics have nowhere near the logical predicates that mathematics has, so a mathematical perspective isn;t really helpful.
It doesn't remove the need, though, it modifies it into a different form. Instead of tactical voting to keep candidate X out, you vote for who you'd prefer if your chosen candidate doesn't cut the mustard.
It's not a case of objecting to giving more information, it's a case of objecting to a system whose function will be to effectively cement the three main political parties into place.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I'd say it's not the reason to vote "no", but it's a reason alongside many others that, taken together, convince me that voting "no" makes more sense than voting "yes".
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Yes, tactical voting is merely displaced to the ranking of preferences - and it essentially makes all votes tactical - it actually expands tactical voting massively.
MellySingsDoom
Decimated by the shrapnel of his rhetoric
Incorrect - AV's 2nd/3rd etc preferences have been used tactically in Australia to keep out "marginal" parties - it was actually used in this way to defeat One Nation. The various far-left/far-right etc grouplets also lose out by tactical voting on both sides of the fence. So if anything, it increases tactical voting.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The current system cements the three main parties into place, though, just as surely as AV, if not more so.
I think a mathematical view is helpful - to me at least - because there is an issue of the amount of information the election result is being based on - av provides more information. I can't see that as anything but a good thing.
I think a mathematical view is helpful - to me at least - because there is an issue of the amount of information the election result is being based on - av provides more information. I can't see that as anything but a good thing.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
How is that 'tactical' voting? Your 2nd/3rd prefs etc are a means to express your most hated candidate. That's part of its function to me - in a three horse race, for instance, under AV you can say who you would most like and who you would least like. Under so-called fptp (I agree with an earlier poster that this is a misnomer - there is no post in this system - AV is true fptp) you only get to say who you would most like, so expressing anything else requires an attempt to second-guess the result, which is what I mean by tactical voting, and which is why I think any system that makes people do this is undemocratic.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
What do you mean by 'tactical voting', though? I mean something very specific by it – voting according to how you think others will vote, and going for a candidate who isn't your real preference as a result of that second-guessing of others. Under what circumstances would AV make you place a candidate you liked less than another higher up in the preferences?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
That fits exactly what happens in Australia - parties publish list of how you should rank candidates to achieve a given outcome - i.e stop the tory getting in or whatever. It happens - it's no good pointing to an ideal model when that's just not what happens.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Can you outline a realistic scenario in which this would happen in the UK's version of the system?
( I accept that this is almost certainly academic - everyone seems to think that no is going to win.)
( I accept that this is almost certainly academic - everyone seems to think that no is going to win.)
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
In a nutshell: AV funnels votes to the big two.
As to Jenkins he says that AV "So far from doing much to relieve disproportionality, it is capable of substantially adding to it", and " would fail to address several of the more significant defects of FPTP", and far from ending the safe seat (as the Yes campaign claimed) "most seats in the country would remain safe".
AV is therefore change rather than reform, and is actually change for something a bit worse.
I've yet to see why you think it's "fairer".
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It is change rather than reform, yes, but actually change for something a bit less bad, imo.
Why? Because, as I said above, they're taking more information about what you would like and processing that information in a statistically fair way.
Why? Because, as I said above, they're taking more information about what you would like and processing that information in a statistically fair way.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
A realistic scenario where people would use their preference votes to block others they don't want to see elected or sacrificed what they really want to pile on someone who could win to stop someone they really hate getting elected? Yes i can - general elections where there's two large parties one smaller one and handful of regional parties and tiny groups. That's exactly what will happen - it's exactly what happened in Australia. The fears and motivations that lead people to vote tactically under FPTP will still exist under AV - why on earth would they just dissappear?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
But under AV you can do that without having to second-guess how other people are going to vote. That is what I mean by 'tactical voting' and it stinks that anyone should feel forced to do it, imo.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Of course you'd be ranking them in order based on second guessing likely outcomes! That's the whole point of it!
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
So, under av, you can put as small and obscure a party as you like as 1st pref, but if you put another obscure party as your 2nd, you risk allowing 'most hated' party x in because your 2nd pref wasn't counted for the party most likely to defeat x. Is that how it would work?
Surely it wouldn't work like that, though, because if x gets up to over 50% in the second round, your vote can't help anyway, and if they don't get to over 50%, your third pref can count. Etc Etc all down the line. The system is designed to prevent the need for second-guessing, surely.
Surely it wouldn't work like that, though, because if x gets up to over 50% in the second round, your vote can't help anyway, and if they don't get to over 50%, your third pref can count. Etc Etc all down the line. The system is designed to prevent the need for second-guessing, surely.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
That's one way it could work yes.
editor
hiraethified
Turnout bigger than expected, but still fewer than one in two could be arsed:
Eastern 43.1%; London 35.4%; North East 38.7%; North West 39.7%; Scotland 50.7%; South West 44.6%; West Midlands 39.8%; Yorkshire and Humber 39.9%.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13280105
Eastern 43.1%; London 35.4%; North East 38.7%; North West 39.7%; Scotland 50.7%; South West 44.6%; West Midlands 39.8%; Yorkshire and Humber 39.9%.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13280105
MellySingsDoom
Decimated by the shrapnel of his rhetoric
^^^^What are the odds that these figures will be spun by Yes to AV that not enough people voted, so morally the (more than likely No) result doesn't count? "There wasn't a 50% voter threshold" etc.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
How is it less bad? Australian and Canadian electoral reformers reject AV precisely because it prevents smaller parties getting a foothold.
The Greens won Brighton with the lowest ever FPTP victory in British history (IIRC) - 31%
The Greens were expected to have a good shot at that seat, so there were very few Green voters voting tactically for other parties.
Look up the Brighton results, and give us some plausible analysis on how AV would have made it easier for Lucas to win that seat.
You cannot wave your hands about and tell us that AV is fairer when there it has no track record of making space for small parties, and by definition it requires them to have a higher % of support than they need under FPTP.
Why are you so uninterested in the actual experience of AV elsewhere? I've given you an entire academic paper to peruse, and you're still coming here with uninformed bullshit based on propaganda materials and no actual evidence.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
That's precisely why a NO vote, which is partly due to a strong "NO to AV, YES to PR" campaign, makes meaningful electoral reform no less likely than a YES vote, and arguably makes it more likely than if we settled for a non-compromise designed to cement power for the larger parties and exclude the rest forever. How would we ever get PR under a system where their hegemony is completely unchallengeable?
Andrew Hertford
Chocolate Jesus
What "NO to AV, YES to PR" campaign was that then?
This was a 'No to AV, YES to FPTP' campaign.... Yes to FPTP for bloody generations to come.
This was a 'No to AV, YES to FPTP' campaign.... Yes to FPTP for bloody generations to come.
Similar threads
