Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011

[Combustible]

British election survey suggests Lucas would still have won under AV. [/URL]

As has been pointed out already if you look at the report they do not conclude that Lucas would have won as a result of electoral simulations but as a piece of conjecture.

 

[frogwoman]

Oh well, as long as it stops the BNPaedos eh?

 

[articul8]

As has been pointed out already if you look at the report they do not conclude that Lucas would have won as a result of electoral simulations but as a piece of conjecture.

It's not "conjecture" - it is modelling based on opinion polling (from a demographically representative sampel) of voters second preferences. Greens are transfer friendly in general (unless they manage to piss everyone off like in Ireland). But no system is guaranteed to work for any party (that includes the LD by the way).

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's not "conjecture" - it is modelling based on opinion polling (from a demographically representative sampel) of voters second preferences. Greens are transfer friendly in general (unless they manage to piss everyone off like in Ireland). But no system is guaranteed to work for any party (that includes the LD by the way).

Models give you probabilities, therefore conclusions are conjecture. The conclusions may be informed with large amounts of pertinent data, but the findings are still only speculative.

BTW, put not your faith in models. Even the best are so simplistic that they only give tentative indications. If authoritative models were easy to construct, every bookie in the world would have gone out of business at the advent of the computer age.

 

[Combustible]

It's not "conjecture" - it is modelling based on opinion polling (from a demographically representative sampel) of voters second preferences. Greens are transfer friendly in general (unless they manage to piss everyone off like in Ireland). But no system is guaranteed to work for any party (that includes the LD by the way).

Except if you read the relevant portion of the report (pg 13) that is not what the prediction that they would hold onto the seat is based on. The simulation shows no such thing (as posted earlier).

Note that Table 8 reports the
Greens as retaining their single seat of Brighton Pavilion, in spite of the
indecisive result indicated by our simulations. This reflects our judge-
ment (rather than any hard evidence) that the pattern of second prefer-
ences in the unusual circumstances Brighton Pavilion seat would have
been sufficient to secure a Green AV victory, regardless of the second
preference vote allocations to the Greens that are implied by our
national distribution ratios.

 

[weltweit]

It will disadvantage the Tories *because* it is a more democratic system that better reflects the majority of people's attitudes towards them

It isn't a more democratic system, stop spreading nonsense, it is a differently democratic system.

In fact many, including me, would argue that it is a less democratic system because people voting for the losing candidates get a second bite of the cherry when their second preferences are taken into account while people who voted for the front runners, DO NOT get their second preferences counted. In that way it is UNFAIR compared to first past the post.

 

[articul8]

the cherry hasn't been bitten at all when preferences have been given to candidates that are eliminated, so they rightly transfer so that the (single) vote can be counted (once).

 

[butchersapron]

the cherry hasn't been at all when preferences have been given to candidates that are eliminated, so they rightly transfer so that the (single) vote can be counted (once).

A clearer concise explanation of AV i've yet to see.

 

[butchersapron]

What about when they 'wrongly transfer'? What does this mean?

 

[articul8]

excuse the grammar - problems of post-pub posting. Meant in the sense that they - quite rightly - are transferred.

No vote is counted more than once (as WW is claiming).

 

[butchersapron]

What about when they 'wrongly transfer'? What does this mean?

 

[articul8]

see above

 

[butchersapron]

Nope, that wasn't grammar.

 

[weltweit]

No vote is counted more than once (as WW is claiming).

Yes it is, patently.

First they get their vote for the losing candidate counted.

Then they get their first preference counted.

That is two counts of their preferences, something other voters do not get!

I would have thought that was clear, even to you!

 

[butchersapron]

Multiple voting happens. Its inescapable.

 

[articul8]

A preference is NOT the same thing as a vote. A voter states preferences as an insurance policy in case their first choice is eliminated before their vote (ie. for that candidate) gets to count.

 

[articul8]

Nope, that wasn't grammar.

syntax then

 

[butchersapron]

A preference is NOT the same thing as a vote. A voter states preferences as an insurance policy in case their first choice is eliminated before their vote (ie. for that candidate) gets to count.

Call it what you will multi-voting is the reality.

 

[butchersapron]

syntax then

What is "right transfers"?

 

[articul8]

It was clumsy syntax - I meant that it is entirely appropriate that preferences transfer when they are cast for candidates who are eliminated before the vote has a chance to count.

 

[weltweit]

It was clumsy syntax - I meant that it is entirely appropriate that preferences transfer when they are cast for candidates who are eliminated before the vote has a chance to count.

No, it is not appropriate.

You voted for a losing candidate, you should not get another try to get your next opinion heard. No one else gets this privilidge. If everyone's second preference was counted then perhaps it would not be so unfair but that is not the plan.

AV as it is gives losing voters the chance to have a second vote and this second vote may overturn the preferences of first time voters, making someone else the winner. Totally unfair!

 

[articul8]

Why would you need your 2nd preference counting if your 1st was still in the race? It would be absurd. There is no great point in casting lots of preferences - it doesn't make your vote count more than once

 

[butchersapron]

Why would you need your 2nd preference counting if your 1st was still in the race? It would be absurd. There is no great point in casting lots of preferences - it doesn't make your vote count more than once

2nd prefs are worthless - vote a for a system that favours 2nd prefs, 2nd prefs will help us.

 

[past caring]

A preference is NOT the same thing as a vote. A voter states preferences as an insurance policy in case their first choice is eliminated before their vote (ie. for that candidate) gets to count.

Sophistry.

 

[articul8]

No it's not - the argument that people vote more than once is based on a fundamental category error.

 

[butchersapron]

No it's not.

 

[past caring]

 

[weltweit]

Why would you need your 2nd preference counting if your 1st was still in the race? It would be absurd. There is no great point in casting lots of preferences - it doesn't make your vote count more than once

One man one vote - is fair to all parties

AV is one man one vote - and for some - a second vote which can change the overall outcome..

Why should the people who vote for a losing candidate get a second chance and a chance to deny the majority expressed in the first vote their democratic selection?

 

[weltweit]

No it's not - the argument that people vote more than once is based on a fundamental category error.

Don't talk bollocks, some people get to have their preferences counted twice, while others do not!

 

[butchersapron]

One man one vote - is fair to all parties

AV is one man one vote - and for some - a second vote which can change the overall outcome..

Why should the people who vote for a losing candidate get a second chance and a chance to deny the majority expressed in the first vote their democratic selection?

Because they might be lib dems