Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011

[articul8]

i laugh doubly at the idea that they'd do so without seeking almost wholly to attract voters from the three big parties.

Well you don't need to speculate - there is already evidence of the effect of preferential voting in London - where Livingstone attracted more 2nd prefs than Boris by making a pitch to the left (Greens, left LDs, Left List etc.). The fact he didn't win this time was due to other factors meaning he lost on 1st prefs. But the incentives for Livingstone aren't to speak from the centre but to clearly distinguish himself from the Tory position.

Unlike the situation MPs face where the policy is determined purely to target floating voters in middle England. Given that the current situation is already 100% about governing from the centre - the fact that AV allows small parties to get significant 1st preference votes and stake out a clear position can only be beneficial. Yes, it's not the ideal system. But that's not the question here.

On what grounds is it better to keep FPTP that has locked out the left since day one?

 

[Wolveryeti]

Apologies if posted already - Radio 5 live did a mock election using both FPTP and AV, and got the same result each time

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00ztf0h

These were the results:

The clearest indication yet of how AV is likely to work. Note how the flow of votes goes from the fringe parties to the big three practically guaranteeing that the winner will be one of the Tories, Labour or Lib Dems.

 

[kabbes]

The Greens picked up a surprising number of 3rd and 4th place votes though. Although not enough to overtake the leader, obviously.

BNP votes didn't have second choices for anybody at all other than UKIP!

 

[ViolentPanda]

The Greens picked up a surprising number of 3rd and 4th place votes though. Although not enough to overtake the leader, obviously.

BNP votes didn't have second choices for anybody at all other than UKIP!

Like calls unto like.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't understand that graph - or rather, i don't understand how you can read the preference votes from it.

 

[articul8]

Well it does suggest that only 0.1% of voters transferred to UKIP.

Actually they've fucked up all the percentages after the 1st round - % should be calculated without "no preference" being included.

 

[kabbes]

I don't understand that graph - or rather, i don't understand how you can read the preference votes from it.

You can only work out what they were by implication. They aren't expressed explicitly. We know the first choices -- that's AV1. But you have to infer second choices, third choices and so on based on the movements from round to round.

 

[butchersapron]

Note how the winner gets under 50% - which is impossible apparently.

 

[butchersapron]

You can only work out what they were by implication. They aren't expressed explicitly. We know the first choices -- that's AV1. But you have to infer second choices, third choices and so on based on the movements from round to round.

Oh god, you mean do the distribution of the losing candidates % by guess for each round, fuck that.

 

[articul8]

The % are calculated wrong (see above)

 

[butchersapron]

Why should no preferences not be included? Is it because if people don't use all of their preference vote it throws the argument that all MPs will have 50%+ of the vote right out of the window - and that academic work has suggested in the event of not everyone using all their preference votes (which will be the case and why compulsory preference voting for all candidates was introduced in Australia) then the amount of MPs elected with under 50% is expected to be about 60% - not much better than the current 66% - and that with it yet another leg of the YES vote campaign is kicked away?

 

[kabbes]

I have a more fundamental question about that table, actually. The electorate is 200 people, it says. Which means that for the first round at least, all percentages should be either whole- or half-numbers. 21.9% of 200 people is 43.8 people.

So that implies that of their 200, there were a number that registered no vote at all. But we aren't told how many this number is, which renders the whole thing a bit dubious. For all I know, the sample size (which is already dangerously low) has dropped to a level that renders the whole thing utterly pointless.

 

[articul8]

Why should no preferences not be included? Is it because if people don't use all of their preference vote it throws the argument that all MPs will have 50%+ of the vote right out of the window - and that academic work has suggested in the event of not everyone using all their preference votes (which will be the case and why compulsory preference voting for all candidates was introduced in Australia) then the amount of MPs elected with under 50% is expected to be about 60% - not much better than the current 66% - and that with it yet another leg of the YES vote campaign is kicked away?

50% refers to votes left in the ballot, not 50% of all electors. The current figure for people elected with over 50% of electors is not 66% but 33%.

 

[butchersapron]

50% refers to votes left in the ballot, not 50% of all electors. The current figure for people elected with over 50% of electors is not 66% but 33%.

That's what i said. And as i said, there's academic work that suggest that unless all preference votes are used by all voters the figure of elected candidates with over 50%+ of votes under AV will be around 40%. A whopping great improvement.

 

[articul8]

The point is not that all voters will want to use preferences - but that everyone has the opportunity to do so.

 

[Santino]

I'd relish the opportunity to express a preference between UKIP and the BNP.

 

[butchersapron]

The point is not that all voters will want to use preferences - but that everyone has the opportunity to do so.

That's it is it? Months of arguing AV will ensure 50%+ support for elected candidates and now it appears that it won't - and that's your reply?

 

[articul8]

It's an obsure point of pedantry. The winners will all have over 50% of the votes in the final round of the ballot. If people choose not to exercise all their preferences that's their perogative. Quite different from not having the choice in the first place.

 

[articul8]

I'd relish the opportunity to express a preference between UKIP and the BNP.

you don't have to. Vote for one party if you want.

 

[danny la rouge]

It's an obsure point of pedantry. The winners will all have over 50% of the votes in the final round of the ballot. If people choose not to exercise all their preferences that's their perogative. Quite different from not having the choice in the first place.

So, the point is to let people note their choice, rather than to, I dunno, improve electoral legitimacy, say?

 

[butchersapron]

It's an obsure point of pedantry. The winners will all have over 50% of the votes in the final round of the ballot. If people choose not to exercise all their preferences that's their perogative. Quite different from not having the choice in the first place.

Obscure point of pendatry? It's been one of, if not the, central theme of your argument since the referendum was announced - that the need to win 50%+ means that (in your mad world) MPs would be forced to move leftwards or something to reach that 50%+. Now it's an obsure piece of pedantry?

Not having a good day are you?

 

[articul8]

An MP that is better able to reach out beyond his or her party's core vote to appeal to a wider group of people would do better under AV than one who can't. The incentives are there. The fact that 50% of votes in the final round is not always 50% in total because of "plumping" or spoilt ballots is a point of minor quibbling - it doesn't change the fundamental point.

 

[Santino]

An MP that is better able to reach out beyond his or her party's core vote to appeal to a wider group of people would do better under AV than one who can't. The incentives are there. The fact that 50% of votes in the final round is not always 50% in total because of "plumping" or spoilt ballots is a point of minor quibbling - it doesn't change the fundamental point.

You say reaching out beyond his or her party's core, I say pandering to right-wing cunts.

 

[articul8]

a) big parties already try to appeal to right wing cunts through triangulation (encouraged by FPTP)
b) where right wing cunts are the minority then getting to close to them is electorally self-defeating.
c) why not reach out to the left - not enough votes there? Well we should worry about that, not the effects of a fairer voting system.

 

[butchersapron]

An MP that is better able to reach out beyond his or her party's core vote to appeal to a wider group of people would do better under AV than one who can't. The incentives are there. The fact that 50% of votes in the final round is not always 50% in total because of "plumping" or spoilt ballots is a point of minor quibbling - it doesn't change the fundamental point.

Yes it does, it destroys months of arguments by you, and shows that at core it was only ever simply that the candidate who got most votes would win - not that they would be forced to appeal to left-wing votes or to appeal to w/c candidates by pro-w/c measures. Months of your argument disappear in a puff of smoke.

And wow, the candidate best placed to win a majority of votes is most likely to win under AV - guess what, they are under FPTP too.

 

[articul8]

And wow, the candidate best placed to win a majority of votes is most likely to win under AV - guess what, they are under FPTP too.

But under FPTP they can achieve this by appealing to their core vote. Given that candidates who gain more 2nd preferences are advantaged under AV the incentives are greater to broaden your appeal.

This is self evident and no amount of statistical nit-picking alters it.

 

[Santino]

The logic of, say, a Labour candidate having to tack left is undone by the logic that left-wing voters will vote Labour anyway to keep out a Tory or Lib Dem. The WHOLE BLOODY POINT OF AV IS THAT YOU RATE THE CANDIDATES, therefore there is NO NEED AT ALL for parties to appeal to anywhere but the centre.

 

[butchersapron]

But under FPTP they can achieve this by appealing to their core vote. Given that candidates who gain more 2nd preferences are advantaged under AV the incentives are greater to broaden your appeal.

This is self evident and no amount of statistical nit-picking alters it.

Under AV they can also achieve this by appealing to their core vote - your argument that their appeal would need to be broadened (no mention of the political content of that broadening of course) because they need to reach 50%+ of the votes is not true - they don't - not in any way especially or significantly different than under FPTP anyway. No way out of this. Your whole argument is collapsing around you and you're just pretending it's not happening.

 

[articul8]

Parties that have a broader appeal will by definition be favoured by preferential voting - of course in individual instances no party might have succeed in building a broad appeal and in those circumstances the effects won't differ significantly. But the greater incentives for reaching out are there nevertheless.

Nothing you have said has in any way undermined this basic fact.

 

[butchersapron]

There's nothing to undermine in the banality that more popular parties get more votes and have a broader appeal than less popular ones. The argument of yours that was so central and has now quietly gone by the wayside is that the requirement to win 50%+ of all votes meant parties had to try and broaden their appeal - there's no such requirement, so there's no such imperative. What motivation there is and the positives (as you see them) apply just as well under FPTP.