AV - how to vote?

[mattleonard]

This only becomes an issue if you are voting tactically though. I think it's more unfair if you are able (in you example) to vote UKIP solely to get the BNP kicked out, and then change your vote to a different party who you actually are interested in winning.

 

Then surely the answer is to kill the myth that a vote for a minority candidate is "not counted" - instead your one vote is simply a vote for you want to represent you, and that to use it in another manner is misusing your vote. Rather this than to change the system in order to give the impression that the problem's sorted.

[Akrasia]

I've mentioned a few, but they seem to get swallowed into the void. Perhaps it's because far too many people just go "mathematics - ugh" and ignore what follows.

 

We seem to have covered a few things, and I know you've described problems with PR, and with adding PR as an option in the referendum, but most of the negative stuff on AV seems to have been to do with preference weighting.

 

I did spot this though: "it is possible under the AV system for a candidate to lose the election because too many people voted for him as first choice." While I'd be interested in seeing an explanation of that, I do tend to think that (other things being equal) the less likely something is to happen, the less weight it should be given when deciding what to do.

[mattleonard]

We seem to have covered a few things, and I know you've described problems with PR, and with adding PR as an option in the referendum, but most of the negative stuff on AV seems to have been to do with preference weighting.

 

I guess that's me - sorry!

 

I do tend to think that (other things being equal) the less likely something is to happen, the less weight it should be given when deciding what to do.

 

I do in some ways agree - but I don't think the big consequences are the only manifestation of a flaw in a voting system. The current problems seem to be rooted in the fact that people feel that their vote "doesn't count". Surely the mere possibility of a bizarre result occurring under AV only goes to perpetuate that feeling. And does it no longer matter what kind of margin a candidate wins by? If it seems that a "wrong" candidate could win, doesn't that undermine any sense of there being any validity to what margin a candidate has won by even when it seems that the "right" person wins?

[andikay]

That depends on how you define "fair" to begin with. If you define fair as meaning "proportionally representative" then PR is the only fair system, but that would be a worthless argument.

 

I agree PR is the fairest system and one that I would support, but I was pointing out that the system we have now is completely unfair. When 9,552,436 people want Labour, they get labour but when 10,726,614 people want Conservatives they get a coalition. The conservatives always need a bigger share of the vote to win, 2010 they had a bigger share of the vote than Labour had the last time they won but still didn’t win. Hopefully voting AV is heading towards a fair voting system.

[Akrasia]

Here's an example.

 

BNP and UKIP both have candidates in the constituency. You definitely don't want the BNP in - under AV a good tactical vote might seem to be to put UKIP first to ensure the BNP come last, so that if it goes to a second round, the BNP will be eliminated and the UKIP second choices aren't all going to the BNP. But now, UKIP are still in and your UKIP first choice vote is still being counted despite you not actually liking UKIP. It is now bolstered by all the BNP-lovers who put UKIP second.

 

I realise that there are some scenarios where you might be best off casting a tactical vote under AV, but they're much rarer than under FPTP. In the scenario that you describe, where either UKIP or the BNP are going out in the first round, they must be one of the two smallest parties. For the second smallest party to best someone in each round and pick up enough votes to then eliminate someone else in the next round until they eventually reach 50% + 1 requires quite a rare set of circumstances.

 

I think that AV does well enough making the scenarios where a tactical vote works unlikely that voters can just forget about tactical voting and vote for candidates in order of preference.

[HeadingNorth]

I agree PR is the fairest system and one that I would support, but I was pointing out that the system we have now is completely unfair. When 9,552,436 people want Labour, they get labour but when 10,726,614 people want Conservatives they get a coalition. The conservatives always need a bigger share of the vote to win, 2010 they had a bigger share of the vote than Labour had the last time they won but still didn’t win. Hopefully voting AV is heading towards a fair voting system.

 

The inherent bias against the Conservatives is nothing to do with the voting system though; it arises because Scotland, Wales and the major cities - where the Tories usually do badly - have smaller constituencies than the rest of the country where they do well.

 

A switch to AV would not alter that.

[Akrasia]

I do in some ways agree - but I don't think the big consequences are the only manifestation of a flaw in a voting system. The current problems seem to be rooted in the fact that people feel that their vote "doesn't count". Surely the mere possibility of a bizarre result occurring under AV only goes to perpetuate that feeling. And does it no longer matter what kind of margin a candidate wins by? If it seems that a "wrong" candidate could win, doesn't that undermine any sense of there being any validity to what margin a candidate has won by even when it seems that the "right" person wins?

 

I agree that many people will still feel that their vote doesn't count under AV, because they won't have voted for the winner. Only PR really gives everyone an equal say, and (unlike AV, I think) that would introduce significant new problems.

 

But by recombining split votes, AV eliminates a good number of bizarre results that we currently put up with under FPTP, where split votes hand strong mandates to unpopular candidates. And by ensuring that all MPs secure a majority, AV reduces the number of disenfranchised voters.

 

(I realise that I'll never get a job writing leaflets for the Yes campaign with this kind of position, but sadly life tends to be complicated and nuanced.)

 

For me, the strength of AV isn't so much about making individual votes count more, it's about letting people vote honestly, and getting MPs that better reflect voter preferences, even if they are second or third preferences.

[andikay]

The inherent bias against the Conservatives is nothing to do with the voting system though; it arises because Scotland, Wales and the major cities - where the Tories usually do badly - have smaller constituencies than the rest of the country where they do well.

 

A switch to AV would not alter that.

 

I understand that and if I had my way we would have an English government, I'm just concerned that a vote for no change will lead to no more debate on electoral reform.

[mattleonard]

I agree that many people will still feel that their vote doesn't count under AV, because they won't have voted for the winner.

 

I actually think the opposite - AV will make people feel that their vote has counted because it gives them the opportunity for somewhere on their card to put a number by the name of the person who ends up winner. But how that person got to be winner will be more opaque than it used to be.

 

I think it will be great for politics to feel more representative - but this shouldn't be done at the expense of it being representative. Surely it's better if we can all say "I had one vote, I voted for x, and they did/didn't win, but whichever way my vote was counted."

[andikay]

I agree that many people will still feel that their vote doesn't count under AV, because they won't have voted for the winner. Only PR really gives everyone an equal say, and (unlike AV, I think) that would introduce significant new problems.

 

But by recombining split votes, AV eliminates a good number of bizarre results that we currently put up with under FPTP, where split votes hand strong mandates to unpopular candidates. And by ensuring that all MPs secure a majority, AV reduces the number of disenfranchised voters.

 

(I realise that I'll never get a job writing leaflets for the Yes campaign with this kind of position, but sadly life tends to be complicated and nuanced.)

 

For me, the strength of AV isn't so much about making individual votes count more, it's about letting people vote honestly, and getting MPs that better reflect voter preferences, even if they are second or third preferences.

AV will make no difference in Rotherham because for some strange reason Labour always gets a majority, so they won’t need to look at second options.