AV - how to vote?

[andikay]

The ippr (Institute for Public Policy Research) in their paper "The Worst of Both Worlds - Why FPTP is no longer fit for purpose" found that the last general election was decided by 460k voters (1.6% of the electorate) across 111 swing constituencies. Because of competing for such a small target audience the main parties tailor their message to these few, blur their party differences and can ignore everyone but those swing voters.

 

With AV the number of very marginal seats is doubled (source: the new economics foundation) and all seats become more competitive which gives a greater number of people more influence in deciding their MP and ultimately the outcome of elections. With AV candidates will have to reach out beyond their core voters to secure a broader level of support within the community.

 

As well as reaching out to those people you never needed to talk to before, this would pull policies into a more central position from either extreme of the political spectrum, while at the same time trying not to alienate too many of your core voters.

 

A candidate offering something that the majority of their constituents like or would accept is surely better than offering something that only a minority would love.

 

I comply agree, I would rather my second choice over my last choice which is what happens under FPTP. Unfortunately I will still have to live under a council that is my last choice because Labour always get a majority in Rotherham, unless by some miracle more people turn out to vote under AV and they don’t win.

[Akrasia]

It does not. Under FPTP, the person with most votes in a constituency is always the winner. No other result is ever possible, and gaining extra votes can never be a bad thing.

 

Under FPTP, the least popular candidate can win, i.e. you can have a winner who would lose a head-to-head race against every other candidate. As sporting similes seem to be in, that's like a football team losing all its matches and then winning the league.

 

Whereas under AV, there's a winning post at 50% of the vote plus 1, and the first candidate to reach it always wins.

[andikay]

Under FPTP, the least popular candidate can win, i.e. you can have a winner who would lose a head-to-head race against every other candidate.

 

For that to happen they would be every body’s second choice, so no one would be represented by their first or last choice. I don't see a problem with it.

 

If 100 people go to a restaurant but the restaurant can only feed 50 of them with their first choice, and the other 50 with food they can’t eat. Would it be better for all 100 to be given something they like but isn’t their first choice.

[Akrasia]

For that to happen they would be every body’s second choice, so no one would be represented by their first or last choice. I don't see a problem with it.

 

If 100 people go to a restaurant but the restaurant can only feed 50 of them with their first choice, and the other 50 with food they can’t eat. Would it be better for all 100 to be given something they like but isn’t their first choice.

 

It's not to do with 2nd preferences, it's do to with split votes.

 

Imagine a constituency with six candidates: Green, Labour, Lib Dem, Conservative, UKIP, BNP.

 

• 40% of voters have centre-left views: they will vote either Labour, Lib Dem, or Green, and they mostly hate the BNP.
  
• 35% have centre-right views: they will vote either Conservative or UKIP, and about half of them hate the BNP.
  
• 25% have far-right views: they will vote BNP.
  

 

In a head-to-head race, the BNP would lose against each of the other five candidates.

 

• Against a Labour, Lib Dem or Green candidate, their opponent will get all of the centre-left votes and enough of the centre-right candidates to win.
  
• Against a Conservative or UKIP candidate, their opponent will get all of the centre-left votes and all of the centre-right votes and win a landslide.
  

 

Under FPTP, though, the results might come out something like this:

1. BNP 25%
   
2. Conservative 23%
   
3. Labour 18%
   
4. Lib Dem 17%
   
5. UKIP 12%
   
6. Green 5%
   

 

So even though the electorate would prefer any other candidate to the BNP candidate, FPTP would make the BNP candidate the winner.

[evildrneil]

That's exactly the point! It would count all votes as being someone you wanted to see in power, whereas many of them would be a case of "disliked slightly less than someone else."

 

You could claim that all votes are "disliked slightly less than someone else" in any voting system. It depends on whether you cast things in a negative or positive light. Personally I would take the context of voting as being "I am giving my favour to one or more parties" not "I am trying to avoid one or more parties getting in". This being the case the positive version of I want X to be in power to win out over the negative version of I don't want Y to be in power.

[bethwebb]

Also, check

out.

 

It makes me suspicious that one side would try and baffle the public so much if the system they are fighting for really is the best one.

[andikay]

It's not to do with 2nd preferences, it's do to with split votes.

 

Imagine a constituency with six candidates: Green, Labour, Lib Dem, Conservative, UKIP, BNP.

 

• 40% of voters have centre-left views: they will vote either Labour, Lib Dem, or Green, and they mostly hate the BNP.
  
• 35% have centre-right views: they will vote either Conservative or UKIP, and about half of them hate the BNP.
  
• 25% have far-right views: they will vote BNP.
  

 

In a head-to-head race, the BNP would lose against each of the other five candidates.

 

• Against a Labour, Lib Dem or Green candidate, their opponent will get all of the centre-left votes and enough of the centre-right candidates to win.
  
• Against a Conservative or UKIP candidate, their opponent will get all of the centre-left votes and all of the centre-right votes and win a landslide.
  

 

Under FPTP, though, the results might come out something like this:

1. BNP 25%
   
2. Conservative 23%
   
3. Labour 18%
   
4. Lib Dem 17%
   
5. UKIP 12%
   
6. Green 5%
   

 

So even though the electorate would prefer any other candidate to the BNP candidate, FPTP would make the BNP candidate the winner.

 

Ups wires crossed, I thought you were talking about AV, my apologies.I will have to read more carefully.

[Akrasia]

No problem.

[mattleonard]

It isn't fair it’s a crap compromise but FPTP is a crap system as well.

 

Let’s say 45% of the people want Conservative 35% want Labour and 20% Lib Dem but 100% have Lib Dem as second choice. It’s better to have 100% of the people with their second choice instead of 55% haveing a council they can't stand.

 

I think the idea that that is "better" is completely arbitrary.

 

Plus, how likely is it that 100% will have a part as their second choice? (in your own example it will strictly only be 80%, but will work out the same!). It goes back to the issue that voting is about who you don't want rather than who you do want. Isn't it reasonable for the 45% to feel disenfranchised because more of them expressed a strong preference for their party than for any other?

[mattleonard]

What it will do is make the opinions of a greater number of people count for something

 

This is the problem - the idea that your vote only counts for something if you pick the winner.