AV - how to vote?

[mattleonard]

For example, if a constituency has 60% centre-left voters deciding between two centre-left candidates, and 40% centre-right voters voting for one candidate, then the centre-right candidate (who would lose in a head-to-head against both other candidates) could easily win under FPTP.

 

Don't you agree that would be the wrong result? And don't you agree that something like that happens in dozens of constituencies at every general election.

 

Your solution to this requires similar parties to foresee this, and decide in advance which one of them will win so that the others can stand down before the election. That would take power away from voters, who would no longer be able to choose between the candidates, and in any case is extremely unlikely to happen.

 

My solution is to switch to AV, which recombines split votes so that voters can choose which of the similar candidates they want to beat the minority candidate.

 

To be honest I don't think a solution is needed. I agree that your scenario might seem like a bad result but it is simply the system doing what it should do - asking people to select who they want. If more people say they want one candidate than any other one then why is that a wrong result? It's simply that we don't like the idea of who we individually choose not being the winner.

 

I suggested the mainstream parties fielding a single candidate more as an option they have if they really need it. In most cases they should be focusing on making clear their distinctives from the other parties. If they don't have any, then the parties can merge.

 

You've given an example of a consequence which seems unfair. But AV seems in principle unfair. What about if a party gets eliminated, or n parties get eliminated. Is it fair that a voters nth choice should then carry exactly the same weight as someone else's first choice?

[Akrasia]

To be honest I don't think a solution is needed. I agree that your scenario might seem like a bad result but it is simply the system doing what it should do - asking people to select who they want. If more people say they want one candidate than any other one then why is that a wrong result? It's simply that we don't like the idea of who we individually choose not being the winner.

 

That isn't what I object to at all. What I object to is an electoral system that actively encourages people to vote for someone other than their preferred candidate. FPTP does that for large numbers of voters. AV doesn't, because the very rare circumstances in which tactical voting might be beneficial are impossible for an individual to recognise.

 

I suggested the mainstream parties fielding a single candidate more as an option they have if they really need it. In most cases they should be focusing on making clear their distinctives from the other parties. If they don't have any, then the parties can merge.

 

But that doesn't solve the problem. Even when the centre-left parties have made clear the differences in their centre-left policies, the centre-left vote is still split and despite there being a majority of centre-left voters the constituency ends up with a centre-right MP. What we need is a system like AV that recombines split votes until one candidate has a majority.

 

You've given an example of a consequence which seems unfair. But AV seems in principle unfair. What about if a party gets eliminated, or n parties get eliminated. Is it fair that a voters nth choice should then carry exactly the same weight as someone else's first choice?

 

Both FPTP and AV treat all preferences equally, so a desire to weight preferences doesn't help us to choose between them. As I showed earlier, a second (or third, or fourth) preference can be much stronger than a first preference: I may not mind which centre-left candidate wins, but be desperate for one of them to beat the centre-right candidate. So why should my vague first preference be given weight but my strong second preference be disregarded, as under FPTP?

[ArchimedesUK]

The no campaign like to make out that AV is an unpopular and somehow alien and "unBritish" (according to Lord Reid) electoral system. But let's look at what First Past The Post and AV (and similar preferential/run-off systems such as SV) are used for.

 

 

FPTP:

 

Election of MPs to the House of Commons

Election of English Councillors

 

AV et al.:

- By-elections of Hereditary Peers in the House of Lords use AV to fill vacant seat when a Peer dies.

-By-elections for Northern Ireland Assembly

- Election of leaders of Labour (AV), LibDems (AV) & Conservatives (who use a multi-round run-off which produces the same outcome as AV)

- Selection of parliamentary candidates for Labour, LD and Conservatives. In fact Charlotte Vere, the Finance Director for NOtoAV, was selected as the Conservative Brighton Pavilion candidate using AV. She went on to be beaten by the leader of the Green Party, Caroline Lucas.

- In 2006 the selection of Conservative London mayoral candidate Boris Johnson was done by AV.

- The elections of 11 elected mayors in English cities and towns, including those of London, Doncaster and Leicester use a variant of AV called the Supplementary Vote (SV) where you express only two preferences.

- The Election of the Commons Speaker and Lord Speaker is done using a multi-ballot run-off and AV respectively.

- The selection of committee chairs is done by AV with members of select committees chosen by STV (basically AV for multi-member constituencies where everyone above a threshold is elected)

 

Is there any greater example of one rule/system for MPs and one for the rest of us? It's clear that our elected representatives and unelected Lords think FPTP isn't suitable for them to use but that it's fine for us common folk to use it to choose them.

[JFKvsNixon]

The last election shows why political reform is needed, the LibDems increased their vote by almost 1 million but actually lost 5 seats.

 

They managed to get 6.8 million votes which got them 57 MPs. Labour got 8.6 million which returned 258 MPs. Finally the Conservatives got 10.7 million for 306 MPs.

 

Why should a few marginal constituencies decide upon the future of this country, or should I say way should the concentrated targeting of these constituencies by the political parties decide the future of this country?

[mattleonard]

That isn't what I object to at all. What I object to is an electoral system that actively encourages people to vote for someone other than their preferred candidate. FPTP does that for large numbers of voters. AV doesn't, because the very rare circumstances in which tactical voting might be beneficial are impossible for an individual to recognise.

 

It doesn't actively encourage tactical voting at all. It perhaps does so passively. Is it great idea to have a system which, as you seem to imply, is too opaque for the effect of a person's vote to be clear.

 

But that doesn't solve the problem. Even when the centre-left parties have made clear the differences in their centre-left policies, the centre-left vote is still split and despite there being a majority of centre-left voters the constituency ends up with a centre-right MP. What we need is a system like AV that recombines split votes until one candidate has a majority.

 

The problem with this analysis is the assumption that a voter's broad position in the broad political spectrum is the key metric. I don't think it is - I think the key metric is the candidate a voter most wants. I think it's society which should be discouraging tactical voting, not the electoral system. We should be engaging more with politics so that hopefully we can feel positive enough about a candidate to want to put our support behind them regardless of whether they are the most likely to get in or whether they are going to be the one who will stop the BNP.

 

 

 

Both FPTP and AV treat all preferences equally, so a desire to weight preferences doesn't help us to choose between them.

 

The difference is that AV does give us the metric that a candidate is not a voter's first choice, and then treats it exactly as if it is. I don't have a desire to weight preferences at all, so am happier with a voting system which express no degree of relative preference within a voter's choices.

 

 

As I showed earlier, a second (or third, or fourth) preference can be much stronger than a first preference: I may not mind which centre-left candidate wins, but be desperate for one of them to beat the centre-right candidate. So why should my vague first preference be given weight but my strong second preference be disregarded, as under FPTP?

 

I would say there's a very good reason in the fact that you say the centre-right candidate. Why should one voter whose political values are roughly covered by two candidates therefore get twice as many bites at the electoral cherry as someone whose values are only covered by one?

[BritPat]

So, in this scenario the sensible thing would be for the mainstream parties to come together and field a single candidate.

 

Which underlines what we already know, that the mainstream parties have but the subtlest differences and that they are effectively a neo liberal laissez faire capitalist consensus, the subtle differences serve to market the parties to the fools that like to believe that they have a choice despite the evidence to the contrary.

 

In an age when we have the spectacle of 'New Labour' (Tory light) and 'Red Toryism' struggling to achieve political fusion with the LibDems in the so called 'Centre Ground' the political differentiation of the mainstream should be seen by all to be illusory.

[mattleonard]

Which underlines what we already know, that the mainstream parties have but the subtlest differences and that they are effectively a neo liberal laissez faire capitalist consensus, the subtle differences serve to market the parties to the fools that like to believe that they have a choice despite the evidence to the contrary.

 

In an age when we have the spectacle of 'New Labour' (Tory light) and 'Red Toryism' struggling to achieve political fusion with the LibDems in the so called 'Centre Ground' the political differentiation of the mainstream should be seen by all to be illusory.

 

I agree. If the mainstream parties are jostling for voter's second(, etc.) choices in addition to their first choices then the consensus will only increase.

[HeadingNorth]

As I said above in the rest of my statement - if your support is too concentrated nationally then you win only a few and if it is too spread out nationally you can't contest enough seats.

 

You're missing the point again.

 

Under AV it is possible for a candidate to lose in a constituency because too many people supported him. That is flatly impossible under a FPTP system.

 

It's also possible for a candidate under AV to win in one half a constituency, win in the other half, and yet lose when the votes are combined - something else which is flatly impossible under FPTP. In fact, FPTP renders all such paradoxical outcomes impossible. The person who gets the most first-preference votes is always the winner, no matter which area you take and no matter how many extra ones he gets.

 

You are arguing against the constituency system, which is irrelevant to this debate as it will remain in place no matter what the outcome of the referendum.

[truman]

Under AV it is possible for a candidate to lose in a constituency because too many people supported him. .

 

To save me looking back through the thread (again) did you explain how this could happen?

[HeadingNorth]

Consider the following selection of votes, between the Brown, Blue, and Pink parties:

 

6,000 people vote "Brown 1, Blue 2"

5,000 people vote "Pink 1, Brown 2"

4,000 people vote "Blue 1, Pink 2"

2,000 people vote "Blue 1, Brown 2"

 

The Pink party, with only 5,000 votes, is eliminated, and their second choice votes mean that the Brown party takes the seat.

 

Now consider if the 2,000 people who voted "Blue 1, Brown 2" reverse their order of preference, so you have:

 

6,000 people vote "Brown 1, Blue 2"

5,000 people vote "Pink 1, Brown 2"

4,000 people vote "Blue 1, Pink 2"

2,000 people vote "Brown 1, Blue 2"

 

It's now the Blue party that is eliminated, with only 4,000 votes. Their second-choice preference are for the Pink party, which takes the seat. The Brown party has lost because they secured 2,000 extra votes. Worse still, if the votes are analysed, it turns out that two thousand people who voted for everyone except the Pink party, are responsible for them winning the seat!

 

 

 

If AV should be adopted, how long do you think it would last beyond a headline saying "Labour lose Sheffield Heeley due to too many people supporting them?"