AV - how to vote?

[mattleonard]

Whereas under FPTP, you're likely to have to vote for B just to stop C getting in, regardless of which party you really want.

 

I take the point, but strategic voting will not be eliminated under AV. Instead, people wil have the chance to register a "protest vote" before their "real vote" gets used to ensure their last choice candidate doesn't get in by backing their nth choice.

 

The current system asks "who do you want to represent you?" and gives the opportunity for people to register their answer accurately and fairly. They do have the opportunity to deviate from this in order to make sure that who they don't want to get in doesn't but they do so in the knowledge that they are deviating from answering the question.

 

AV seems to ask "what are your preferences about who should represent you?" and then doesn't give the opportunity to express this in a meaningful way - ie. doesn't give any quantification of the degree of preference, and in terms of "vote power", penalises voters for voting for a likely winner.

 

It seems to me that the best solution for many of the objections to the current system would be to ask people "who do you definitely not want to represent you?" - and whoever gets the least votes goes to Westminster. It's not a serious suggestion, but I think it would be more effective than AV.

[HeadingNorth]

It seems to me that the best solution for many of the objections to the current system would be to ask people "who do you definitely not want to represent you?" - and whoever gets the least votes goes to Westminster. It's not a serious suggestion, but I think it would be more effective than AV.

 

The reverse of this policy is called Approval Voting, and it is summed up as "one man, many votes." You can vote as many candidates as you approve of, and the candidate with the most votes wins.

 

So if you're happy to be represented by either Fred Bloggs, Joe Soap, Hilda Ogden or Attila the Hun, you vote for all four candidates. Someone else might vote for six, or just one; you could even vote for every single candidate on the paper, which has the same effect as not voting at all (It doesn't improve any candidate's total as compared to any other candidate.)

 

Approval Voting has the fewest number of paradoxes of any alternative system to First-past-the-post, yet it is used nowhere in the world except at the United Nations, to elect the Secretary General.

[mattleonard]

While I'm not going to go over what has already been said (most of it sensible & accurate descriptions) I will give two words of warning/advice.

 

1) Most of the people who are either 'passionate' about AV/FPTP or claim to speak for either campaign have a personal or party political motive. Do your own research into the science of AV and ignore the newspapers and any high profile spokesperson on this subject, then decide based on your own knowledge, not a vague gut reaction.

 

2) A referendum is a very rare thing. I will be voting yes, not because AV is perfect, but because this is one of those rare chances to change the way we participate in politics and democracy, and in a largely positive way. If this vote is rejected, or passed with a small % of turnout, you can count on never being asked to participate in this way again for a very long time.

 

3) Obviously point 1 and 2 are in conflict, I'm happy to say I'm voting for change for the reason above and because I've voted in a Tory stronghold for the last 25 years, not once has my vote contributed to a serving politician's election.

 

My personal opinion is that a rejection of change sends the message that the public either don't care or are happy with politics as is. Who can honestly say that they are?

 

I think you're really onto something here, in that the reasons people vote for a candidate are generally extremely mixed. To say that it's about who I want to be MP is generally a simplification of everyone's real reason; and to say that it's who I want to be PM erodes the idea of democratic representation. And then there's the issue of who I definitely don't want to be my MP.

 

So whilst I agree, I come to a different conclusion. I like the rationale for the current system and think what we really need is an assertion of the vote being about empowering an MP to represent you, and as a further step if people still feel they want to vote for their nation's leader then replace the current system with a presidency. That's not what I would want, but I think it would solve the problems better than muddying the waters more by introducing a system which makes people feel better, but has at least as many flaws.

[evildrneil]

To be elected by a majority is an ideal - to make it a requirement is great if possible, but is also somewhat arbitrary. To say that a voter's second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth choices are "who they want" is a distortion, and no account is taken of any degree of preference.

 

If they weren't who they wanted then they wouldn't have them down as a preference. The number of preferences you choose is 1+ and you use the others if there are other parties you want. I think one of the "problems" with preferential voting system is that it is an inherently positive system of voting (prefer us cos we're good) and we live in an inherently negative system at the moment (don't vote for them cos they're bad).

[HeadingNorth]

If they weren't who they wanted then they wouldn't have them down as a preference. The number of preferences you choose is 1+ and you use the others if there are other parties you want.

 

They don't have to be parties you want. "I don't like the Lib Dems much but please God I'll vote for anybody just to keep Labour out" could see the Lib Dems listed as a second preference; and just as big a second preference as "I really like the Lib Dems but I want to vote Monster Raving Loony as my first choice because the candidate is my cousin." The AV system would see no distinction.

[mattleonard]

If they weren't who they wanted then they wouldn't have them down as a preference. The number of preferences you choose is 1+ and you use the others if there are other parties you want. I think one of the "problems" with preferential voting system is that it is an inherently positive system of voting (prefer us cos we're good) and we live in an inherently negative system at the moment (don't vote for them cos they're bad).

 

Indeed, hence my suggestion of reverse approval voting (thanks HeadingNorth for providing a name) - it's not a good state of affairs though.

 

My point about preferences is that it's all very well having the opportunity to express multiple preferences, but there is no easy way (and no way in the system on the table) to express the degree of preference - which is key data if people are to be represented fairly. Why should someone who felt "10% positive" about their sixth choice have their approval of that person carry the same weight as someone who felt "100% positive" about their first choice.

[evildrneil]

They don't have to be parties you want. "I don't like the Lib Dems much but please God I'll vote for anybody just to keep Labour out" could see the Lib Dems listed as a second preference; and just as big a second preference as "I really like the Lib Dems but I want to vote Monster Raving Loony as my first choice because the candidate is my cousin." The AV system would see no distinction.

 

It would see no distinction but for whatever reason you put to it your choices are parties that you would want to see in power. Whether that be because you know the candidate or you simply want them in power because you can't countenance the alternative they are still your choices for who you want to see in power.

[HarrietStar]

I'm going to vote yes, because I think we need change and it's a step in the right direction, and as said above, I wouldn't want a no vote

to mean we are never asked again. with the referendum on elected regional assemblies, the no vote in the north east meant no one else got a say and we ended up with unelected assemblies instead. so I'd rather say yes to something that's imperfect, than say no and never be asked again.

[HeadingNorth]

It would see no distinction but for whatever reason you put to it your choices are parties that you would want to see in power. Whether that be because you know the candidate or you simply want them in power because you can't countenance the alternative they are still your choices for who you want to see in power.

 

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."

[Akrasia]

Except it introduces more, and bigger problems.

 

To be elected by a majority is an ideal - to make it a requirement is great if possible, but is also somewhat arbitrary. To say that a voter's second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth choices are "who they want" is a distortion, and no account is taken of any degree of preference.

 

Under AV, in each round voters can indicate who their first choice of the remaining candidates is. A preference in the second, third, or fourth round can be just as strong or even stronger than a preference in the first round.

 

Suppose that there are three candidates in my constituency: Labour, Lib Dem, and Conservative. I hate the Conservatives, and have a slight preference for the Lib Dems over Labour.

 

In the first round, I vote Lib Dem, but my candidate comes last and so is eliminated. Thankfully, although the Conservative candidate is in the lead they don't have a majority, so there's a second round of voting.

 

In the second round, I vote Labour. Whereas in the first round, I only had a slight preference, now I desperately want my candidate to win, which they do comfortably.

 

In what way is it a good feature of FPTP that it ignores my strong preference for the Labour candidate over the Conservative candidate just because there happens to be a Lib Dem candidate standing as well?