both also really like a nice Bourbon or even a Garibaldi.

**Applause**
Beautiful

@Flash: which could also happen and may mean that the Bourbons win instead. Either way the conclusion is the same, under AV the majority end up with a biscuit they like, under FPTP they may not.

Politics is not the same as biscuits! I don’t really give a bugger what biscuit we get. I really really care about which government we get or don’t get. The differences between Bourbons and Garibaldi is much more important than the difference between Bourbons and Garibaldis!

The analogy works to show that AV gives a winner the majority are happy with, I can see why you have a problem with it.

What about Battenburg Cake?

“It won’t be. Some parties are closer to each other than others, they benefit from this.“

Indeed! When two parties are close to each other they tend to split the vote of broadly similarly-minded people. Which is precisely why, when their alternative votes are counted, there can be more support for both of those parties than for the others.

Your argument, in terms of this point, is that splitting a majority moderate vote allows less moderate parties to sneak in and bag the silverware, and that this is A Good Thing.

With which I disagree.

What about Battenburg Cake?

I couldn’t give that my 2nd vote – I don’t like marzipan, I could maybe put it 3rd and if it wins throw the marzipan away

So as you said:

Some parties are closer to each other than others, they benefit from this.

So if 65% want one of the two left-wing options available and 35% want the right-wing option then clearly most people would be happiest with a left-wing Jammie Dodger government.

The analogy works to show that AV gives a winner the majority are happy with, I can see why you have a problem with it

because it deceives people into thinking that their indifference to biscuits can be applied to political parties

Ideally the result of this is that the Bourbons re-evaluate their recipe and return with a new style larger bourbon that maintains its appealing chocolatieness but adds a jam centre.

FPTP keeps us from this splendid Jammie Bourbon dream.

So if 65% want one of the two left-wing options available and 35% want the right-wing option then clearly most people would be happiest with a left-wing

yes, that much is true. I take it this is a hypothetical situation?

So if 65% want one of the two left-wing options available

Again, you’re assuming that the middle two groups all want the same biscuit. What if both those middle two groups turn out to like Ginger Nuts, eh? Where would you be then? Your assumption that these hypotethetical middle groups would support roughly the same biscuit/political party is what rather scuppers the argument.

Your argument appears to be “Whatever lets the left win”, which doesn’t really strike me as a fair approach to politics.

Me or Graham? The analogy is useless. I don’t want to hear about any more biscuits. Graham’s Crackers

yes, that much is true. I take it this is a hypothetical situation?

You said yourself that “Some parties are closer to each other than others”

It may not be as clear cut as two variations of X versus one of Y in UK politics – but the point stands, if parties are genuinely close enough to each other such that they would get each others 2nd preference votes and go on to win, then under AV we get the party that the majority are happiest with.

Your argument appears to be “Whatever lets the left win”, which doesn’t really strike me as a fair approach to politics.

Feel free to swap left for right in my argument if it keeps your blue blood happy Flash. 🙂

CFH – no its whoever lets the slightly leftish win and allows the left some representation. 😉

Interestingly PR in scotland has been the saviour of the tory party here. They have one MP from Scotland but have 17 IIRC MSPs – without PR in HOlyrood they would be completely out of the reckoning

More realistically:

33% Chocolate Bourbon Lovers, (a third of these also like jammie dodger, a fifth custard creme, a couple pink wafers, and a few are bourbon zealots, five also like garibaldi)
32% Jammie Dodger (but half of these also like Custard Cream, a third bourbon, and the rest like garibaldi)
31% Custard Cream (but half also like Dodgers, a quarter like bourbons, and one likes wafers, another quite likes garibaldi, but also likes wafers a bit too)
3% Garibaldi, some like bourbon, some like jammie dodgers, but hate custard cremes
1% Monster Raving Pink Wafers, but also like bourbon a bit

Go on, work that one out!

But PR isn’t an option. You might as well discuss who benefits from a dictatorship.

Go on, work that one out!

Dodgers win – took less than 10 seconds to work out . Which is probably quicker than you typed it.

Go on, work that one out!

I don’t need to – the result is the same: under AV the majority get what they are happiest with.

“Go on, work that one out! “

OK. Let’s assume 100 voters. I’ve had to round to the nearest voter in places.

First round votes as above.
No majority. Wafers eliminated.

Second round results:
34 Bourbon (gains 1 Wafer voter)
32 Jammie Dodger
31 Custard Cream
3 Garibaldi
No majority. Garibaldi eliminated.

Third round results:
36 Bourbon (gains 2 Garibaldi voters)
33 Jammie Dodger (gains 1 Garibaldi voter)
31 Custard Cream
No majority. Custard Cream eliminated.

Fourth round results:
42 Bourbon (gains 8 Custard Cream voters)
49 Jammie Dodger (gains 16 Custard Cream voters)
(9 voters drop out due to marking no valid alternative)

Jammie Dodger is duly returned as the representative of Biscuit Tin South.

(And also has the approval of 11 of the Bourbon voters into the bargain.)

Thanks Bez – I couldn’t be bothered typing all that!

Even without working through it (which really isn’t hard), you can see at a glance that the Dodgers had very strong support from both the Bourbon and Custard Cream camps – presumably because they have a strong stance on defensive crunch that appeals to Bourbon voters, while maintaining the smooth creamy internal policy that the Custard Cream voters like.

Individual MPs [in the scheme of things] have very little power, so unless AV could return a radically different result – the FPTP system for choosing which party then governs will pretty much trump it

Individual MPs [in the scheme of things] have very little power, so unless AV could return a radically different result – the FPTP system for choosing which party then governs will pretty much trump it

Only about a third of existing MPs have been elected with a clear majority. So AV, if selected, will come into play in most seats.

“Only about a third of existing MPs have been elected with a clear majority. So AV, if selected, will come into play in most seats. “

He means that once the seats are decided, the issue of who forms government is FPTP in terms of counting seats. Except it’s not, as demonstrated at the last election.

In any case, if you think AV makes little practical difference, that’s not reason to walk away from the referendum. There remains the issue of keeping the debate alive. If you think whichever way you vote the actual election result won’t materially or significantly change then that’s fine, and may well be about right. But the secondary question is whether to send a message of discontent with the existing system, and voting for AV does that. You’re in a quandary if you feel that (a) FPTP is bad and (b) AV is worse, but I suspect that accounts for very few people. If you think either (a) AV is better or (b) AV is not much better or worse but there are better alternatives, voting yes is still wise.

Bez For Prez!

Spot on Bez.

This explains AV perfectly (starts at 1min 40secs)

Auf Weidersen

(originally shown on Frank Skinner’s show the other night)

So, Custard Creme was elected on 49% of the vote!

interesting – I thought we said this was impossible…

interesting – I thought we said this was impossible…

Who said it was impossible? Votes are reallocated until one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote OR no more votes can be reallocated.

“So, Custard Creme was elected on 49% of the vote! interesting – I thought we said this was impossible… “

Jammie Dodger.

Read my paragraph about how you define “the vote”. Once you’ve eliminated the least popular candidates, 9 people have decided they’re not going to vote any more, and 91 votes remain. Of which 49 is more than 50%.

9 people have, by not putting any more alternatives, said “everyone I am happy to support has been eliminated, I don’t care who wins, I’m going home to watch telly”.

This happens at present. People abstain. By doing so they say “no-one I’m happy to support is standing, I don’t care who wins, I’m staying at home to watch telly”.

As I said, AV is a series of FPTP votes. You choose to turn up to each of those votes or not based on who’s in them. Same as now, except currently there’s only one vote and no-one knows where the post is.

interesting – I thought we said this was impossible…

Actually I think it was you that pointed out it was possible.
Particularly in your example where all the voters have only expressed two preferences.

Here is some positive campaigning. Vote yes because:

AV is a step to Proportional Representation. The voting mechanism – marking preferences – is the same for AV and PR. So by moving to AV now, it is more possible to move to PR in the future.

Two-thirds of today’s MPs took their seats supported by a minority of voters. AV will stop that.

There is a reason why some MPs of all parties, and the Tory party, don’t want to change to AV: Unless they work to broaden their appeal to voters they will lose their seats in parliament. Making MPs work to satisfy the electorate is a good thing.

I have voted with my conscience for the 3rd placed party in several general elections – completely wasted votes. So with FPTF, many 3rd party voters vote “tactically”, for the 1st or 2nd placed parties. This means smaller parties are consistently under represented by the vote. This slows the long-term development of alternative politics and our national politics stagnates. AV improves upon this by allowing us to vote honestly, with our conscience, without our votes being completely wasted.

AV is a really simple voting system. Even Australians easily understand it. 😉

AV doesn’t require expensive computers to run. Yes, the counting takes longer, but I’m happy to have an early night and wait a day for an honest result.

😀

It still urks me that omongst those that have the cognative ability to engage in this debate there is a clear majority in favour of yes; yet by all accounts the No vote will prevail by a landslid based largely on the majority of the population making up their minds based on two massively oversimplified and poorly campaigned presentations from the two camps.

If they had only explained the different systems with biscuits!

Here is some positive campaigning. Vote yes…..

Vote NO with your first vote!!!
No = 1

The problem with the yes campaign, is that it is leaderless. Nick Clegg is the natural leader, but he has negative political cache at the moment.

The Labour Party, esp. Milliband, boils my pee on this. They know that the Torys will be the most long-term disadvantaged by AV “fair votes” and a win for AV will damage Cameron. And still they cannot fully commit and persuade their supporters to vote Yes. They seem so weak in opposition.

voting yes, but even guardian reckons no vote will win. Let’s at least go down with a god showing for the yes camp.

I have voted with my conscience for the 3rd placed party in several general elections – completely wasted votes. So with FPTF, many 3rd party voters vote “tactically”, for the 1st or 2nd placed parties. This means smaller parties are consistently under represented by the vote. This slows the long-term development of alternative politics and our national politics stagnates. AV improves upon this by allowing us to vote honestly, with our conscience, without our votes being completely wasted.

ditto

Luckily, I live in a constituency which was reasonably safe for my second choice so I was able to vote as I wanted. If it were tighter, I’d have had to put my X next to my second choice to keep my last choice out. Gosh, isn’t FPTP simple 🙄

I’m voting No 🙂

In the referendum, I’m voting yes.

In the council elections, I’m voting against the candidate whose nomination I signed.