[Closed] AV referendum

[i]You may have voted LibDem because of their stance on student fees, then too late realised in the backroom horsetrading they've given that 'policy' away.[/i]

That's an unfortunate example, in that they stupidly photographed themselved with signed pledges. They were never going to form even a minority government on their own so it ends up either being pointless if they remain in opposition, or looking stupid if they end up in a coalition and aren't able to keep that pledge (chances of which were always going to be slim to none). Simple game theory says it was dumb.

But. If you take generic policies, [i]of course[/i] some will be horsetraded in a coaltion. Surely that's blindingly obvious. You don't meld two parties and keep all the policies, it's totally impossible. But if you voted Lib Dem you've managed to see some of their policies implemented, you've managed to see some of their policies watered down and implemented, and you've managed to see some Tory policies watered down.

None of these things would have happened without a coalition, nor would they ever have happened.

To me the simple fatal weakness of AV is that the second preferences of the nutters (ie. the people who would vote BNP or another fringe party as their first choice) become the decisive votes, and the mainstream parties will be forced to pander to them.

Except that you are wrong.

Which of the current parties would be able to "pander" to the BNP without disaffecting an even greater number of their existing voters?

All of the parties do actually have some principles and history, which they won't just throw aside in order to garner a percentage or two of extremist votes. Their own members wouldn't let them.

as I said It leads to the forced extreme of politics, the mainstream parties have to pander to the nutters, rather than (at the moment) pandering to the middle of the road!
Do you really want the nutters to have the final say?
To me the simple fatal weakness of AV is that the second preferences of the nutters become the decisive votes, and the mainstream parties will be forced to pander to them.

That is crap. Under AV you need 50% of the vote. You won’t get 50% by pandering to nutters you must go for popular (centrist) ground to win.

Nutters could get you over the line but more realistically it would be the least popular of the three big parties second preference that would do it and pandering to the nutters would lose you more core votes than you win.

There's really no point debating with Z11. Notice how he's just repeating the same rubbish while ignoring the numerous times his argument has already been slapped down.

Under AV you need 50% of the vote

Not under the version if AV being offered in the referendum! AV as it will be implemented in the UK doesn’t require the winner to get 50% of the vote. Only AV where the voter must list preferences for [b]al[/b]l candidates guarantees the winner gets 50% of the vote. (The Australian system works like this)

Edit - Grum, no, I'm not just repeating myself, its a pretty fundemental problem with the system that I've raised, and rather than "slap it down" all you've said is that the BNP wont win any seats, that does not tackle the problem of the mainstream parties having to appeal to the extremists - the only valid argument raised against this is that they [b]may[/b] lose more centre voters in the process of doing so - both are valid points of view that we won't know the result of unless the vote is won by the yes's, it does not invalidate my concern over pandering to extremism though

[i]AV as it will be implemented in the UK doesn’t require the winner to get 50% of the vote.[/i]

That's sort of true and sort of not, depending on how you define "the vote".

It requires 50% of the vote once the least popular party has been eliminated. People are still at liberty not to vote at any counting stage, just as they are at liberty not to vote at the first stage - as is the case under FPTP. AV simply allows a voter to 'try again' once their preferred candidate has been deemed too unpopular. In that sense it simply works precisely as a series of FPTP elections where the post is a true majority rather than the largest minority.

Edit:

If you're a Labour voter, here's an example:
Round one: Lib, Lab, Con, BNP? Lab please.
Round two: Lib, Lab, Con? Lab please.
Round three: Lib, Con? You have the option of picking one of those two if you find them ok or want to keep the other out, or you can walk and leave it for everyone else to decide. Your choice.

Note that under FPTP, if Con had the largest minority at the first round and you and loads of other Lab voters would rather see Lib than Con, you wouldn't have the option.

the only valid argument raised against this is that they [b]may[/b] lose more centre voters in the process of doing so - both are valid points of view that we won't know the result of unless the vote is won

Under FPTP the mainstream parties [i]could[/i] also decide to adopt extremist policies to win voters over to them.

But they don't.

Because they know the net result would be less votes.

Same still applies under AV.

There seems to be an assumption here that centrist policies are what is best for the country.

There seems to be an assumption here that centrist policies are what is best for the country.

I think actually it's that they would more democratically represent the views of the majority of people in the country.

Charlie,

The consensus of people would agree with that theory.

they might be wrong 🙁

There seems to be an assumption here that centrist policies are what is best for the country.

No, there is an assumption that minority extremist policies don't reflect the opinion of the majority of the population whereas minority centrist policies are more generally acceptable.

Ultimately the aim of AV could summarised as trying to find a set of policies that at least 50% of the population agree upon.

Under FPTP the aim is the same, but the target percentage is much lower.

There seems to be an assumption here that centrist policies are what is best for the country.

Good point.

But not that simple.

Almost by definition, centrist policies must be what the majority want? And I am thinking of both Labour and the Tories as being largely centrist here.

But maybe, as you seem to be suggesting, we don't always know what is good for us, and maybe a few more radical policies would actually be more effective or fairer.

I think that AV would actually allow more of those sorts of policies to be put forward and tested.

For example, the Greens might put forward a range of policies on housing, energy use etc, and even though they might not get elected, a significant section of the population might show their support by voting for them in the first rounds, which would then give maninstream parties a bit more courage to pursue such policies themselves.

BTW Billy Brag and Robert Winston are just about to debate AV on R5Live

> The consensus of people would agree with that theory.

they might be wrong

If you believe that then the entire system of democracy is flawed, not AV.

I'm with Churchill on this: [i]"Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried"[/i]

Ultimately the aim of AV could summarised as trying to find a set of policies that at least 50% of the population [s]agree upon[/s] are prepared to tolerate

BTW Billy Brag and Robert Winston are just about to debate AV on R5Live

Apparently they had Peter Stringfellow as the NOtoAV advocate on Jeremy Vine! 😯

prepared to tolerate

That'll do me.

That'll do me.

I think this is the crux of the difference. The idea of your vote counting is not so simple. In the AV case, yes your vote will count, but your votes stop being about who you want but more about who you are prepared to tolerate. I prefer a less wishy-washy system

Apparently they had Peter Stringfellow as the NOtoAV advocate on Jeremy Vine!

Yeh, but he was put there by the 'Yes' Campaign

I prefer a less wishy-washy system

So you'd rather have strong policies that say 30% of the population agree with, rather than more compromised policies that over half are happy enough with.

Fair enough. I fall to pragmatism and compromise, but that may be my age 🙂

Fair enough. I fall to pragmatism and compromise, but that may be my age

I still want to change the world!! but I'd settle for a cup of teas and a bun.

So you'd rather have strong policies that say 30% of the population agree with rather than more compromised policies that over half are happy enough with

I have a struggle with being a democrat but not trusting the voting public to choose what they actually need.

[i]In the AV case, yes your vote will count, but your votes stop being about who you want but more about who you are prepared to tolerate. I prefer a less wishy-washy system [/i]

But the less wishy-washy-minded will generally dislike some parties as strongly as they like others. Take the example I gave above. If you have parties X, Y, Z, and you really love X and really hate Y, AV gives you the chance to keep Y out of power by registering a vote for Z [i]if[/i] party X turns out to be the least popular.

So AV is good for being less wishy-washy.

CM

they might be wrong

That is what Gaddafi is working on! If you shoot enough of them you end up with a majority.

But the less wishy-washy-minded will generally dislike some parties as strongly as they like others. Take the example I gave above. If you have parties X, Y, Z, and you really love X and really hate Y, AV gives you the chance to keep Y out of power by registering a vote for Z if party X turns out to be the least popular.

So AV is good for being less wishy-washy.

But this is bass ackwards, why vote for who to keep out? I want to keep everyone nut my party out. i don't have an alternative

That is what Gaddafi is working on! If you shoot enough of them you end up with a majority.

Not just Gadaafi, look what happened when the elected Hamas. and of course the South Africans, before Apartheid

In fact, I don't think there was an election which replaced gadaafi

I have a struggle with being a democrat but not trusting the voting public to choose what they actually need.

Me too. So I prefer AV which acknowledges that my political opinions may not exactly align with one party policy to the exclusion of all others.

"[i]I want to keep everyone but my party out. i don't have an alternative [/i]"

Fine, you can stop at "1" on the paper. But if you put a "2" somewhere that only comes into play if your party is so unpopular that it gets eliminated anyway, in which case it probably wouldn't have done very well under FPTP either.

Fine, you can stop at "1" on the paper.

Yeah, but everyone else gets to have a second go. I don't want that.

Yeah, but everyone else gets to have a second go. I don't want that.

No they don't. They just get their true preference represented just as you do.

No they don't. They just get their true preference represented just as you do.

This made me chuckle a little...from Lord Winston (Labour Peer)

AV was used to elect the Labour leader & the winner was the one most didn’t want.”

😆

yeah, then when their true preference don't get in? Their next best gets a vote

I dont see this as a problem. Their second choice might be your party.

People keep talking about your vote not counting. At the moment with FPTP only a few tens of thousands of peoples votes count - the swing voters in marginal constituencies ( ok maybe hundreds of thousands)

Live in a safe constituuency and it really does not matter how you vote.

I dont see this as a problem. Their second choice might be your party

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

Live in a safe constituuency and it really does not matter how you vote

Yes, if only they all realised that

I'm sending the office gimp to buy a big pack of biscuits.

You announce that want a Chocolate Bourbon with your cup of tea.

I really don't like bourbons, but I'm torn between Jammie Dodgers or Custard Creams. Ideally I'd like a Jammie Dodger, but I'd be happy with a Custard Cream. That is my "true preference".

These feelings extend to the rest of the office such that:

34% Chocolate Bourbon zealots
33% Jammie Dodger (but also like Custard Cream)
32% Custard Cream (but also like Dodgers)
1% Monster Raving Pink Wafers

Under AV, we get Dodgers and most of the office end up with the biscuit they are happy with.

Under FPTP you force 66% of the office to gag on minging bourbons when they could have had delicious Dodgers.

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

Exactly. The Dodger/Cream lovers are the true majority.

I'm already gagging on the series of poor analogies for a pretty simple idea

lols at monster raving pink wafers

These AV supporters seem to be fixated with biscuits, drinks, sweets food in general

are they all biffers? 🙂

Graham, you're assuming that none of the

33% Jammie Dodger (but also like Custard Cream)
32% Custard Cream (but also like Dodgers)

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

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?

"[i]It won't be. Some parties are closer to each other than others, they benefit from this.[/i]"

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 [s]Jammie Dodger[/s] 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 [i]"Some parties are closer to each other than others"[/i]

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!

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.

"[i]Go on, work that one out! [/i]"

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

"[i]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. [/i]"

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 [i]practical[/i] 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 [i]and[/i] (b) AV is [i]worse[/i], but I suspect that accounts for very few people. If you think [i]either[/i] (a) AV is better [i]or[/i] (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)

[url=

Weidersen[/url]

(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...

"[i]So, Custard Creme was elected on 49% of the vote! interesting - I thought we said this was impossible... [/i]"

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 [b]yes[/b] 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. [i]AV improves upon this by allowing us to vote honestly, with our conscience, without our votes being completely wasted.[/i]

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.....

The problem with the [b]yes[/b] 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 [b]Yes[/b]. 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.