Alternative Vote
-
I understand how it works, I just don't understand why it is supposed to be better. The only explanation for that I have seen so far is much as you put above, ie cleverer people than me have proved it is better with maths and thinking.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
Well, under the existing system, if for arguments sake One party has say 30% of the vote in each constituency, with other paritis say 28% 25% and 17%, we would have a parliament with 100% representation of the One party, whereas it only got 30% of the overal vote. The (Non Existing) Best system would distribute representation according to the popular vote distribution. The AV System does not do this, but takes a few steps in the right direction. The current system works in favour of the bigger parties, giving them an artificial advantage at the expense of the smaller ones. We have had a System like this (different in the smaller details) in Rep of Ireland for many years, and it works very well. The system in the Netherlands has many similarities, (the difference being that if you only mark your Nr 1, your remaining preferences are deemed to be in the order of the candidates on the Ballot Paper).It has also worked very well there.(As an Aside, there are NO by-elections there, simply the next candidate who just did not get in during the election will be put in office, so hence one can be 6th on the list to the seat)(Also, there are no Constituencies there as such. every balot paper is organised as a booklet, containing several hundred candidates, The Top of the list for each party with the national figure heads, with more local people at the lower part of each list) As for the costs, well it WILL take longer to count, and there will be more calls for Re-Counts. This would involve the rental of the counting centre for another day, and wages for the staff doing the counting. It won't cost nothing, but in the larger scale of costs involved in calling an election, it is unlikely to be a significant increase in expenditure. I am in favour of it, because it makes the House of commons more representative of the population as a whole. Regards :)
Bram van Kampen
-
It is supposed to be 'better' because the winner will have more than 50% of the votes. I'm not convinced that it's really true though. There is something inside me that says reassigned votes shouldn't be worth as much as an initial vote.
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.” I wouldn't let CG touch my Abacus! When you're wrestling a gorilla, you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is.
Henry Minute wrote:
There is something inside me that says reassigned votes shouldn't be worth as much as an initial vote.
Well, that IS the case. Your Alternative vote(s) only carries weight if your first preference abismally failed and was eliminated. :)
Bram van Kampen
-
The method that is being mooted is used by three countries. Fiji, New Guinea and Australia. Fiji are about to abandon it because it is inefficient and expensive. It is so unpopular in Australia that they had to make voting compulsory. And New Guinea is hardly a bastion of world democracy. It leads to weak government and favours the smaller parties. I shall be voting no as I do not want the third person in an election getting the seat.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
The method that is being mooted is used by three countries.
Fiji, New Guinea and Australia.
Well very similar systems are also used in ROI, and with quite a few footnotes, in Holland.(see my post Up the Tree). :)
Bram van Kampen
-
I would like to see full PR introduced but without a 'Yes' on AV the issue of electoral reform will be dead and buried for a generation. AV isn't perfect but that fact is the current FPTP system means only people who live in marginal seats have a vote that counts - which is roughly 500,000 people out of an electorate of some 45 million. That isn't right so *something* need to change IMHO. I have no idea why we're not getting a referendum on full PR. Sadly, there is much crap spoken by either side in this debate and despite what the politicians might claim, this could damage the coalition beyond repair so we could be in for an interesting few months in British politics. Nick Clegg no doubt sold AV to the LibDems as a sure thing and when the population vote 'No' I think the coalition will be up poo creek without a paddle. Electoral reform is the number one issue for the LibDems and if they don't get it then I fully expect the current arrangement to collapse with another election in the offing at some point in the next 12 months. So I'll be voting 'Yes' on May 5th as I see AV as a stepping stone to real reform. P.S. You don't have to choose alternative candidates (unlike Australia) if you don't want to. You can vote for one as you did before and if they get at least 50% of the vote then they win.
Rob Caldecott wrote:
I would like to see full PR introduced but without a 'Yes' on AV the issue of electoral reform will be dead and buried for a generation. AV isn't perfect but that fact is the current FPTP system means only people who live in marginal seats have a vote that counts
Exactly My Point! I live in Northern Ireland. Most things they do in Westminster has little impact here.(We have our own Local Assembly here) But I will vote YES to this, in the believe that in doing so, I can help to bring better democracy to all. Let's get used to a multi party system of government at Westminster. It will be better for the country. At the moment we have the 'Three Big Parties', each with their own internal divisions, and their own members conferences, where the governing party decides on policy, and the opposition parties decide on how to look different, and which perfectly sensible policy to oppose. Ever seen 'Yes Minister' ? :)
Bram van Kampen
-
let's say 9 people vote. 4 are right wing and 5 are left wing. under the old system 2 people vote labour, 3 liberal, 4 nazi, so the nazis get in. 5 people, however, wanted a left wing government. under the new system the 2 labour votes go to the libs, so the people get what they wanted - a left wing government.
Excelent Illustration. Under the Current System, the Nazi's would get in, although the majority voted against them. The Current system favours the 'Biggest Party' rather than 'The Popular Mood' :)
Bram van Kampen
-
So anyone not wanting AV is in favour of Nazis? Godwin's Law was swift today. What about people who are Labour but opposed to the Liberals? They don't get what they wanted in either situation. You're basically saying we need a two party system, and all these little parties pissing about causing a disturbance are just causing problems for everyone.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
No, It Illustrates how the current system can favour significant minorities against majority opinion, if the majority opinion is devided over several candidates standing for similar outlooks. AV Rectifies this. :)
Bram van Kampen
-
More than 50% of the 60% who bothered voting. I'm not convinced that is true either. It smacks to me of "Did I get it right?" No "Can I have another go then?" Oh, go on. Also it seems to me that because you essentially vote for who you want and then who you don't want it is negative voting that will end up having more of say than positive voting. I just don't get why forcing a result above 50% makes it any fairer or better.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
ChrisElston wrote:
More than 50% of the 60% who bothered voting.
I'm not convinced that is true either. It smacks to me of "Did I get it right?" No "Can I have another go then?" Oh, go on.
Well, you vote for the Candidate. AOP above gave a perfect example of how it fails when votes are devided.(See Above) AV gives you a mechanism to work along the lines of: I want Candidate 'A' in preference, but I definitely DO NOT want Candidate 'B' or 'E'. So, you vote 1,X,2,3,X (X meaning Leave Blank). The Current system does not allow you to vote against the local nazi party. Currently you can have a vote of say Conservatives: 25% Labour: 20% LibDem: 20% Local Nazi Party 35%. So, the Nazi party gets it! This despite the fact that 65% of the voters had No affiliation to the Nazi Party. The problem is that under the current system, if you vote for a loosing candidate, your vote is effectively added to 'The Biggest Local Party' AV gets around this, by stopping this from happening. :)
Bram van Kampen
-
Excelent Illustration. Under the Current System, the Nazi's would get in, although the majority voted against them. The Current system favours the 'Biggest Party' rather than 'The Popular Mood' :)
Bram van Kampen
The popular mood at the last general election was that many still don't trust the Tories, many had had enough of Labour, many more thought the Liberals irrelevant, and even more couldn't give a shit. How would AV have changed anything?
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
ChrisElston wrote:
More than 50% of the 60% who bothered voting.
I'm not convinced that is true either. It smacks to me of "Did I get it right?" No "Can I have another go then?" Oh, go on.
Well, you vote for the Candidate. AOP above gave a perfect example of how it fails when votes are devided.(See Above) AV gives you a mechanism to work along the lines of: I want Candidate 'A' in preference, but I definitely DO NOT want Candidate 'B' or 'E'. So, you vote 1,X,2,3,X (X meaning Leave Blank). The Current system does not allow you to vote against the local nazi party. Currently you can have a vote of say Conservatives: 25% Labour: 20% LibDem: 20% Local Nazi Party 35%. So, the Nazi party gets it! This despite the fact that 65% of the voters had No affiliation to the Nazi Party. The problem is that under the current system, if you vote for a loosing candidate, your vote is effectively added to 'The Biggest Local Party' AV gets around this, by stopping this from happening. :)
Bram van Kampen
Bram van Kampen wrote:
Conservatives: 25% Labour: 20% LibDem: 20% Local Nazi Party 35%. So, the Nazi party gets it! This despite the fact that 65% of the voters had No affiliation to the Nazi Party.
But even more than 65% had no affiliation to any of the other parties, so why should any of them win at some later point?
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
Before anyone shouts this out of here for being politics, I do not wish to discuss the party political side of this, but the mechanics of the thing. As I would hope most of you in the UK know and some others may know the UK holds a referendum next week about moving from a First Past The Post system of elections to using Alternative Vote. Most people I have talked to about this seem to be in the No camp, but with little reason. I know one person who is fanatically in the Yes camp and I find him very irritating so that is pointing me towards No. I have listened to some of the arguments from both sides, and they all seem to be several shades of bollocks. And from what I can see it makes very little difference what method you use for electing people, especially when most of them are cut from the same sort of cloth regardless of what side they purport to sit on. I understand Australia already use AV, any friendly Aussies have a view on how it works? Anyone care to take a stab at explaining why it is better or worse or a step in the right direction from FPTP? Personally when I vote I want my vote to be counted for the person I choose, and then everyone else to come equally last. Essentially I see no benefits in change so what is the point.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
I think most people see the fairness of runoff elections (Exhaustive_ballot[^]), where in the first ballot if one candidate gets more than 50% then they are elected, otherwise the candidate with fewest votes is excluded an there is a second ballot. This process continues until someone gets 50%, possibly in a final ballot with two candidates. Here you can express your preference for a minor party candidate in an early ballot but still have your vote counted in the final runoff vote. AV provides an efficient mechanism to achieve a very similar outcome in a single vote. The problem with FPTP is that spoiler candidates change the outcome of an election. For example, using simplistic left/right wing notions, say an electorate in a two horse race will elect a right wing candidate 60:40. In a three horse race with two right wing candidates, if the vote splits 30:30:40 then the left wing candidate gets elected, whereas 60% of the electorate would prefer one of the right wing candidates. In AV, assuming the preferences flowed between the right wing candidates, then the highest polling right wing candidate would get elected. AV (or preferential voting) is not perfect, you do get preference deals between parties, but it does make every vote count. You can get bad examples in both systems, but my view is that it is easier for FPTP to produce unrepresentative results. I guess in the UK with the emergence of a strong third party, then changing systems may favour one side, so the debate is likely to be tinged with self interest. If anyone thinks the Australian system is unpopular or seen as undemocratic (all rubbish) check here: http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/uk-alternative-vote-referendum/[^], one of our popular election commentators who is in the UK currently, blogging on the debate about the referendum.
Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."
modified on Sunday, April 24, 2011 11:24 PM
-
The method that is being mooted is used by three countries. Fiji, New Guinea and Australia. Fiji are about to abandon it because it is inefficient and expensive. It is so unpopular in Australia that they had to make voting compulsory. And New Guinea is hardly a bastion of world democracy. It leads to weak government and favours the smaller parties. I shall be voting no as I do not want the third person in an election getting the seat.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
It leads to weak government and favours the smaller parties.
Have you been drinking?
Dalek Dave wrote:
I shall be voting no as I do not want the third person in an election getting the seat.
This is absolutely impossible in a three horse race, and almost unheard of in any race. The problem with FPTP is that you very often get a candidate that is not the preferred candidate of the majority.
Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."
-
Bram van Kampen wrote:
Conservatives: 25% Labour: 20% LibDem: 20% Local Nazi Party 35%. So, the Nazi party gets it! This despite the fact that 65% of the voters had No affiliation to the Nazi Party.
But even more than 65% had no affiliation to any of the other parties, so why should any of them win at some later point?
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
ChrisElston wrote:
But even more than 65% had no affiliation to any of the other parties, so why should any of them win at some later point?
You're missing the point! An Election is not about Parties, but about Representatives for the people. You cannot vote for Say the Conservatives, Labour, Libdems etc. You have to vote for a Named Person. In the Current system, if you vote for a person that does not get the majority, your vote is discarded. The remaining 65% should win, because they voted the remaining 35% out as Not Wanted by the 65% majority. Under the Current System, you can 'Vote In' people, but you cannot vote them Out. Under the proposed system, you declare your preferences of candidates,in following order. If your local Green Party candidate is your prefered choice, you vote him (or her) Nr 1. But, you can then say in addition, that IF your Nr 1 does not get in, My Next preference is say the Conservative Party Candidate, rather than discard my vote (as happens under the current system). In effect, It allows you to put in a 'Negative' vote. :)
Bram van Kampen
-
The popular mood at the last general election was that many still don't trust the Tories, many had had enough of Labour, many more thought the Liberals irrelevant, and even more couldn't give a shit. How would AV have changed anything?
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
Hard to Know, but I gather that the LibDems would have been the bigger party, probably negotiating a government with labour or conservatives under their terms. :)
Bram van Kampen
-
ChrisElston wrote:
But even more than 65% had no affiliation to any of the other parties, so why should any of them win at some later point?
You're missing the point! An Election is not about Parties, but about Representatives for the people. You cannot vote for Say the Conservatives, Labour, Libdems etc. You have to vote for a Named Person. In the Current system, if you vote for a person that does not get the majority, your vote is discarded. The remaining 65% should win, because they voted the remaining 35% out as Not Wanted by the 65% majority. Under the Current System, you can 'Vote In' people, but you cannot vote them Out. Under the proposed system, you declare your preferences of candidates,in following order. If your local Green Party candidate is your prefered choice, you vote him (or her) Nr 1. But, you can then say in addition, that IF your Nr 1 does not get in, My Next preference is say the Conservative Party Candidate, rather than discard my vote (as happens under the current system). In effect, It allows you to put in a 'Negative' vote. :)
Bram van Kampen
Bram van Kampen wrote:
An Election is not about Parties, but about Representatives for the people. You cannot vote for Say the Conservatives, Labour, Libdems etc. You have to vote for a Named Person.
But, unfortunately, people do vote for the party. Which is why the name of the party is appended to the name of the candidate.
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.” I wouldn't let CG touch my Abacus! When you're wrestling a gorilla, you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is.
-
Which version of AV would you like to know about? The version to be used here in the UK has an "amusing" description here[^].
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
Victor was very helpful... :laugh:
-
Before anyone shouts this out of here for being politics, I do not wish to discuss the party political side of this, but the mechanics of the thing. As I would hope most of you in the UK know and some others may know the UK holds a referendum next week about moving from a First Past The Post system of elections to using Alternative Vote. Most people I have talked to about this seem to be in the No camp, but with little reason. I know one person who is fanatically in the Yes camp and I find him very irritating so that is pointing me towards No. I have listened to some of the arguments from both sides, and they all seem to be several shades of bollocks. And from what I can see it makes very little difference what method you use for electing people, especially when most of them are cut from the same sort of cloth regardless of what side they purport to sit on. I understand Australia already use AV, any friendly Aussies have a view on how it works? Anyone care to take a stab at explaining why it is better or worse or a step in the right direction from FPTP? Personally when I vote I want my vote to be counted for the person I choose, and then everyone else to come equally last. Essentially I see no benefits in change so what is the point.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
All this election and voting stuff is vastly over-rated, and should be done away with. We need a method to ensure that the smartest person gets in, so, for instance, if there are three candidates, this[^] would be a good method, as here the smartest person knows he actually only has one opponent, and therefore wins.
-
Before anyone shouts this out of here for being politics, I do not wish to discuss the party political side of this, but the mechanics of the thing. As I would hope most of you in the UK know and some others may know the UK holds a referendum next week about moving from a First Past The Post system of elections to using Alternative Vote. Most people I have talked to about this seem to be in the No camp, but with little reason. I know one person who is fanatically in the Yes camp and I find him very irritating so that is pointing me towards No. I have listened to some of the arguments from both sides, and they all seem to be several shades of bollocks. And from what I can see it makes very little difference what method you use for electing people, especially when most of them are cut from the same sort of cloth regardless of what side they purport to sit on. I understand Australia already use AV, any friendly Aussies have a view on how it works? Anyone care to take a stab at explaining why it is better or worse or a step in the right direction from FPTP? Personally when I vote I want my vote to be counted for the person I choose, and then everyone else to come equally last. Essentially I see no benefits in change so what is the point.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
It ain't broke so why try to fix it?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
ChrisElston wrote:
But even more than 65% had no affiliation to any of the other parties, so why should any of them win at some later point?
You're missing the point! An Election is not about Parties, but about Representatives for the people. You cannot vote for Say the Conservatives, Labour, Libdems etc. You have to vote for a Named Person. In the Current system, if you vote for a person that does not get the majority, your vote is discarded. The remaining 65% should win, because they voted the remaining 35% out as Not Wanted by the 65% majority. Under the Current System, you can 'Vote In' people, but you cannot vote them Out. Under the proposed system, you declare your preferences of candidates,in following order. If your local Green Party candidate is your prefered choice, you vote him (or her) Nr 1. But, you can then say in addition, that IF your Nr 1 does not get in, My Next preference is say the Conservative Party Candidate, rather than discard my vote (as happens under the current system). In effect, It allows you to put in a 'Negative' vote. :)
Bram van Kampen
Bram van Kampen wrote:
In effect, It allows you to put in a 'Negative' vote.
Which as I said very early on is one of my main objections. It is not who people want to win, it is who people want to lose least. Electing a government for negative rather than positive reasons feels wrong to me. I vote for the person who I feel will represent me best in a government, I do not vote for a party or for a political leaning, although I feel such things are irrelevant now anyway as the sole aim of any political party is to get elected, not to do what they feel is right for the country. To get elected you have to be bland and not unpopular, in a system where it is negativity that counts being bland and not unpopular becomes even more important.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
Hard to Know, but I gather that the LibDems would have been the bigger party, probably negotiating a government with labour or conservatives under their terms. :)
Bram van Kampen
The studies I've seen, which obviously are asking people after the fact so not necessarily what they actually would have done, show the Conservatives with the most (but a few less), Labour next (with a few less), and Lib Dems third (with a few more). It would have been exactly the same situation as now. And for all the crying of this is fairer because, most I have read says the system would have made very little difference at any election that has taken place so far. So what is the point. Apart from ruining election night TV.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
let's say 9 people vote. 4 are right wing and 5 are left wing. under the old system 2 people vote labour, 3 liberal, 4 nazi, so the nazis get in. 5 people, however, wanted a left wing government. under the new system the 2 labour votes go to the libs, so the people get what they wanted - a left wing government.