Alternative Vote
-
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.
-
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.
Henry Minute wrote:
But, unfortunately, people do vote for the party.
Some people. I vote for the candidate who appears to have been something other than a professional politician at some time during their life (and, no, education, PR, journalism, ..., don't count :) ).
Henry Minute wrote:
Which is why the name of the party is appended to the name of the candidate.
But I can remember when it wasn't.
Everybody is elitist to a certain extent; except me - I'm better than that. Micah
-
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.
-
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.
Another name for Alternative Vote is Ranked Choice. To simplify, I'll show what happens when 7 people vote for 3 candidates. Candidate A Candidate B Candidate C If the voters orders of preference lands like this: 2 people ABC 3 people BCA 4 people CAB In first past the post C would win. In AV or Ranked Choice B wins. In my view the first past the post encourages a two party system, AV encourages multiple parties. We have a two party system in the US not because people don't want a third party, but because a third party candidate usually achieves the opposite of their goal. They take votes away from the major party candidate that is most like them and the person least like them wins even if the majority of the people would prefer the people on the third parties side of the spectrum. Politically neutral and I didn't even bring up Nazi's (until there - crap).
-
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.
AV sounds horrible. First Past with a runoff if nobody exceeds a given % sounds better. That's how they do the mayoral election here.
Craigslist Troll: litaly@comcast.net "I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson