PDA

View Full Version : AVvFPTP



STN
08-04-2011, 05:17 PM
I am quite baffled by this and really don't know what to think. That said, I'm not allowed to vote in this country, so perhaps I should stop worrying. Thought it might be nice to have a thread though.

STN
08-04-2011, 05:18 PM
should've made this a poll really.

sufi
08-04-2011, 08:48 PM
should've made this a poll really.
can anyone explain the options then

Sectionfive
08-04-2011, 09:21 PM
What are the AV options, PR-STV?

crackerjack
09-04-2011, 01:58 PM
can anyone explain the options then

It's a straight vote between AV & FTTP. What part are you unsure about?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11243595

Sectionfive
18-04-2011, 01:08 PM
http://yfrog.com/h7zi9hfj

Dr Awesome
18-04-2011, 01:55 PM
This AV stuff sounds like a good idea.
There's interesting data from down here in the colonies where we've had MMP (separate party and regional/electorate votes) going for a while now after switching from FPTP... Some of it is a function of the particular system used, but it sounds as though the most recent election in the ewe kay would have turned out somewhat differently (better?) had another system been used - I recall some BBC infographics on the subject?

Slothrop
18-04-2011, 02:41 PM
I think a big part of what I like about AV is that, by making the "I really want for this but I'd settle for that" process explicit, by making it easier for smaller and more specialized parties to break into the system and by increasing the likelihood of coalition government, it brings the ideological compromises that are currently decided by focus groups and spin doctors behind the scenes at Party HQ out into the open and makes them into something that everyone is aware of and participating in.

IdleRich
18-04-2011, 10:07 PM
I think I'm gonna vote for AV - it just seems like a slight step towards a fairer system although obviously there are pros and cons of both sides. The negativity of the "no" campaign - ok it's a campaign saying no, it's gonna be negative but they are not making the case for any advantages of FPTP as far as I can see - which has incorporated downright lies has made me even more certain. Not that the "yes" campaign has been that much more positive.
Also, I'm surprised how explicit a number of people (eg Prescott I think) have been in saying "I'm voting for/against because it will increase/decrease the number of votes that I expect my party to get" - what the fuck has that got to do with electoral reform and the good of the country?
Presumably, though, that's why the BNP are voting against which gives the lie to most people's fear that AV will improve their chances. Actually, it doesn't really, they've probably just done their sums wrong because they haven't got any actual statisticians.
One thing I'm confused about is how many times I've read things saying "if we'd had AV then we would have had the same result in x% of elections" or suchlike - that's assuming that people would have voted the same if we'd had AV at the time, maybe they wouldn't have done.

IdleRich
18-04-2011, 10:20 PM
David Cameron is voting "no" so that's good enough for me.
Please ignore my blatant hypocrisy as regards negative campaigning.

john eden
20-04-2011, 12:47 PM
I think everyone agrees A/V is cobblers. I can't see it making any significant difference to the outcome of elections any time soon.

I think I'm going to abstain because I don't want to be seen to endorse FPTP.

Also A/V not being adopted will make Clegg look like even more of a dick than he does already, which is all for the good.

IdleRich
20-04-2011, 05:11 PM
"Also A/V not being adopted will make Clegg look like even more of a dick than he does already, which is all for the good."
But it being adopted will make Cameron look like even more of a dick than he does already (and make him seriously unpopular with his party) which is also all to the good - in fact I think it might be better. In a sense though it is a win-win which you don't get very often in politics.

john eden
20-04-2011, 11:41 PM
This is a good point. Also the NO campaign are really sanctimonious.

Sectionfive
22-04-2011, 05:21 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVRtL20Ue54

crackerjack
22-04-2011, 12:08 PM
But it being adopted will make Cameron look like even more of a dick than he does already (and make him seriously unpopular with his party) which is also all to the good - in fact I think it might be better.

Yes, there's no question about it - an AV win would do far more damage to Cameron than a loss would do to Clegg.

IdleRich
05-05-2011, 03:34 PM
So, have you all voted or is there no point?

Mr. Tea
05-05-2011, 04:21 PM
So, have you all voted or is there no point?

I might tootle down and do so in a minute. It'll mean getting dressed though...

Mr. Tea
05-05-2011, 04:41 PM
Are you always naked?

...would you like me to be? ;)

IdleRich
05-05-2011, 05:38 PM
"I might tootle down and do so in a minute. It'll mean getting dressed though..."
I feel that you should make the effort to vote dressed or not.

Mr. Tea
05-05-2011, 06:20 PM
Yes

Sadly you've missed it, I'm dressed now. I am, however, still naked under my clothes.

Right, I'm off to vote for AV if for no other reason than because that moon-faced milksop doesn't want me to.

craner
05-05-2011, 08:36 PM
I voted NO. (And Labour for Welsh AM.)

None of the Yes arguments really run very far. Far example, the idea that AV would stop tactical voting -- well, hello, the Green activists in Cardiff canvassed for our second vote specifically, not our first. Wales already lives with the AV nightmare -- 3 months to bang out the last Plaid-Labour coalition which has been ruining the Principality for the last few years with bad deals and/or inaction. (Let's not forget that the ultimate example of proportional representation is Israel, and the Knesset is a constant chaos of collapsing coaltions.)

One person, one vote -- it has clarity and, usually, a result, for good or ill.

crackerjack
05-05-2011, 10:18 PM
(Let's not forget that the ultimate example of proportional representation is Israel, and the Knesset is a constant chaos of collapsing coaltions.)

One person, one vote -- it has clarity and, usually, a result, for good or ill.

AV isn't PR, and why is Israel the "ultimate example" rather than, say, Germany?

craner
05-05-2011, 10:23 PM
It's probably not, I was just trying to amuse Droid.

craner
06-05-2011, 10:32 AM
AV isn't PR

It basically is, though, isn't it? I mean to say, the real argument we're all having, or want to be having, or ought to be having, is PR vs OPOV.

IdleRich
06-05-2011, 10:52 AM
"It basically is, though, isn't it? I mean to say, the real argument we're all having, or want to be having, or ought to be having, is PR vs OPOV."
The last bit might be true but AV is nothing like PR, it's more like FPTP. It's particularly galling that the "no" campaign have been saying that AV isn't much of a step away from PR when it was the only option the Tories were willing to allow in the referendum. If they hadn't have been so obstructive then there would have been a real choice.


"One person, one vote -- it has clarity and, usually, a result, for good or ill."
Well, if you're rejecting fairness as a criterion then there are loads of systems - why not just have a dictatorship, it's clear and has a result?

baboon2004
06-05-2011, 11:20 AM
I voted yes for AV - it's a step in the right diretion, but it aint' gonna hange the world.

the real problem to be takled in my view is that so many people want to vote Tory. simple as that.

My ' ' key is broken. unts.

IdleRich
06-05-2011, 11:50 AM
"the real problem to be takled in my view is that so many people want to vote Tory. simple as that."
But do they? They're hovering around 30% of the popular vote and winning lots of elections so it seems clear to me that if you're one of the two thirds of the population that would prefer anyone to the Tories then it should be straight forwardly obvious that you want to change the system. There are enough non-tory voters for the referendum to be won but due to poor campaigning from the "yes" guys and general apathy we're left with what looks like a classic case of turkeys voting for Christmas.

craner
06-05-2011, 02:33 PM
why not just have a dictatorship, it's clear and has a result?


Yeah, exactly! Why not, eh?

IdleRich
06-05-2011, 03:53 PM
Because I think that there are other factors beyond clarity and a result (good or bad) and I suspect that you do too really.

IdleRich
06-05-2011, 04:56 PM
Results are coming in now

http://ukreferendumresults.aboutmyvo...n/default.aspx

Apparently the winning side will need about ten million votes total.

craner
06-05-2011, 05:26 PM
I don't really think it makes that much difference -- I think universal suffrage is "fair" enough, the rest is griping, political calculation, or dubious idealism in the Chris Huhne style.

The way it works in Wales is by voting twice, for constituency and regional AMs, which is meant to balance the votes out and be "fairer" (i.e. PR + FPTP not AV+) -- all it means is that we've had one frustrating coalition ending a decent period of Labour minority rule. I mean, it annoys me because I despise nationalists and in Wales the system favours nationalists, but nobody is exhilirated or emancipated by the "fairness" of the Assembly voting system compared to the national system. In fact, the Welsh seem to hold the Assembly in even more contempt than Westminster depsite the fact they get to vote for it twice.

It's just numerical juggling, basically; I don't buy the argument that either PR or AV is more democratic than FPTP/OMOV, or that it's going to make MPs "work harder" (most MPs work very hard) or abolish safe seats and tactical voting (if anything, it will increase the latter).

IdleRich
06-05-2011, 05:35 PM
"It's just numerical juggling, basically; I don't buy the argument that either PR or AV is more democratic than FPTP/OMOV, or that it's going to make MPs "work harder" (most MPs work very hard) or abolish safe seats and tactical voting (if anything, it will increase the latter)."
I don't think that it is just numerical juggling though, there's some good stuff on this link that Dan sent me

http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/is-av-better-than-fptp/

Notably this bit


1983 General Election..... The results of the election were as follows:

Conservatives, 42.4% of the vote, 397 seats

Labour, 27.6% of the vote, 209 seats

SDP/Liberal Alliance, 25.4% of the vote, 23 seats.

Let us note a couple of anomalies in this result. Most strikingly, the Alliance got almost as many votes as the Labour party but Labour got roughly nine times as many seats. Second most strikingly, the Conservative share of the vote went down slightly, but they now had a truly thumping majority, much higher than after the previous election.
Now I'm no SDP fan but you don't have to be to think that getting virtually the same number of the votes as Labour and only just over a tenth of their seats isn't right. I realise that no system is totally fair but I think that that is way too far along the spectrum of unfairness and I don't think it can just be dismissed as number juggling. I think that AV would be "more democratic" than that.
It's all academic now though I guess.

craner
06-05-2011, 05:45 PM
Yes, I see the people have voted for fascism!

IdleRich
06-05-2011, 05:48 PM
Turkeys not voting for not Christmas.

vimothy
06-05-2011, 08:42 PM
One key factor is the share of the vote (or in poli sci jargon, share of the "selectorate") needed to win the election. In a first past the post system, you can get away with about 25% of the vote at a minimum. In the US, you can control the House, Senate and Presidency with 19% of the vote, if you place the votes right. In PR systems, you potentially need even less than this--10%, say.

Now, the larger the group of people needed to form this winning coalition relative to the selectorate (eligible voters in a democracy), the higher the cost of targeting policy to bring private benefits to constituents (it is more costly to kick back goodies to your political backers). In other words, if you like public goods, you should pick an electoral system that maximises the share of the vote needed to win--according to this theory, at any rate.

Fsck knows where AV sits on this scale, though.

hucks
06-05-2011, 08:44 PM
Turkeys not voting for not Christmas.

Christ that's a hammering, though. Cameron's a lot stronger than he was last night.

Tentative Andy
07-05-2011, 12:58 AM
I voted for AV (lol that worked out well eh?), but I'll admit that I find the whole issue confusing and have changed my mind on it several times.

The 2-vote system in Scotland (which I believe works in the same way as what Cramer was describing in Wales) did still manage to return a governing majority for the SNP this time around, but I'm willing to accept that this is not a typical result.

Tentative Andy
07-05-2011, 01:06 AM
On the point about number of MPs a party has in parliament not reflecting their overall share of the vote, I wonder if that wouldn't just be inevitable under any system that involves voting for MPs by constituency - i.e. where the question isn't just about the overall support for a party within the country, but about lots of cases of the confidence in that particular person in that particular place. (I'm phrasing this badly...).

IdleRich
07-05-2011, 05:22 AM
"One key factor is the share of the vote (or in poli sci jargon, share of the "selectorate") needed to win the election. In a first past the post system, you can get away with about 25% of the vote at a minimum. In the US, you can control the House, Senate and Presidency with 19% of the vote, if you place the votes right. In PR systems, you potentially need even less than this--10%, say."
Luckily, one thing you can't do (as far as I know) is place the votes.

crackerjack
07-05-2011, 10:07 AM
It basically is, though, isn't it? I mean to say, the real argument we're all having, or want to be having, or ought to be having, is PR vs OPOV.

But PR is OPOV.

DannyL
07-05-2011, 11:37 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/06/reasons-av-referendum-lost

Some interesting comment here. I particularly agree that the campaign should have foucused on Cameron. I think you can say that generally about politics since the formation of the coalition. Cameron and Osborne should be being painted the same way that Thatcher was yet Clegg is serving as a hate-sponge for them. They must love him to pieces.

craner
07-05-2011, 02:43 PM
But PR is OPOV

Sorry, I meant FPTP.

What I'm saying is, additional member votes or AV or AV+ are all much of a muchness, really. It wouldn't agonise me too much if the national system did change from majoritarian FPTP to some other democratic voting system; no one can predict the kind of electoral results that it would produce in, say, 20 years time, after all. As long as every citizen over 18 and not in jail can fill in a ballot paper privately and without coercion or intimidation or surveillance on an agreed voting system, then fine with me.

So I certainly don't see an urgent need to change from the current system, but then I'm not a Lib Dem supporter or a nationalist, nor do I see it as an ideological or moral issue. I vote through two different systems already, and I slightly prefer FPTP. (I don't do statistics like Vimothy, so I can't wade too far into the thicket of technicalities.)

crackerjack
07-05-2011, 05:27 PM
Sorry, I meant FPTP.

What I'm saying is, additional member votes or AV or AV+ are all much of a muchness, really. It wouldn't agonise me too much if the national system did change from majoritarian FPTP to some other democratic voting system; no one can predict the kind of electoral results that it would produce in, say, 20 years time, after all. As long as every citizen over 18 and not in jail can fill in a ballot paper privately and without coercion or intimidation or surveillance on an agreed voting system, then fine with me.

So I certainly don't see an urgent need to change from the current system, but then I'm not a Lib Dem supporter or a nationalist, nor do I see it as an ideological or moral issue. I vote through two different systems already, and I slightly prefer FPTP. (I don't do statistics like Vimothy, so I can't wade too far into the thicket of technicalities.)

I don't even know the difference between AV, AV+ and STV (no need to enlighten me - it's years before it'll be back on the agenda), but I'd definitely prefer one of those to PR. I'd even prefer FPTP to PR, since I think party lists are a horrible way to choose MPs and would further erode their parliamentary independence and sense of individual connection with voters. That said, the present system whereby elections are largely decided by a couple of hundred thousand floating voters in swing seats is cancerous.

michael
07-05-2011, 11:32 PM
The flipside to the list MPs-are-disconnected thing is that if you always act in the interest of an electorate you may be unwilling to do stuff that's of broader benefit to the country. It's all a bit theoretical maybe-it'll-be-like-this either way - the reality is more complicated and circumstantial.

I've been voting under MMP (and STV in local elections in a couple of countries) since '99 and don't see too many major dramas. In NZ I certainly haven't had any impression of the kind of precariousness of coalitions Mr Craner describes in Wales. Stymied legislature, etc. occurs from time to time under any system...

Of course smaller parties get to play kingmaker, etc. but the reality is they can't force through really crazy legislation, or have yet to do so here.

My mayor was voted in under STV and got a smaller number of first preference votes than the incumbent. The incumbent said some really ungracious stuff about how more people tried to vote for her and that the system beat her, not the candidate. I think that's just total bullshit. More voters said we'd prefer Wade-Brown (the mayor we got) to the incumbent, so Wade-Brown got in. Seems totally fair to me.