 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
[url= http://imgur.com/a/hgmbQ ]Debunking the NO to AV campaign (it's all lies)[/url]
Dan Snow makes things nice and simple, and the choice an easy one:
Yeah, all works very well when you have seven people who want to go to the pub and three people who want coffee...
What if I want a cream tea?
What if I want something I know I can't have?
buy her some shoes?What if I want something I know I can't have?
@pjt201 It works fine regardless of the number of choices or people involved as it works towards identifying the candidate that has the broadest appeal.
Yeah, all works very well when you have seven people who want to go to the pub and three people who want coffee...
Sounds pretty much exactly like what you get in our elections. If you had a three-way split between Tories (34%), Labour (33%) and LibDem (33%), then even if all Labour voters would rather have LibDem than Tory and all LibDem voters would rather have Labour than Tories, you'd still end up with Tories winning even though 66% of people would prefer either of the other options.
The problem with "FPTP" (other than being hopelessly misnamed) is that the outcome is determined not by what people would prefer, but by how the opposition to the party with the most first-choice votes is split.
it is a junk system, you end up with a 2nd rate candidate that is somewhat acceptable to the most people.
it is a junk system, you end up with a 2nd rate candidate that is somewhat acceptable to the most people.
... and that's better than a system that often yields a candidate that is unacceptable to the majority?
Nick - Member
@pjt201 It works fine regardless of the number of choices or people involved as it works towards identifying the candidate that has the broadest appeal.
It works really well in that example (where 7 people want to go to the pub, three want coffee - what about if there were three completely different options at the start [like in UK politics] rather than 2?), but there are other examples when it doesn't work so well. You can make any voting system look rubbish if you try hard enough! (i'm voting yes btw but that explanation is as bad as the no campaign imo)
Let's just get a dictator in and it won't be a problem ever again!
Whatever the relative merits of AV or FPTP I predict a tiny turnout and the loser will be able to claim insufficient people voted for it to be a valid endorsement.
As Ian Hislop pointed out, we are being asked to vote for AV on a FPTP system so will the AV peeps be able to claim the result was fair, based on the premise that they believe FPTP is inherently unfair?
shit video - I slightly approve of AV though.
It's just a better way of tactical voting, as currently occurs in most "significant" constituencies anyway and extends it to more constituencies. That is a good thing IMO, why shouldn't my vote count ?
(brought up in an ultra-strong seat all the time I lived there. no individual's vote mattered at all as the result was always foregone conclusion. suited me, but it showed me that voting wasn't always valuable. AV wouldn't have made a difference there either, but would do in many more places)
pdw - Member
Yeah, all works very well when you have seven people who want to go to the pub and three people who want coffee...
Sounds pretty much exactly like what you get in our elections. If you had a three-way split between Tories (34%), Labour (33%) and LibDem (33%), then even if all Labour voters would rather have LibDem than Tory and all LibDem voters would rather have Labour than Tories, you'd still end up with Tories winning even though 66% of people would prefer either of the other options
Doesn't work like that though - Lib Dem (assuming 32.9%) would have their first preference eliminated and their second preference counted so labour would win with 65.9% of vote...
slowjo - Member
As Ian Hislop pointed out, we are being asked to vote for AV on a FPTP system so will the AV peeps be able to claim the result was fair, based on the premise that they believe FPTP is inherently unfair?
You do realise he was joking? You can't have AV on a two horse race...
you end up with a [s]2nd rate[/s] candidate that is [s]somewhat[/s] acceptable to the most people.
There you go, take the spin off it and it doesn't sound half bad, does it?
If you vote no to AV you can kiss any chances of proportional representation goodbye for the next 20 years.
Doesn't work like that though - Lib Dem (assuming 32.9%) would have their first preference eliminated and their second preference counted so labour would win with 65.9% of vote...
Errr yeah, which sounds like a better result in the situation I described, which was that 66% of people would be happier with either Labour or LibDem than with the Tories.
So you're agreeing that AV works better?
Hmm, maybe we could have a real life example here. How about if we choose a category, let's say 'most annoying' 'most entertaining' 'most valuable forum member' etc. then put forward a few names to 'elect' to that title, get folks to vote, with 2nd and 3rd choices, the look at the result using both systems?
Shall we, shall we?
Of course the Tories don't actually use AV for leadership elections but lets not let facts get in the way of a good story Mr Snow.
Sadly the pro-AV lot are as full of it as the No-AV lot.
If you vote no to AV you can kiss any chances of proportional representation goodbye for the next 20 years.
Can you tell me next week's lotto numbers too?
@pdw - sorry, misinterpreted your first comment. What I was trying to get across in my first statement was that 7/10 of the people all wanted the same thing (beer) in the first place which is not the same as choosing between three very different things.
Can you tell me next week's lotto numbers too?
Sure, I'll mail them to you next week for a tenner.
The tories use a form of AV, the only difference is that they actually get to vote more than once (rather than stating their 2nd, 3rd etc preference up front). The result is the same though in that they elect the most popular leader by a process of elimination.
a process of elimination
I like the sound of that. Once we've done the politician can we do bankers?
@ Charlie, yes sounds like fun, you can do it via facebook app (don't groan).
So, which three candidates are you going to choose?
Well, lets's choose a category first or shall we do all the ones suggested?
the AV system was used a lot at my Uni and the result of the elections was nearly always someone that a surprise and the obvious winner would not get in.
People fill out all the slots on their paper by default so end up registering a vote for someone by accident.
@charlie Lets keep it nice, most entertaining?
[url= http://apps.facebook.com/alternativevote/?ref=bookmarks&count=0 ]Facebook AV App[/url]
People fill out all the slots on their paper by default so end up registering a vote for someone by accident.
Eh?
ok, nominations please, but let's not do it on Facebook?
We'll take nominations here then start a new thread, if enough people want?
People fill out all the slots on their paper by default so end up registering a vote for someone by accident.
Eh?
Well, they would have to be the people who have trouble understanding the most basic concepts!
So a vote on a vote. Will the vote on a vote be AV, FPTP or PR?
So a vote on a vote. Will the vote on a vote be AV, FPTP or PR?
Does it matter if there are just two choices? My first choice is Yes, my second choice is no...
Most entertaining
Ernie
Binners
TSY - he would be gutted to miss out
We can replace Ernie if you wish as the other two are on holiday and will never know we did this 😉 who else is on holiday?
It's so unfair that the person with the most votes wins
It's so unfair that the person with the most votes wins
No its unfair that you go into a coffee shop and ask for espresso even though you hate espresso just to stop the latte winning. And you end up with peppermint tea.
Or something like that, if I'm following the theory.
No biscuits, more importantly....
Well, they would have to be the people who have trouble understanding the most basic concepts!
that's most of the population isn't it?
If you fill out all the slots on the AV paper just because they are there and then your no 1 candidate doesn't get 50%, then your second vote will count, etc. So you could end up with 3 votes.
To be fair, AV and FPTP gets the same candidate in a huge majority of the seats anyway I think I read.
Well, they would have to be the people who have trouble understanding the most basic concepts!
I used to work on elections. Some of the things I saw were scary in terms of how people voted.
To be fair, AV and FPTP gets the same candidate in a huge majority of the seats anyway I think I read.
That may be so, but with AV, the majority doesn't matter anymore
Well, they would have to be the people who have trouble understanding the most basic concepts!
I think my original point may have been too subtle
Sounds pretty much exactly like what you get in our elections. If you had a three-way split between Tories (34%), Labour (33%) and LibDem (33%), then even if all Labour voters would rather have LibDem than Tory and all LibDem voters would rather have Labour than Tories, you'd still end up with Tories winning even though 66% of people would prefer either of the other options.
Then why didn't the aforesaid Lib Dem's just vote for Labour in the first place?
Then why didn't the aforesaid Lib Dem's just vote for Labour in the first place?
Perhaps they don't have the gift of prophecy.
@Charlie, it would be easier to use a ready made polling tool, will be a nightmare trying to do it via thread... FB one looks simple, but it does depend on people having a FB account...
How about I set it up on there (once we have all the candidates) and then people can have a choice, the more people who use the FB app the easier it will be to work out, we can add in the thread based responses manually when the vote is closed.
Go on then, Is there any interest though?
The advantage of the thread based one is that we can use it to look at other voting systems, Borda, Condocet or others
Well, that assumes that the electorate would vote the same even if they knew and understood the AV system. You might well find that more one-shot tactical voting than you imagined is already going on under PFTP. In this case, interpreting it using AV rules is sillyTo be fair, AV and FPTP gets the same candidate in a huge majority of the seats anyway I think I read.
Whatever system gets in it still wont make most of them worth voting for.
Then why didn't the aforesaid Lib Dem's just vote for Labour in the first place?
Because their first preference is the LibDems. Just like the people who wanted to go to the pub had a preference for different pubs, ultimately they were able agree on one pub because they'd rather go to any pub than the coffee shop.
One of the many failings of "FPTP" is that it forces many people to do what you suggest and vote for their second choice party.
If you vote no to AV you can kiss any chances of proportional representation goodbye for the next 20 years
Indeed. And PR is a prize worth voting for.