View Full Version : Av
Judging by no one talking about it (on here, unless I missed it) I guess the fors and antis have completely failed to engage the voters in the debate.
Personally, I wouldn't use a second vote. Why would you vote for the competitor of the person you want to get in? :confused
Given that democracy is the least worst form of government, then FPTP is the least worst form of voting.
Incidentally - who's seen their candidates? I can report sighting/handshake/conversation with SNP and Conservative candidates. They were both articulate, polite, and forthcoming.
I look forward to the representative from the "party of the working man". One or two questions there, I'm afraid!
Blimey, I was right. No one is interested.
On that note, seems to me we a paying a hell of a lot for a referendum just so the Lib Dems can say they got a concession out of Cons.
Blimey, I was right. No one is interested.
I think you are right. Very few people seem to care.
I'm sure there are a lot of other issues where the public would like to have a referendum, and many of those issues might bring a higher turnout than any general election.
Bobinovich
28-Apr-11, 13:21
To be honest, after looking through various pro, con & impartial sites I can't raise enough enthusiasm for the Yes camp to make it worthwhile changing. We're still going to be under the thumb of whoever gets in, and they're just as likely to do U-turns on policies to suit themselves, and they're most definately still going to make a mess of some situations and get others right! So really is there going to be that big a difference? I don't think so, so I certainly don't see any point in changing for the sake of changing, especially not just to keep the LibDem's happy.
Theone is right that there are more contentious issues which the public would like a say on, and which would surely spark the interest of a far greater percentage of the voting populace.
I reckon we should have a voting system where we shoot the eejits we don't want. That'll thin 'em out a bit!
Phill - shooting may well be a good idea.
But have you thought it through?
Politicians' corpses would come under the heading of "toxic waste", and would require special licences from the EU to dispose of them.
(They would not be permitted as ordinary landfill, and incineration is also out).
Also, there would be thousands of them.
Of course, they could be shipped out along with the nuclear waste......
Personally, I wouldn't use a second vote. Why would you vote for the competitor of the person you want to get in? :confused
Probably because a lot of the population who have been systematically dumbed down over the years by watching too much TV and reading about the celebrities in "hello" etc probably think theyre voting for someone on the X factor. Or whoevers got the nicest tie or who's the fittest etc
Which voting system would our pets decide to have in their elections? Watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHuiDD_oTk
Cape Crusader
29-Apr-11, 18:12
Strange that we have had no pontification from Johannes der Kleine on this thread!
Just as a point of order really: Strange how the Conservative party who are anti-AV and behind the No2AV campaign use AV in their own leadership elections - http://i.imgur.com/vzuEv.png - under FPTP a different candidate would have won. The canonical anti-AV example seems to be that people are too stupid to work out how to number candidates work, but that politicians aren't because they're smarter than you.
Also I feel people here are buying into the propoganda, your 'second' vote isn't counted unless your first choice is eliminated so you still only have one vote it's just moved; I'd rather have X but if I can't have X then I'd prefer Y over Z. Plus if X is Pub A and Y is Pub B and Z is a Coffe Shop, well X and Y are still alcohol (see examples below).
Debunking the No2AV marketing material (I really wish advertising standards could get involved in stuff like this) - http://imgur.com/a/hgmbQ
The problems with First Past The Post - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
AV explained - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
Some tongue-in-cheek AV examples:
http://i.imgur.com/jPwaq.png
http://images.mechtopia.org.uk/av/whyav.png
Personally I'd prefer the STV (Single Transferable Vote) PR system but I'll take AV as a stepping stone and continue to put on pressure for a better system. So I'd recommend against voting 'No' and against spoling the ballot.
Edit: Here's a rough example of how the most recent Westminister election would have looked under different systems - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8644480.stm
So looks like the Tories would have won under all these below? re; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8644480.stm
First-past-the-post
Single transferable vote
Alternative vote
Alternative vote plus
Simple proportional representation
people are too stupid to work out how to number candidates work, but that politicians aren't because they're smarter than you.
So? What's your point? [lol]
So looks like the Tories would have won under all these below? re; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8644480.stm
First-past-the-post
Single transferable vote
Alternative vote
Alternative vote plus
Simple proportional representation
Keep in mind that, that example is a rough estimate based on some math and assumptions as there was no indication of peoples second or third choice etc. Also (see the FPTP video I posted http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo) the result is skewered because of tactical voting and an institutionalised two/three party system under FPTP etc.
The Conservatives would have returned with a reduced majority making other coalitions possible.
Finally I thought one of No2AVs main arguments is that AV or any form of PR would allow the 'losers' to win or dodgy 'fringe' parties to get power. Evidently not it would seem.
I mean regardless the Conservatives would have won with Labour taking a large chunk of seats, UNLESS people were switching to one of the main two parties as a form of tactical voting or to ensure their vote is 'counted'. See that video again.
So? What's your point? [lol].Well as Churchill said the biggest argument against democracy is five minutes with the average voter. That being said I often think people should have to pass a basic test on the issues, the system of government, plus some logic, reasoning and critical thinking before they should be allowed to vote though that's probably too elitist. On a more serious note I'm surprised the No2AV supporters aren't insulted being called too stupid to understand a system as basic as numbering the candidates/parties in order of preference. Especially when it's the system already used for local council elections, EU elections and not to mention political party leadership elections.
tonkatojo
30-Apr-11, 19:50
It is just a big con by the cons to get folk to vote against them and lo and behold they have what they wanted all along.
Keep in mind that, that example is a rough estimate based on some math and assumptions as there was no indication of peoples second or third choice etc. Also (see the FPTP video I posted http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo) the result is skewered because of tactical voting and an institutionalised two/three party system under FPTP etc.
The Conservatives would have returned with a reduced majority making other coalitions possible.
Finally I thought one of No2AVs main arguments is that AV or any form of PR would allow the 'losers' to win or dodgy 'fringe' parties to get power. Evidently not it would seem.
I mean regardless the Conservatives would have won with Labour taking a large chunk of seats, UNLESS people were switching to one of the main two parties as a form of tactical voting or to ensure their vote is 'counted'. See that video again.
Well as Churchill said the biggest argument against democracy is five minutes with the average voter. That being said I often think people should have to pass a basic test on the issues, the system of government, plus some logic, reasoning and critical thinking before they should be allowed to vote though that's probably too elitist. On a more serious note I'm surprised the No2AV supporters aren't insulted being called too stupid to understand a system as basic as numbering the candidates/parties in order of preference. Especially when it's the system already used for local council elections, EU elections and not to mention political party leadership elections.
Oh I know these systems are used to elect officials/union bosses etc, but not quite sure what countries use it? I understand from an Australian friend that the majority of Aussies don't like it, and that Fiji is kicking it into touch and that leaves Papua New Guinea? I'm so confused..
secrets in symmetry
30-Apr-11, 20:35
Oh I know these systems are used to elect officials/union bosses etc, but not quite sure what countries use it? I understand from an Australian friend that the majority of Aussies don't like it, and that Fiji is kicking it into touch and that leaves Papua New Guinea? I'm so confused..We use STV to elect our councillors. Holyrood uses a second vote system which at first sight seems ludicrous, but its result is remarkably close to naive proportional representation, whilst at the same time excluding the lunatic fringe quite effectively.
The Conservatives oppose AV yet they think it is democratic enough to use a variant of AV to elect their own leadership, not surprisingly, Labour and the Lib Dems use it as well. #doublestandards
The countries that use some form of PR (not necessarily AV or STV) in their national elections are: Albania, Algeria, Angola, Australia, Austria, Argentina, Aruba, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Curaçao, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Northern Ireland, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Scotland, Sint Maarten, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela, Wales and Wallis and Futuna. Many many more countries use it at a local level and like I say all the European parliament elections use a PR system.
So yeah about that bit of No2AV propaganda that says almost all of the world uses FPTP, sometimes I think they choose AV as the proprosed PR system (technically it's not even PR but somewhere between FPTP and PR) so that they could say that most of the world doesn't used it. It's not the system I'd pick, I'd prefer STV. It's the only choice though so I'm voting yes and then if it gets in I'd continue putting on pressure for an even better system.
That being said I often think people should have to pass a basic test on the issues, the system of government, plus some logic, reasoning and critical thinking before they should be allowed to vote though that's probably too elitist.
Without something like that we have the political equivalent of the X factor though. The popular, and not the best, will always win.
Voting is essentialy selfish. You vote for the candidate or party that will best serve you in your own circumstances. So it is not about the best suit or nicest smile.
I was wrong BTW. We have started a debate.
The countries that use some form of PR (not necessarily AV or STV) in their national elections are: Albania, Algeria, Angola, Australia, Austria, Argentina, Aruba, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Curaçao, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Northern Ireland, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Scotland, Sint Maarten, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela, Wales and Wallis and Futuna. Many many more countries use it at a local level and like I say all the European parliament elections use a PR system.
So yeah about that bit of No2AV propaganda that says almost all of the world uses FPTP, sometimes I think they choose AV as the proprosed PR system (technically it's not even PR but somewhere between FPTP and PR) so that they could say that most of the world doesn't used it. It's not the system I'd pick, I'd prefer STV. It's the only choice though so I'm voting yes and then if it gets in I'd continue putting on pressure for an even better system.
Thought this Thread was called 'AV'?
I totally believe in FPTP BUT also in Proportional Representation, too. When I was a bolshie student, I remember voting behind a very learned and wise professor who I knew to have political views on t'other size of the fence from me.
Here was I, with my tiny agenda and even less knowledge, being accorded the same rights as a Great Man.
I seriously believe, when they do the "vox pops" in the street on TV, and you see a clear numpty mouthing the slogan "because we've ALWAYS voted X in this family", that there is a massive case for giving more votes to cast to those people who are clearly committed and engaged citizens, than to someone whose vote is simply tribal, or brought about by some long-distant philosophy now conveniently discarded.
How about it? Votes for those who deserve them? Genuine Proportional Representation - but keep FPTP!
How about it? Votes for those who deserve them? Genuine Proportional Representation - but keep FPTP!
How would that work?
Everybody gets points or weighted scores based on their intelligence, political awareness etc?
Good idea, and probably fairer to the country as a whole, but I doubt it would ever be workable.
If the political system were to be overhauled, I'd rather see the banning of political parties, and forcing the MP's elected by the people of an area to do their best for that area, regardless of the old party politics.
Why do we pay 300 conservative MP's wages, and 250 odd labour MP's wages when 99% of the time they're going to vote with the "party line"? And why do we brand them "rebels" if they vote against the party for the good of the people who elect them?
John Little
01-May-11, 11:47
Strange that we have had no pontification from Johannes der Kleine on this thread!
You solicit a reaction from me?
Nay - if tha wants pontification tha shouldst sik out a Yorkshireman.
Thought this Thread was called 'AV'? Well yeah but the wider point is about PR and whether the country should use that. Plus like I say I think AV was specifically picked as a tactic because it's one of the least used PR systems.
How would that work?
Everybody gets points or weighted scores based on their intelligence, political awareness etc?
Good idea, and probably fairer to the country as a whole, but I doubt it would ever be workable.
If the political system were to be overhauled, I'd rather see the banning of political parties, and forcing the MP's elected by the people of an area to do their best for that area, regardless of the old party politics.
Why do we pay 300 conservative MP's wages, and 250 odd labour MP's wages when 99% of the time they're going to vote with the "party line"? And why do we brand them "rebels" if they vote against the party for the good of the people who elect them?
The test idea is probably a more practical way than a points system based on life achievement - the problem with that is it could potentially be biased to older people or richer people - I mean you have to pass a test to drive so why not one to vote. Don't base it on math or science or even history, make it a test on general political issues, systems etc with some soft skills thrown in like logic and critical thinking. That way not only do you ensure that the electorate is better educated on the issues beyond party propaganda and biased newspapers but you also raise the bar for entry a bit meaning that people have to put in some effort.
I too have often thought/said this. Eliminate parties completely then individual MPs can form ad hoc groups for the purpose of running the country etc or have the MPs elected vote themselves on who will be Prime Minister, Chancellor etc. My reasoning is that an individual MP is more likely to screw over his constituency for the Party if the Party said it would take care of him. At the very least I'd want to see political whips removed and MPs allowed to vote on their own. Also it'll be harder for special interests to influence parties if there are none. It also stops those idiots that say 'I've voted for this party my whole life therefore I'll continue to vote for them' or 'I happen to be this therefore that party is the one for me'.
While we're veering into general political stuff. I have problems with people voting as a group just because they're a member of a certain subculture or demographic and influential members of that demographic tell them to. Old people I'm mainly looking at you but there are others that do it.
I'm really sorry but I'm so thick that I'd have trouble in passing; "a basic test on the issues, the system of government, plus some logic, reasoning and critical thinking" and of course much grovelling that I'm weak in the head "I'm surprised the No2AV supporters aren't insulted being called too stupid".. And yes, I'm obviously too dim witted as it looks like I'm one of these; "people here are buying into the (sic)propoganda."..
Oh yes, again "make it a test on general political issues, systems etc with some soft skills thrown in like logic and critical thinking." and "That way not only do you ensure that the electorate is better educated on the issues" - hey why not have only house-holders vote?.. all this is tongue in cheek isn't it? when I voted for my FBU bloke, I needed to have 'logic and critical thinking'?... and here we go; picking on old gits like me; "certain subculture; Old people I'm mainly looking at you but there are others that do it"
It's basically down to whinging; please sir me, me, me.
Like the Libdems, full of ideas, knowing they would not have a hope in hell of getting into power. Whoops; you're in - oh dear, will have to change our policies now.. a party is voted into power by it's supporters FPTP - although not perfect it 'usually' provides a stronger government, good God lets not get like Italy!..
I'm afraid it would be anathema for me to say; give my second vote to the greens.. OK call me stupid, but with Eleanor Scott (the MSP that lost her seat last time) chastising us for using supermarkets, for telling us the A9 Perth to Inverness road must not be upgraded, hates GM crops that could be used in counties where starvation is endemic and the environment precludes 'normal' growth...
I'm 'usually' a Tory voter - like the other 10,703,754 simpletons.. Who do I vote for? well that's between me and the ballot box..
It seems by this tread that if you stick a 'Labour/Tory/Libdems et el' label on a monkey, they'd vote for 'em.. Oh come, come, Sir.
So IF the no campaign wins here - you'll accept it?
There see, all that was penned without any insults or derogating any Poster..
Well yeah but the wider point is about PR and whether the country should use that. Plus like I say I think AV was specifically picked as a tactic because it's one of the least used PR systems.
The test idea is probably a more practical way than a points system based on life achievement - the problem with that is it could potentially be biased to older people or richer people - I mean you have to pass a test to drive so why not one to vote. Don't base it on math or science or even history, make it a test on general political issues, systems etc with some soft skills thrown in like logic and critical thinking. That way not only do you ensure that the electorate is better educated on the issues beyond party propaganda and biased newspapers but you also raise the bar for entry a bit meaning that people have to put in some effort.
I too have often thought/said this. Eliminate parties completely then individual MPs can form ad hoc groups for the purpose of running the country etc or have the MPs elected vote themselves on who will be Prime Minister, Chancellor etc. My reasoning is that an individual MP is more likely to screw over his constituency for the Party if the Party said it would take care of him. At the very least I'd want to see political whips removed and MPs allowed to vote on their own. Also it'll be harder for special interests to influence parties if there are none. It also stops those idiots that say 'I've voted for this party my whole life therefore I'll continue to vote for them' or 'I happen to be this therefore that party is the one for me'.
While we're veering into general political stuff. I have problems with people voting as a group just because they're a member of a certain subculture or demographic and influential members of that demographic tell them to. Old people I'm mainly looking at you but there are others that do it.
Why is it always the people who think they are better that want to dictate? :Razz
They don't want to dictate: they want a representative democracy. They also don't think THEY are better - they would just like the system to be. The AV is the weakest form of PR, and the most that the Tories would swallow from the Lib Dems as a bargaining chip for coalition. Cameron rightly realised that the Lib Dems would be so utterly marked at crunch time as turncoats, that the AV debate would disappear down the plughole.
If there is an outbreak of collective insanity,mass hysteria, or general mischief, and the AV mob win the day, look out for the Lib Dems now wanting to shift the goalposts even further towards an even more expensive and purposeless PR system.
But I'm not holding my breath!
It's basically down to whinging; please sir me, me, me.
Like the Libdems, full of ideas, knowing they would not have a hope in hell of getting into power. Whoops; you're in - oh dear, will have to change our policies now.. a party is voted into power by it's supporters FPTP - although not perfect it 'usually' provides a stronger government, good God lets not get like Italy!..
I'm afraid it would be anathema for me to say; give my second vote to the greens.. OK call me stupid, but with Eleanor Scott (the MSP that lost her seat last time) chastising us for using supermarkets, for telling us the A9 Perth to Inverness road must not be upgraded, hates GM crops that could be used in counties where starvation is endemic and the environment precludes 'normal' growth...
I'm 'usually' a Tory voter - like the other 10,703,754 simpletons.. Who do I vote for? well that's between me and the ballot box..
It seems by this tread that if you stick a 'Labour/Tory/Libdems et el' label on a monkey, they'd vote for 'em.. Oh come, come, Sir.
So IF the no campaign wins here - you'll accept it?
There see, all that was penned without any insults or derogating any Poster..
Good, I was waiting for this post from someone: Okay if the No2AV campaign wins legitimately, that is without using dodgy tactics or making things up then I'm fine with it. I have nothing against people who disagree with me and can back it up properly, in some ways I prefer it to sycophants or people who agree with me but having done no research. Part of me would argue that some things are too sensitive and important for a referendum though. They don't hold one for every war or conflict or any major economic reform but that's a different matter entirely. On the other side there have been news stories and leaked documents from the No2AV political supporter that said if the Yes campaign won they cause a backbench revolt.
The fact is much of the same arguments and tactics or variations of them used against AV/PR have been used against other types of voting reform whether allowing certain ethnicities to vote or men without property or women. Seriously are you telling me you approve of dodgy marketing material like this - http://i.imgur.com/jMsYV.jpg - that's not a fake it's an actual ad ran in some papers and magazines just search for 'No2AV baby'. It's completely wrong and there are others like it - http://imgur.com/a/hgmbQ. If the Yes campaign started doing crap like that, even though I support them I'd be calling them on it.
Opposition to AV is not coming from one party, I have nothing against the Conservatives my political opinions are across the board and I agree with them on some things. What I have problems with is petty factionalisation with no reason, dodgy and dishonest tactics and people just spouting party lines like mantras.
There are some people who will vote for someone based on label and nothing else, whether hardcore Labour unionists, Liberal Democrat socialist students or Conservative free market capitalists. That's one problem with organised political parties but also that MPs are forced to vote along party lines.
FPTP does not provide a stronger government if every 10 years or so one group gets total power and then makes a concerted effort to completely reverse the policies of the last lot and just ignores any opposition or dissenting opinion, we're just going back and forth. Voting isn't a race anyway it's not like a car or horse race, it's not about providing a strong government it's about accurately representing the electorate and those representatives making good arguments and coming to some consensus or compromise.
Take the example of Party Alpha, Party Beta and Party Charlie. Parties Alpha and Beta agree on 80% of things so while a Party Alpha voter would not prefer a Party Beta government it's preferable to a Party Charlie government as they still agree on some things. Now say Party Alpha gets 33% of the vote, Party Beta get's 33% of the vote and Party Charlie gets 34% of the vote. Well under FPTP Party Charlie wins and gets a hell of a lot more seats even though 66% of people didn't vote for them. The whole point of AV/PR is to ensure that all opinions are proportionately represented. Also how can you reconcile that it's the system the main opposition to AV/PR use in their own leadership elections, they're the ones saying you're too stupid to understand it.
On the subject of a voter test I think it's a perfectly legitimate idea, we require people to pass tests and exams for other things: driving, some jobs etc. Why not for voting. It shouldn't affect one parties supporters disproportionately unless you're saying they all happen to be stupid - there are stupid and dishonest people everywhere and they have too much say on discourse and lower the tone.
There's been a movement in the US actually that embodies this if you search for 'Truthiness' or 'Colbert Rally' you'll find out more.
In closing I don't want to dictate anything it's not about that but say my opinions were only representative of 10-20% of the population then even though my group could never hold power I'd want that percentage to be proportionately represented, isn't that only fair?
EDIT: Just rereading your post, it's not about silencing the opposition because I happen to disagree with them, it's about giving them a voice so that when my policies pass I can feel secure that they passed legitimately with an actual mandate or that my arguments actually won people over and got them to change their minds. So what if some fictional ultra-enviromentalist party happens to get a few seats, the more moderate enviromentalist parties will probably be more represented.
AV is really not about a second vote either the numbering allows us to simulate instant run-off elections if required where the candidate with the lowest votes is eliminated each round (potentially your number 1) and therefore couldn't be voted for in the second round by you if one happened. It's entirely possible for an AV or PR count to only go one round if a candidate happens to get 51% or more in the first round. Some PR systems have two votes, AV doesn't.
Thought I'd post this: A comedy take on PR and FPTP by John Cleese from the 1980s - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSUKMa1cYHk
BTW it's STV he's describing.
Given that the vote is tomorrow I thought I'd post - http://www.conservativeyes.org.uk/ - to let people know that you can still be a supporter of whatever party and be in favour of voting reform.
Hogfather
04-May-11, 17:34
Seems to me it doesn't matter a flying monkey what voting system we use, since only about a third of us plebs can usually be bothered to turn up and vote! ;) Even if we all voted for the same fellow, he still wouldn't necessarily be representing the views of the other two thirds who couldn't be R'sed to turn out.
Compulsory voting. At gunpoint:Razz (no, I'm joking)
But it would be 'interesting' to see what would happen, regardless of the voting system, if we were offered the option of 'none of the above' to tick, eh? ;)
PS I voted yes
Seems to me it doesn't matter a flying monkey what voting system we use, since only about a third of us plebs can usually be bothered to turn up and vote! ;)
The irony of that is that First Past the Post is a voting system for which only a third of the votes actually count for something, the other two thirds of votes might as well have not been put in the ballot box. So our electorate is disillusioned with the system so like you say two thirds of us don't vote anymore.
AV changes all that, every vote counts for something allowing everyone to positively vote for who we really want to run the country without being sucked into all the polital bitchiness of tactical voting.
Who decided the line for the majority?
Expecting a 50% hit rate every time seems a high bar that is rarely going to be attained, so does this mean politicos 'winning' by being a 4th or 5th choice i.e. by default?
EDIT: What scares the bejesus out of me is the amount information that is being put out to explain AV. Surely if us peeps cannot understand it we shouldn't be using it? (it's a simple system but if we don't understand it it's not going to work)
♪♫ "AV, see, it's easy as 123" ♪♫
♪♫ "AV, see, it's easy as 123" ♪♫Could you attach that as a .WAV file???
Seriously though, that is what puts me off the AV system. Too many people could assume, or be misled into thinking you HAVE to rank all the candidates thus votes being carried over that wouldn't be there under the current system.
I don't know though, would it ultimately change the outcome in many polls?
Who decided the line for the majority?
Expecting a 50% hit rate every time seems a high bar that is rarely going to be attained, so does this mean politicos 'winning' by being a 4th or 5th choice i.e. by default?
EDIT: What scares the bejesus out of me is the amount information that is being put out to explain AV. Surely if us peeps cannot understand it we shouldn't be using it? (it's a simple system but if we don't understand it it's not going to work)
http://i.imgur.com/kk2lZ.jpg - It's that easy and anyone can over complicate something, just number the candidates in order of preference, should someone get 50% or more in a single round they're declared the winner. Claims like 'the guy that came 3rd can win' are just lies[1]. It's already the system used for Council elections, EU elections and the system all parties use to elect their leaders and people seem to understand those. The reason there's a lot of information is because there's a ton of disinformation, check that John Cleese link he explains it in 40 seconds the rest of the video is comedy and commentary. This Stephen Fry link does the same thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J31QkzWmmUc
[1] - It simulates instant run-off elections where the candidate with the lowest votes is eliminated each round until one candidate has 50% or more, you don't get a 'second' vote or any crap like that under AV (some PR systems like the Scottish parliament elections use a second vote but not AV) because the system it simulates removes your first choice if he has the lowest number of votes so in a live instant run-off you couldn't vote for him.
Seems to me it doesn't matter a flying monkey what voting system we use, since only about a third of us plebs can usually be bothered to turn up and vote! ;) Even if we all voted for the same fellow, he still wouldn't necessarily be representing the views of the other two thirds who couldn't be R'sed to turn out.
Compulsory voting. At gunpoint:Razz (no, I'm joking)
But it would be 'interesting' to see what would happen, regardless of the voting system, if we were offered the option of 'none of the above' to tick, eh? ;)
PS I voted yes
Some countries do have sort of compulsory voting where by they make it harder for you to get things like a passport or driving license if you don't vote, others fine you if you don't vote. I've always thought that if elections were held on a Saturday with the polling stations opening for 24 hours that we might get a better turnout, the current system sort of penalises people who work etc.
Was reading an interesting bit in the Evening Standard regarding AV - http://bit.ly/meqeub that's sort of related:
The AV debate, which has surely inspired some of the dumbest politicking ever inflicted on the British electorate, has typically been split along party lines, with arguments conjured to service each faction's self-interest.
There is a more interesting way to divide opinion: vertically. There is a huge difference between how the old and young view voting reform. According to a recent survey, seven out of 10 baby- boomers are in favour of the present system while six out of 10 under-35s want to see it modernised
Since the old vote far more readily than the young, the "No" camp is likely to prevail - and then the opportunity will be lost for the foreseeable future. Isn't it rather galling that the future is in the hands of people who won't be around to see it? All the more reason to get out and vote, kids.
To make the problems of FPTP clear to people, how about this as the ballot for the AV referendum:
Option 1. Switch the UK voting system to AV.
Option 2. Keep the FPTP system but with elections only ever held on a Monday.
Option 3. Keep the FPTP system but with elections only ever held on a Tuesday.
Option 4. Keep the FPTP system but with elections only ever held on a Wednesday.
Option 5. Keep the FPTP system but with elections only ever held on a Thursday.
Option 6. Keep the FPTP system but with elections only ever held on a Friday.
It's possible for people to pick 5 options on that paper that are essentially the same thing at the core but just disagree on the details.
It is worrying when you hear that David Cameron is against AV because he thinks counting to 3 is difficult.
It's that easy and anyone can over complicate something, just number the candidates in order of preference
Exactly! This IS the problem in my mind, not actually AV itself.
We don't have to number the candidates in order of preference if we just want to vote for one. I find the whole thing very easy to understand, I don't need John Cleese to explain it to me (although I very much admire the man).
But, if a greater part of the voting masses do not understand (which appears the case to me) then the system is flawed.
I'll be voting no..and then yes...and then maybe.....and then I don't know :confused
Nick Griffin
"AV is designed to ensure permanent left-liberal government and is aimed at stopping the BNP"
Hmmm, time fer me trebuchet methinks. Nick Griffin can trial it with a few extra weights.
Exactly! This IS the problem in my mind, not actually AV itself.
We don't have to number the candidates in order of preference if we just want to vote for one. I find the whole thing very easy to understand, I don't need John Cleese to explain it to me (although I very much admire the man).
But, if a greater part of the voting masses do not understand (which appears the case to me) then the system is flawed.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure everyone can understand the concept of numbering something in the order you like them as much as putting an 'X' next to the thing you like the most. If not AV will actually count an X next to a single candidate as a 1 so you can essentially have only one preference and simulate FPTP for those that do have any legitimate trouble understanding.
I think the problem is it's been intentionally over complicated by electioneering, editorialising and just plain propaganda.
Even if it is somehow a more complicated system for people, that's not a valid argument just because something is easy to understand or simple that doesn't make it a good idea. It's easier not to do something than do it etc, it's easy to come up with extreme examples for this one like No2AVs baby and body armour ads.
It is worrying when you hear that David Cameron is against AV because he thinks counting to 3 is difficult.
I think he understands it perfectly, it's the system that made him and others party leaders in his case he'd have lost to David Davis under FPTP (The No2AV supporters I've discussed this with have yet to explain how they reconcile that). He's against AV because it means some politicians will actually have to act like adults and discuss and compromise - When did that and coming to an agreement become bad and a 'strong' government (de facto dictatorship in may ways) become good? Compromise used to be what Britain was praised for across the world.
On a side note: It was interesting to see what campaign the papers backed. I was surprised that The Independent and Telegraph were for AV. The others are pretty much what I expected.
I really do think advertising standards or some independent commission should regulate or have oversight on all politician campaigns, not on opinion stuff but where they lie about something provable.
Walter Ego
05-May-11, 10:35
RecQuery, I'll take issue with your statement that people should be made to attain some sort of 'mark' before they are allowed to vote.
Your comparison with other 'tests' missed one vital point - no one has the 'right' to a car licence or whatever. You do, however, in a true democracy, have a 'right' to vote - regardless of your academic understanding of how the political system works.
The route you suggest is one of academic fascism, where those who are not up to some contrived 'benchmark' are deemed not worthy. It's a modern day version of only allowing votes to those who hold title to land or who meet some sort of social standard ...and remember we've fought tooth and nail here to get away from having a disenfranchised political underclass.
If you are entitled to hold a UK passport and are on the Electoral register - then that should remain the only requirements necessary.
Back on topic - AV or not AV? Both have their merits.
And that's the problem. I'll forecast a 'no' result, because there hasn't been the level of engagement with the public to bring the concept of an alternative system sufficiently forward into the limelight.
But then again, if the more conservative minded simply stay away from the polls instead of fighting to maintain the current system, then the AV vote will get through on a relative minority vote....oh, the irony of it all....
RecQuery, I'll take issue with your statement that people should be made to attain some sort of 'mark' before they are allowed to vote.
Your comparison with other 'tests' missed one vital point - no one has the 'right' to a car licence or whatever. You do, however, in a true democracy, have a 'right' to vote - regardless of your academic understanding of how the political system works.
The route you suggest is one of academic fascism, where those who are not up to some contrived 'benchmark' are deemed not worthy. It's a modern day version of only allowing votes to those who hold title to land or who meet some sort of social standard ...and remember we've fought tooth and nail here to get away from having a disenfranchised political underclass.
If you are entitled to hold a UK passport and are on the Electoral register - then that should remain the only requirements necessary.
I mentioned that point a bit back when I first mentioned it, I thought the idea was probably too elitist but was just throwing it out there. Though the vote is routinely taken away from some and denied for others: If you're below a certain age, if you have a mental condition etc and historically there have been various other reasons for taking it away, we also deny other rights for similar reasons. It's not an automatic right, you have to register also. My idea for a test would be such that it wouldn't require any specific academic knowledge, it would potentially be passable by anyone with a couple years of high school. Like I said it was probably unworkable and I was just throwing it out there as a talking point.
What do you think of the idea of giving everyone one vote but some people more than one? (proposed in this thread also)
Back on topic - AV or not AV? Both have their merits.
And that's the problem. I'll forecast a 'no' result, because there hasn't been the level of engagement with the public to bring the concept of an alternative system sufficiently forward into the limelight.
But then again, if the more conservative minded simply stay away from the polls instead of fighting to maintain the current system, then the AV vote will get through on a relative minority vote....oh, the irony of it all....
Everything is decided by about 20%-40% of the potential electorate, I wish it wasn't so but beyond compulsory voting discussed above there's not really a lot you can do about it. I've also said that 07:00-22:00 on a weekday for any election or vote isn't a large enough windows and could potentially discriminate against those who work or with children or family commitments and biased in favour of those with lots of free time and no commitments.
EDIT: I suppose for me it comes down to: why do we want to maintain a system that isn't fair? where a single party can get 30% of the vote but 60% of the seats.
Actually, Walter, I'm beginning to change my mind. The people who DO vote really see it as important - and if some of that vote is tribal, it only means that it'll take more proof to get them to change their minds.
Those who AREN'T qualified to vote already don't - the tossers, the dossers, the apathetic, the selfish, the daft, the numpties, the 60 odd percent of the population who can't be arsed to drag their sorry butts to the polling booth. It's self selection, really. Darwin. The fittest to vote, vote. Those who aren't "qualified" (by their own apathy) don't.
The 60% then have to live with the "consequences" of their inaction - a word they don't understand fully.
Next question - why are 60% of the voting population incapable of voting?
Might it be something to do with their education and upbringing?
Back on topic - it is mainly politicians who want AV. That makes it automatically suspect. It ain't being done for our benefit. FPTP says "THIS is what I want. NOT something else".
Otherwise its like the Noo Labour egg & spoon race, where the winner is given "triumphalist counselling", second place gets an "achievement recognition certificate", third and fourth places get small identical "prize tokens", the fifth gets the "most improved runner" certificate, and the kid who comes last gets a gold-blocked certificate for "value-added improvement".
Just like the real world. Not.
...Back on topic - it is mainly politicians who want AV. That makes it automatically suspect. It ain't being done for our benefit. FPTP says "THIS is what I want. NOT something else". ...
As I recall I think you mentioned you're in favour of AV, that being said you may have changed your mind so:
Polling puts support for both campaigns around the 40% mark, not sure what that'll translate to in the actual referendum though - It might be interesting to a demographic study but that's going off on a tangent. I imagine as with the public, politicians have different opinions on this, as seen from the campaigns and who supports each. In terms of coalition there seems to be more supporters in favour of FPTP than AV. I'm generally skeptical of politicians but just because some of them are in favour of something I also happen to like that doesn't make it suspect.
Also I really dislike the race analogy because it's not one in that sense despite the colloquial name.
EDIT: Regarding the 60% who don't vote either as some perceived protest or because they're too apathetic: I've always been of the opinion that if you don't show up you can't complain. Also the government really doesn't care if you don't vote as a protest, doesn't bother them one little bit. If would be interesting though to see if the numbers correlate with some other factors.
This extract from Facebook seems appropriate:
http://i.imgur.com/J2Rhz.png
Walter Ego
05-May-11, 11:44
.....
This extract from Facebook seems appropriate:
http://i.imgur.com/J2Rhz.png
I thought only my Facebook friends could see that....:(
Three stupid things I've heard today:
1. "AV is like the Oscars - that's why I'm voting 'No'"
2. "Women died to get you your one vote, don't give it away!"
3. "What happens is that your fourth preference overrides your first choice which was your actual vote"
Once again, I feel I'm on the verge of being painfully let down by the electorate. I'd be happier - at the least I could respect it - if those people used some sort of reasoned argument for voting no.
I sometimes wonder if I'm on some version of The Truman Show designed to make me rage. Also:
Cameron in today's Sun:
"I'll let the last word go to Winston Churchill. Many years ago he described AV as "the stupidest, the least scientific and the most unreal" voting system."
What Churchill on FPTP:
"The present system has clearly broken down. The results produced are not fair to any party, nor to any section of the community. In many cases they do not secure majority representation, nor do they secure an intelligent representation of minorities. All they secure is fluke representation, freak representation, capricious representation."
Three stupid things I've heard today:
1. "AV is like the Oscars - that's why I'm voting 'No'"
2. "Women died to get you your one vote, don't give it away!"
3. "What happens is that your fourth preference overrides your first choice which was your actual vote"
Once again, I feel I'm on the verge of being painfully let down by the electorate. I'd be happier - at the least I could respect it - if those people used some sort of reasoned argument for voting no.
I sometimes wonder if I'm on some version of The Truman Show designed to make me rage. Also:
Cameron in today's Sun:
"I'll let the last word go to Winston Churchill. Many years ago he described AV as "the stupidest, the least scientific and the most unreal" voting system."
What Churchill on FPTP:
"The present system has clearly broken down. The results produced are not fair to any party, nor to any section of the community. In many cases they do not secure majority representation, nor do they secure an intelligent representation of minorities. All they secure is fluke representation, freak representation, capricious representation."
What you need to do is buy yourself a nice pair of Union Flag shorts, a string vest and wear a knotted hanky on your head, then you will be happy, like the rest of us.[lol]
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii146/mamarokka/Gumbies1999PNG.png
No to string vests.
(image taken this morning during an AV debate with the electorate)
Well I need some eye bleach after that.
A Few people have asked me this today so I just thought I'd say you don't need your polling card to vote, just your name and address and obviously you have to have registered to vote at some point in the past.
Few people have asked me this today so I just thought I'd say you don't need your polling card to vote, just your name and address and obviously you have to have registered to vote at some point in the past.
What about ID? I only ask because TRD is away and she has filed it. (Polling Card)
What about ID? I only ask because TRD is away and she has filed it. (Polling Card)
As far am I'm aware you don't (except in Norther Ireland) but the people staffing the polling station might not know that:
http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/how_do_i_vote/voting_in_person.aspx
http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/general_election_faq.aspx
EDIT:
I haven't received my poll card/I've received my poll card but my name is incorrect
You can still vote even if you do not have a poll card, as long as you are on the electoral register. You should contact your local electoral registration office to confirm whether you are on the electoral register and report the fact that you have not received your poll card.
If you have received your poll card and your name has changed or is spelled incorrectly, you should still be able to vote at the polling station. You do not need to take your polling card to the polling station but it might be easier for the polling station staff to help identify you. In Northern Ireland you need to take ID to vote: see our page on voting in Northern Ireland (http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/how_do_i_vote/voting_in_person.aspx) for more details (you will have to enter a Northern Ireland post code in 'Your local area' to see the NI-specific content).
As far am I'm aware you don't (except in Norther Ireland) but the people staffing the polling station might not know that:
http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/how_do_i_vote/voting_in_person.aspx
http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/general_election_faq.aspx
EDIT:
I haven't received my poll card/I've received my poll card but my name is incorrect
You can still vote even if you do not have a poll card, as long as you are on the electoral register. You should contact your local electoral registration office to confirm whether you are on the electoral register and report the fact that you have not received your poll card.
If you have received your poll card and your name has changed or is spelled incorrectly, you should still be able to vote at the polling station. You do not need to take your polling card to the polling station but it might be easier for the polling station staff to help identify you. In Northern Ireland you need to take ID to vote: see our page on voting in Northern Ireland (http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/how_do_i_vote/voting_in_person.aspx) for more details (you will have to enter a Northern Ireland post code in 'Your local area' to see the NI-specific content).
Ta..................... :D
So I went along to the polling station (had to back out of the Police Station first. Got a bit confused).
So I filled in all the little boxes on the 3 bits of paper (with little smiley faces) I thought it might help with my poll Tax. Then, as there was a bit of space at the bottom of the very long one, I wrote a little story about why I like to vote. popped em in the boxes and away I came.
It's a doddle this voting, don't know what all the fuss is about.:confused
Heh, LOL...
Given that the polls are almost closed. I thought I'd review some of the arguments I've heard from friends and acquaintances today:
It would lose Labour seats
It would lose the Conservatives seats
I don't care about the small parties
The BNP or some other fringe party would get elected
There's better things to spend £250m on
I like having the results sooner, AV takes too long to count
AV is too complicated
While FPTP is bad, so is AV. I'd only ever vote to reform to an STV or Closed List system.
AV is shite
I don't like coalitions, coalitions would happen more often under AV.
The loser could win
I don't need two votes
Needless to say, I've been very frustrated today at the general ignorance and ability to absorb lies without doing further research. A lot of these people are current or former politics students who have seen adverts and take them as fact without any of their own research. Each and every one of the above arguments are either selfish, irrational, or are either entirely untruthful or misrepresent the truth.
I suppose we'll find out what happens by about 19:00 tomorrow.
Part of me thinks the Yes to AV campaign should have said that voting no causes cancer and helps terrorists it's about as plausible as some of the no arguments I've heard, or that they should have used some other dodgy tactic or marketing trick... but that's a passing thought I'd rather win legitimately.
Well this doesn't look good so far:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/av-referendum/8495493/AV-Referendum-results-map.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/06/av-referendum-results-district (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/06/av-referendum-results-district)
Seems an awful lot of ignorant and lie absorbers, selfish, irrational folk around - sure it's not you?
'Needless to say, I've been very frustrated today at the general ignorance and ability to absorb lies without doing further research. A lot of these people are current or former politics students who have seen adverts and take them as fact without any of their own research. Each and every one of the above arguments are either selfish, irrational, or are either entirely untruthful or misrepresent the truth.'
Liberal Democrat cabinet minister Danny Alexander tells Sky News: "It looks like we are going to lose quite handsomely" How sweet..
Seems an awful lot of ignorant and lie absorbers, selfish, irrational folk around - sure it's not you?
'Needless to say, I've been very frustrated today at the general ignorance and ability to absorb lies without doing further research. A lot of these people are current or former politics students who have seen adverts and take them as fact without any of their own research. Each and every one of the above arguments are either selfish, irrational, or are either entirely untruthful or misrepresent the truth.'
Liberal Democrat cabinet minister Danny Alexander tells Sky News: "It looks like we are going to lose quite handsomely" How sweet..
Candle in the wind was the best selling single of all time, popular doesn't nescessarily equal good. A demographic breakdown would be nice but unlikely, as I said before I think it'll split across age more than anything else. Anecdotally every community and subculture I'm a member of said they were voting yes.
I'm pretty sure if people didn't know what cats were the right marketing machine could convince them they caused cancer.
EDIT: The campaigns against water/Dihydrogen Monoxide/Dihydrogen Oxide/Hydrogen Hydroxide/Hydronium Hydroxide/Hydric acid are proof of that. All took place at green conferences and rallys so that sort of person should be more informed about it, but they fell for it. If you repeat a lie enough times people start to believe it.
Well I think it's safe to say at this point that the no campaign has won it.
Yes to AV did battle with ignorance today and ignorance won. I am often vexed by the behaviour of people (yeah, vexed is a good word). You do what you can to help them and they make you wonder why you bother.
Well I suppose (given No2AV marketing material) that we can now look forward to no coalitions, more healthy babies, a better funded NHS and army and a referendum on PR.
Curiously enough 30% is about the amount of support the Conservatives had, yet it gave them a disproportionate majority I suppose that if the Scottish independence referendum happens and if it's a yes that this becomes a mute point as Scotland already uses a form of PR, still crap but I can't really involve myself in the political affairs of a different country then.
I suppose another slim hope is that this failure further motivates my generation and the next generation to push for electoral reform.
Yes to AV did battle with ignorance today and ignorance won. I am often vexed by the behaviour of people (yeah, vexed is a good word).
Interesting view point. Just because a greater part of the UK didn't agree with your opinion doesn't necessarily make them ignorant.
Just maybe this reform wasn't what was wanted by the voting populous.
secrets in symmetry
06-May-11, 20:41
After much contemplation I came to the conclusion that AV is probably the least reliable version of the pseudo PR electoral systems, but I would guess it's fairer than simple FPTP.
To be a trifle more objective, does anyone know where I can find an analysis of recent Australian elections which compare the actual (AV) result with what it would have been using FPTP?
The Holyrood system isn't too bad on the PR scale. The SNP gained more seats than they would have done with simple FPTP, Labour gained the same number, the Tories gained a few less, and the Lib Dems and Greens gained a lot less. So Holyrood is somewhere in between FPTP and true PR. It's perhaps closer to PR but I haven't checked the numbers.
Sad, really! SNP win outright in a system especially designed by New Liebour to prevent ANY party getting an outright majority (especially, SNP!), with the Scottish voting system including elements of FPTP AND PR. Oh, what delight it is for a contrivance like that, designed for and by politicians, to come down on the heads of its perpetrators by good old Joe Public, who are a lot brighter than the power merchants give them credit for..
Bit worrying in a democracy when the popular vote is dismissed by having been generated by "ignorance".
It is clearly a moose point (might as well try THAT one too! - mute, moot, mousse, moos) and shows what happens when you let the great unwashed intrude on your cosy dreams.
Rejoice, Scotland! For today we have struck a blow for freedom every bit as fiery and fateful as those fought hand to hand in mist-shrouded glens. Today we have shaken swords at the smug, the lacklustre wordsmiths of failed political factions, the cynics, the self-serving, the anachronisms blocking the route to progress. Today we have rocked political viper nests, and dashed their spawnings into the cloacal ditches of abandoned hope.....
Or, to put it another way, Wee Eck and the boys and girls showed their finest form.
God bless 'em!
Oh come on RecQuery, lose gracefully at least, before condemning 9.8m people who have voted to keep first-past-the-post as ignorant.
I don't like the SNP but I would never call them ignorant, indeed, best of luck to em - one must learn to be magnanimous in these situations when things do not go one's way.
After much contemplation I came to the conclusion that AV is probably the least reliable version of the pseudo PR electoral systems, but I would guess it's fairer than simple FPTP.
To be a trifle more objective, does anyone know where I can find an analysis of recent Australian elections which compare the actual (AV) result with what it would have been using FPTP?
The Holyrood system isn't too bad on the PR scale. The SNP gained more seats than they would have done with simple FPTP, Labour gained the same number, the Tories gained a few less, and the Lib Dems and Greens gained a lot less. So Holyrood is somewhere in between FPTP and true PR. It's perhaps closer to PR but I haven't checked the numbers.
Yeah, mathematically STV (Single Transferable Vote) has always been the fairest and it's an actual PR system not a pseudo system, there's an explanation of how the count works here (http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/votingsystems/stvrules.htm) this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_Single_Transferable_Votes)may be more friendly. On the front end it works much the same as AV in that you number your preferences.
Sorry, I don't have any data on Australian elections beyond the fact that majority of people there like the AV system, in contrast to the claims made by the no campaign, I'll see if I can dig some up.
Interestingly in 1917 the House of Commons voted in favour of proposals to use STV for 211 of the 569 UK constituencies and the Alternative Vote for the rest (I assume in a similar idea to the Scottish parliament using FPTP with an alternative member system). But, after five rejections by the House of Lords, they couldn't pass it.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73S5wZKQDos)
Oh I see the Aussies actually want to use the system the yes campaign were suggesting?
"There is one thing readers need to understand about AV in Australia as it is used at the national level to elect members to the House of Representatives. Australia uses Full Preferential voting, which is like the Alternative Vote proposed in the UK, but differs in one very important way – voters have to rank every single candidate on their ballot (although they can leave one candidate unranked – that candidate will be considered their last choice).
If a voter leaves 2 or more candidates unranked, their ballot is considered spoiled and not counted. This is what some polls are finding some Australians are objecting to. They don’t want to move to FPTP, they simply want what is being offered in the UK – Optional Preferential, where the voter can rank as many or as few candidates as they want. If they want to vote for only one candidate, they can, if they want to rank only 2-3 candidates, they can, etc."
secrets in symmetry
06-May-11, 21:30
Sure, STV is much better than AV, but it requires multi-member constituencies to work as intended - which is what we do in local elections now, and the world hasn't caved in.
I found some info about the Australian AV system and it has some odd features. In addition to voting being compulsory, you also have to rank all the candidates in your preferred order - so everyone has to vote for the Aussie equivalent of the BNP at some level if they are standing!
Edit: I see bekisman has been away googling too!
Too true - I'd imagine I'd have difficulty in numbering the 'Ban Bankers Bonus Party' or the 'All Scotland Pensioners Party' or the 'Scottish Christian Party' - no wonder a lot of the Aussies spoil their papers
secrets in symmetry
06-May-11, 21:59
Too true - I'd imagine I'd have difficulty in numbering the 'Ban Bankers Bonus Party' or the 'All Scotland Pensioners Party' or the 'Scottish Christian Party' - no wonder a lot of the Aussies spoil their papersYes, absolutely, but our long lists only occur on the regional list, and there's no point in using AV in a list system.
I suppose if there was a weighting facility it could make things interesting. i.e. you get 10 plus points and 10 minus points and you can spread them across as few or many candidates as you wish. So you could give your top three choices 5, 3 and 2 plus points, and your least favourite 10 minus points. Or vice versa etc.
I suppose if there was a weighting facility it could make things interesting. i.e. you get 10 plus points and 10 minus points and you can spread them across as few or many candidates as you wish. So you could give your top three choices 5, 3 and 2 plus points, and your least favourite 10 minus points. Or vice versa etc.
Give up dude, I've only just got my head around counting to four!
Give up dude, I've only just got my head around counting to four!
Four? there were four!
I really thought they might do well, but 'fraid bit of damp squib it appears - would AV help here?
"The Scottish Greens ended with only two MSPs despite weeks of pre-poll expectations that they would become a serious force at Holyrood again. Patrick Harvie, the party’s co-convener, representing Glasgow, and Alison Johnstone, representing Lothians, were the party’s only success stories. Mr Harvie admitted his disappointment at the result, saying: "I did hope for a bigger group in the Scottish Parliament in the new session.”
The Greens had been expected in some quarters to better the LibDems in the results, consistently scoring around 5% in the pre-election polls. One ‘super-poll’ predicted the Greens would achieve their ambition of one MSP from each region, pushing the LibDems into fifth place.
But even after a disastrous day for Tavish Scott’s party, the LibDems still took more seats than the Greens, who were the only party to advocate using devolved powers to raise income tax, in an attempt to cover the centre-left ground.
The Greens had also reverted to the 2nd Vote Green campaign that saw them hit their peak in the 2003 elections, at which they won seven seats, before sliding back down to two seats in 2007; a result they have not managed to better this time."
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/election-2011/scotland-fails-to-go-green-1.1100073
secrets in symmetry
06-May-11, 23:51
The Greens had been expected in some quarters to better the LibDems in the results, consistently scoring around 5% in the pre-election polls. One ‘super-poll’ predicted the Greens would achieve their ambition of one MSP from each region, pushing the LibDems into fifth place.The greens scored 4.4% in the regional vote, that's 5% to well within the accuracy of the opinion polls.
The list MPs are chosen by a PR system that's much better than AV. The Greens would have scored 0 seats under AV. I think they may have scored 0 seats under STV systems unless the constituencies were as big as the current regions. RecQuery might know better than me.
My frailty actually strengthens my resolve to demand what is right for UK politics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-i9CUAAHN0&feature=related
John Little
07-May-11, 08:13
Interestingly in 1917 the House of Commons voted in favour of proposals to use STV for 211 of the 569 UK constituencies and the Alternative Vote for the rest (I assume in a similar idea to the Scottish parliament using FPTP with an alternative member system). But, after five rejections by the House of Lords, they couldn't pass it.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73S5wZKQDos)
Wasn't that a result of the Speaker's conference finding that 52% of the electorate were female and PR would mean that the women would take over - so they stuck with FPTP and fixed the female voting age at 31 and the male at 21?
I think what the voters have said, at the end of the day, is stop wasting time and energy (and our money) on stuff we are not interested in and get on with it!
John Little
07-May-11, 09:12
The AV vote was always a waste of time. We still have not had a chance to say what we might wish to say on PR because AV is not PR.
The Tories did not want a referendum on PR so would not accept one as a price for coalition and AV was all they would accept.
Clegg was weak in accepting their terms and not holding out, so he ended up selling his soul for a half-baked compromise that nobody wanted anyway.
The man has to resign and the Lib Dems have got to have a damned good look at how their ideology fits with what is being done with their support.
The country is being force fed a diet of Tory monetarism and they did not vote for that.
Clegg must go now or the Lib Dems are finished. That is a message so clear that it is shouting from the mountain tops.
The AV vote was always a waste of time. We still have not had a chance to say what we might wish to say on PR because AV is not PR.
The Tories did not want a referendum on PR so would not accept one as a price for coalition and AV was all they would accept.
Clegg was weak in accepting their terms and not holding out, so he ended up selling his soul for a half-baked compromise that nobody wanted anyway.
The man has to resign and the Lib Dems have got to have a damned good look at how their ideology fits with what is being done with their support.
The country is being force fed a diet of Tory monetarism and they did not vote for that.
Clegg must go now or the Lib Dems are finished. That is a message so clear that it is shouting from the mountain tops.
Ha! Where are you going to get a mountain from in Kent?
John Little
07-May-11, 09:25
We have some pretty big hills...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/av/now-cameron-turns-attack-on-lib-dem-plans-for-elected-house-of-lords-2280328.html
This rock should spell the end of the coalition.
Coor lummy, as if there wasn't enough to do already :roll:
We have some pretty big hills...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/av/now-cameron-turns-attack-on-lib-dem-plans-for-elected-house-of-lords-2280328.html
This rock should spell the end of the coalition.
Whilst I heartily agree with the principle of Lords' reform, I do feel that I'd rather the govt got on with sorting out the financial difficulties first. It's a question of priorities.
John Little
07-May-11, 10:06
My point is that Clegg is not the only one to renege on promises. If Cameron reneges on this one, from the LD point of view there is no earthly reason to continue coalition with them.
A new leader could offer coalition elsewhere.
A new leader could offer coalition elsewhere.
But not within the life of this parliament?
John Little
07-May-11, 11:40
Oh yes - there is no need for another election- it could be done tomorrow.
Wasn't that a result of the Speaker's conference finding that 52% of the electorate were female and PR would mean that the women would take over - so they stuck with FPTP and fixed the female voting age at 31 and the male at 21?
Could be, I'm not entirely sure, perhaps they were preempting something. I thought that women only got the right to vote in 1918, well they got the right to vote if they were aged 30 or over and met certain property requirments. Also in 1918 the property restrictions on men were removed so they could vote at age 21 or over. That raised the potential electorate pool from about 8 million to about 21 million. I think women made up about 40% of it - though I suppose women were more likely to vote, some having put in so much effort - and I believe back then some people had two votes. It wasn't until 1969 that we got something similar to the voting system we have today.
I can't believe that when the electorate was more restricted better systems were proposed and passed at some level. Anyway, I think the reason it didn't pass the Lords was that well it was the old Lords with all the baggage that comes with that.
The AV vote was always a waste of time. We still have not had a chance to say what we might wish to say on PR because AV is not PR.
The Tories did not want a referendum on PR so would not accept one as a price for coalition and AV was all they would accept.
Clegg was weak in accepting their terms and not holding out, so he ended up selling his soul for a half-baked compromise that nobody wanted anyway.
I agree that Clegg was weak and should have pushed for a better system and should have called people more on dodgy campaigning tactics. That being said sometimes you can't jump to what you want you have to achieve it in an iterative way. I think some people used this as a referendum on Nick Clegg and not on the voting system.
It was a closed ecosystem and out of the two choices FPTP and AV, AV is clearly better.
The same people who funded and put together No2AV also put together No2AV-YesToPR (even being as stupid as registering the domains under the same name and address). I suspect it was a tactic to target a certain portion of the potential Yes vote. I don't expect there to be any talk on voting reform in the Commons for say 20 years unless there's another coalition.
I do think that voting reform was the last thing holding the Lib Dem back benchers in place and I suspect there may be a back bench revolt, then again I'm sure there would have been a Tory back bench revolt if Yes won.
The greens scored 4.4% in the regional vote, that's 5% to well within the accuracy of the opinion polls.
The list MPs are chosen by a PR system that's much better than AV. The Greens would have scored 0 seats under AV. I think they may have scored 0 seats under STV systems unless the constituencies were as big as the current regions. RecQuery might know better than me.
There are variations of STV, they could have got more under some and about the same under others, it would range between 3 and 6 seats for the STV algorithms that would favour the Greens. It's not something I'd favour I'd prefer something more progressive but we could replace the FPTP element of the Scottish elections with AV no problem.
The way the List system in Scotland works, is that it's bascially an additional member system party list votes are totalled from each constituency making up a region. The total is then divided by the number of seats each party has won - plus one. The party with the highest total from this gets one additional seat/member. That party's divisor is then increased by one (because of its victory) and this repeat about 6 times until all 7 additional member seats are assigned.
The list vote is not only corrective but basically biased against the party with most the constituency seats. The reason the SNP beat that system is that they not only got the highest percentage in constituencies but also got a large quantity of the popular vote 45-48% of there abouts. When usually a 'winning' party will get between 25-35% of the popular vote.
If you think the no to AV campaign was bad, wait until you see what the Conservatives and the media will be like for the Scottish independence one.
On a side note one of the Conservative manifesto pledges was to have a referendum on EU membership, I wonder if they'll actually have one.
Two more points I'd like to make:
I'm sure some voters aren't interested in a lot of things, yet the government doesn't bow to popular pressure on those issues and with good reason. You'd be the suprised on the opinions you got if you took every issue to a referendum.
And about the old argument of there being 'more important' things to do, that's really a zero sum game. There's nothing more important than having a fair and representative government, plus it's possible for the government to do more that one thing at a time.
EDIT: In other news the turkeys just voted NOT to cancel Christmas.
http://i.imgur.com/Exviy.jpg
Oh yes - there is no need for another election- it could be done tomorrow.
I was thinking more of the agreement / promises made to the electorate regarding how long the two parties would work together. Perhaps I am misremembering ..... and also a little naive.
Cameron offered Clegg a referendum, knowing he would stand as leader of the NO campaign to Clegg's YES. That was fair enough. Clegg clearly believed in his own argument, and so accepted. Clegg misread the British people. For those who bothered, the NO majority was huge, as anyone apart from the Lavender Mafia would have correctly guessed.
So FPTP it is. And nobody will even think of putting up another cockamamie suggestion for at least a generation.
Good. Now maybe we can get on with running the country.
John Little
07-May-11, 13:34
I was thinking more of the agreement / promises made to the electorate regarding how long the two parties would work together. Perhaps I am misremembering ..... and also a little naive.
If they cannot keep their promises to the electorate I can see no reason why they should keep promises to each other.
As for me - we are offered in the main, a choice of three parties, each of which are peddling slight variations of neo-conservatism. Unless something changes then I will not be voting for anyone next general election. There is nothing worth voting for down here.
In Scotland there is.
That's the real meaning of all this.
BTW - at the moment if we had the option of voting SNP in England, then I would do so... now there's a thought.
secrets in symmetry
07-May-11, 13:51
There are variations of STV, they could have got more under some and about the same under others, it would range between 3 and 6 seats for the STV algorithms that would favour the Greens. It's not something I'd favour I'd prefer something more progressive but we could replace the FPTP element of the Scottish elections with AV no problem.Yes, there are many variations of STV, and they don't always provide the same result when the ballot is close, which is surprising to those who think there is a single "correct" result.
You need constituencies or regional lists with several members before the fruits of STV start kicking in for the "5% parties" such as the Greens.
The way the List system in Scotland works, is that it's bascially an additional member system party list votes are totalled from each constituency making up a region. The total is then divided by the number of seats each party has won - plus one. The party with the highest total from this gets one additional seat/member. That party's divisor is then increased by one (because of its victory) and this repeat about 6 times until all 7 additional member seats are assigned.
The list vote is not only corrective but basically biased against the party with most the constituency seats. The reason the SNP beat that system is that they not only got the highest percentage in constituencies but also got a large quantity of the popular vote 45-48% of there abouts. When usually a 'winning' party will get between 25-35% of the popular vote.Thanks for explaining the algorithm, I had forgotten exactly what it is.
Is there any reason for the "plus one" other than to avoid division by zero?
If you think the no to AV campaign was bad, wait until you see what the Conservatives and the media will be like for the Scottish independence one.I wonder whether a hostile Conservative No campaign driven by Cameron and his Westminster Tories will help or hinder the Yes campaign. It would certainly drive some people into the Yes camp.
On a side note one of the Conservative manifesto pledges was to have a referendum on EU membership, I wonder if they'll actually have one.I doubt it. Would they get a referendum bill through Parliament?
Two more points I'd like to make:
I'm sure some voters aren't interested in a lot of things, yet the government doesn't bow to popular pressure on those issues and with good reason. You'd be the suprised on the opinions you got if you took every issue to a referendum.I don't think I would be surprised, and that's why in general I don't support taking decisions to referendum.
secrets in symmetry
07-May-11, 14:14
Ha! Where are you going to get a mountain from in Kent?He could make one out of a molehill. It's a well known technique on this forum.
John Little
07-May-11, 14:33
He could make one out of a molehill. It's a well known technique on this forum.
on the other hand I could emulate Mohammed...
secrets in symmetry
07-May-11, 14:45
Yes, and you could move it with Faith alone.
John Little
07-May-11, 19:22
Tavish Scott at least has some sense of what is proper. Will Clegg follow his example?
Tavish Scott at least has some sense of what is proper. Will Clegg follow his example?
No John he wont, he has had his 5mins of fame and now he is going for 10mins along with (stab you in the back) Alexander!!!!
What a shower the LibDems have turned out to be !!!
C3.....[disgust]:roll:;)
Can't see Cleggy breaking up the coalition - what happens? Tories running a minority Government? or they go to the country? Joe public will then blame libdems (again!) and they'll be finished off for good.. of course I'm not a politician so expect I'm talking rubbish and so will start the countdown....
John Little
07-May-11, 21:26
Clegg may have no choice. He is not the Liberal party. If they have any sense at all then they will be sharpening the knives right now.
secrets in symmetry
15-May-11, 18:28
The way the List system in Scotland works, is that it's bascially an additional member system party list votes are totalled from each constituency making up a region. The total is then divided by the number of seats each party has won - plus one. The party with the highest total from this gets one additional seat/member. That party's divisor is then increased by one (because of its victory) and this repeat about 6 times until all 7 additional member seats are assigned.
The list vote is not only corrective but basically biased against the party with most the constituency seats. The reason the SNP beat that system is that they not only got the highest percentage in constituencies but also got a large quantity of the popular vote 45-48% of there abouts. When usually a 'winning' party will get between 25-35% of the popular vote.
Thanks for explaining the algorithm, I had forgotten exactly what it is.
Is there any reason for the "plus one" other than to avoid division by zero?
I've just had a thought...
The PR nature of the regional vote in the Holyrood system was designed to stop a single party, allegedly the SNP, from obtaining an overall majority. I suspect the "plus one" may be there to avoid division by zero when allocating seats in the regional list. Now, this "plus one" will have the biggest effect on the parties that have won the least number of constituency seats, and the smallest effect on a party that has won most of the seats in the constituencies. Other, less brutal methods of avoiding divide by zero would have given the SNP fewer seats.
In the case of this month's election, I suspect the "plus one" is the cause of the SNP overall majority! Are they the first majority government to be elected by avoiding divide by zero?
If anyone has time to kill, they could do the sums with a slightly different algorithm, and, I suspect, obtain a different result which doesn't give the SNP an overall majority.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.