So britain is again in voting mode and I was wondering how people planned to vote and what their thoughts are on the AV referendum.
I shall be voting a firm 'yes'
What is the AV referendum?
we are voting whether or not to change our voting system from First Past the Post (FPTP) to Alternative Vote (AV).
an explination can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPFIpeiq5Uc&feature=featured
You will be shocked to learn that I am also in the 'yes' camp. Not so much because I'm convinced by the 'yes' arguments, but because the 'no' arguments are moronic and I hate most of the people involved in the 'no' campaign.
This infuriating video is what galvanised me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-obZ9OG_XKA
Having actors give seemingly genuine vox pops in a campaign film is very dodgy (unless they're not actors and are genuinely too stupid to understand the concept of numbering in order of preference).
The No campaign is verging on the illegal in places. I think some of them have forgotten that this is a referendum and thus governed by the electoral commission... You can't just say whatever you like...
Yes.
It is also the Scottish Parliament election tomorrow. A parliament that implements proportional representation and not the First-Past-The-Post system. Anyway I will be voting Yes to AV.
The next time we'll be voting on something in Poland I'll create a thread titled "Voting time Again!" to confuse everyone else so that everyone involved can discuss it. :)
Well you know the internet was made to talk about religion, politics and sex. ;D
Quote from: Ascovel on Wed 04/05/2011 22:34:26
The next time we'll be voting on something in Poland I'll create a thread titled "Voting time Again!" to confuse everyone else so that everyone involved can discuss it. :)
You can VOTE in Poland? I need to read up on modern history...
Well the way I see it, there are three main categories that your vote can fall into.
Assume there are three parties to choose from: A, B and C.
In the first round, the tally is as follows:
Party A - 40% |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX------------------------------------------------------------|
Party B - 35% |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX-----------------------------------------------------------------|
Party C - 25% |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Obviously in a real situation there would be more parties, in which case B represents all parties who could win with the alternative votes of C, which represent the parties with the fewest votes. Party A is the party with the greatest votes. Note that if A > 50% then this referendum would not come into play.
If the voting is counted using FPTP Party A wins, regardless of how 60% of the population feels about them.
If the voting is counted using AV If you voted for C, your party will not be elected, but you now have the opportunity to choose which of A or B will be more beneficial to you.
If you voted for B, your party have the opportunity of winning, given that your policies affect C more positively than that of A.
If you voted for A, you are at a disadvantage if your party's policies disregard C, although you need less of their 2nd round votes to win than anyone else.
Ultimately this can only be detrimental to Party A, and that's only if their policies are not appetising to anyone except those who voted for them in round 1, Which is more than half of the population. Thus it was perhaps better that they didn't win anyway.
I personally don't see how it doesn't benefit the population to switch to AV,
although if anyone can spot any flaws in my logic or understanding of the system, please do inform me. :)
Don't know how close your minor parties are to the bigger ones, but I could easily see a second round of votes going to santa claus or Osama or what's common in your country (we vote for Donald Duck). I mean, if I already voted for a, say, left-wing party and they lost, I'd have to vote for either right-wing or social democrats, I don't know if I'd want to vote at all. I would of course, but... Do you mean you require a 50% + majority of votes to win?
Ladder of democracy, my view:
Gods/Stonemasons/UFOs/New world order/jews/fate -- ???
Gigantic corporations and banks -- control all...
World leaders -- who are in power thanks to...
Medium/local corporations -- which buy power to elect...
Leading parties -- who rose from...
Parties -- who try to get step above by making agreements with....
Smaller corporations -- who pick between (and buy a little of power by this)...
New parties -- which are created by more active...
Normal people -- who realize there's nobody to pick really
Naive people -- who just vote someone hope their pick does any good
Idiots -- who fanatically pick a party disregarding bad things about the party
Now, chances are, you are somewhere among last three... No party can get into power without votes AND monetary support and while votes come from being "good", monetary support from corporations is probably more related to the evil side: the more you promise to bend the laws, make tax exemptions, etc , the better your chances are.
But due populism, all votes usually go the most popular party and parties get popular thanks to PR, which uses money gained due having lots of bad side.
But no voting method can get unpopular (thus not so evil) party into office. There's simply too much idiots.
Just back from voting, I went for "maybe."
I'm in Glasgow, so we had the Scottish parliament thing to vote for as well. HOW EXCITING! The ballot was roughly 15ft long.
It doesn't matter who you vote for: that's a choice for you and you alone. The most important thing is to utilise your right to vote. You can be damn sure that the nutjobs will use theirs so, if nothing else, you're helping to stop them get into power.
I'm voting "yes, please", because I went to private school.
Also, doing it by post.
I voted No (contrary to popular AGS opinion apparently! ;)), although the No campaign themselves nearly put me off it.
Personally, I generally find it hard enough to vote for someone, not in terms of bothering to get along, but simply finding the least worst. I simply do not want to have to vote for more than 1 party, If I vote for one thing then that is what I want (or deem "best") there should not be a "well if I can't have it then this will do" vote as well.
Of course, you may say that I don't have to vote for any more than 1 party, but then my vote is not worth the same as other people's, in my opinion at least.
If the debate were FPTP vs PR then I might well think differently, but this version of AV is too wishy washy for my taste.
I see the point that, should a party win with 40% of the vote, that means there are 60% who did not vote for them (I do not accept that that means all of that 60% are against them) and that may seem unfair as it is not a "majority mandate". However, if a party with 40% of the vote gets another 11% or more through the AV second preference system, then that party (candidate) is elected with 20%+ of his/her "supporters" preferring someone else to do the job. This is not the same as directly winning a majority of the vote and I do not see it is any better than a FPTP result of 40% giving the win.
If there is a situation as Scarab sets out above, A - 40%, B - 35% and C - 25%, and "second choice" votes mean that B ends up with 51% then we have a candidate elected who had less "first choice" votes than candidate A. To me this is not fair, sensible or democratic.
Furthermore, it is the "second vote" of the people who voted for the party with the least votes which will count (unless I have misunderstood), rinse and repeat until we have more than 50% for one party. Why should people who vote for fringe/no hoper/nutter parties get to make the difference? Why should it not be the second vote of everyone who has voted?
Finally, the biggest benefit of AV would probably be to the Lib Dems. Of the "Big 3" they are the only party that I think would not be capable of governing alone and I much prefer a "one party" government to a coalition in any event, even if the "one party" is not one I voted for.
(http://rdouglasjohnson.com/misc/av-dogshit.gif)
I intend to vote "No". AV came out of nowhere, has been pushed from nowhere and I just don't properly agree with the way you could 'win' as a party from it.
Quote from: Mods on Thu 05/05/2011 14:44:46
I intend to vote "No". AV came out of nowhere, has been pushed from nowhere and I just don't properly agree with the way you could 'win' as a party from it.
It didn't quite come out of nowhere, the referendum is what the Lib Dems got in exchange for David Cameron getting to be Prime Minister. I doubt any of them still think it was worth it.
(Hope you change your mind at the last minute!)
(http://i.imgur.com/Zb9tJ.png)
Quote from: Intense Degree on Thu 05/05/2011 14:21:31
If there is a situation as Scarab sets out above, A - 40%, B - 35% and C - 25%, and "second choice" votes mean that B ends up with 51% then we have a candidate elected who had less "first choice" votes than candidate A. To me this is not fair, sensible or democratic.
There are all kinds of ways to organize voting systems, and none of them is perfect. Under FPTP, the LibDems get nearly a quarter of the votes, but less than 10% of MPs. Is that more fair and democratic?
AV essentially simulates a series of elimination rounds: Each round, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and everyone gets to vote again for the remaining candidates. Which is a pretty reasonable (+ fair and democratic) way to do an election and make sure the winner ultimately has more support than the most popular alternative.
In order to avoid having to actually collect ballots again and again, AV makes the simplifying assumption that no one will change their mind between the rounds, so that a ranked list of preferences can be used to figure out how each voter would have voted in each round. Everyone votes for their highest-ranked option as long as it's available, and if it gets eliminated they move on to their second-ranked option, and so on. Of course, once someone gets more than 50% of the vote they're guaranteed to win, so you can stop it there.
Again, it's not perfect, but it's just as fair and democratic a way to do an election as FPTP.
I think the problem with saying "I'm voting no because AV doesn't go far enough" or similar is that the government will undoubtedly see a "no" result as meaning "no, we don't want any form of voting reform" and we'll never see another referendum in our lifetime. If you vote "yes" to AV, you can still just vote for one candidate if you want, (as if we still had FPTP), and it sends a message to the government that may result in further voting reform down the line.
I'm voting "yes" purely on the basis that FPTP is not what I want and AV is better. FPTP dissuades voters from going for the candidate that they would most like to vote for in favour of tactically voting for a candidate based on who they want to keep out. As a result many minor parties don't get a look in and we end up with the two larger parties dominating every single time.
AV will also make MPs work harder by eliminating the idea of a "safe seat". I don't know about the rest of you, but where I live the Conservatives always win and as a result nobody bothers campaigning here or even making an effort. Voter apathy is high and turnout is low as a result. We all end up with a less representative government.
The "No" campaign is the most persuasive argument for voting Yes.
@zooty - Here's a video to accompany that poster:
http://myhgwellsblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/on-going-to-pub-democratically.html
Quote from: Snarky on Thu 05/05/2011 15:21:28
There are all kinds of ways to organize voting systems, and none of them is perfect. Under FPTP, the LibDems get nearly a quarter of the votes, but less than 10% of MPs. Is that more fair and democratic?
...and as I said if the referendum was on FPTP vs PR I might think differently.
AV will not equate % of overall votes to % MPs.
QuoteAV essentially simulates a series of elimination rounds: Each round, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and everyone gets to vote again for the remaining candidates.
If that were the case it might well be fair and reasonable. It is however only the votes of those who voted first for the eliminated candidate in each round which are added to the totals of the others.
QuoteEveryone votes for their highest-ranked option as long as it's available, and if it gets eliminated they move on to their second-ranked option, and so on
So, in practice (and I will admit this is an over simplification)
only those who have voted for the fringe/no hoper/nutter parties will have their second (etc.) votes counted, not
everyone. =/= democratic in my book as only a selection of people have effectively voted twice.
Just personal opinion of course, but in my book FPTP>AV.
Quote from: Intense Degree on Thu 05/05/2011 16:18:00
...and as I said if the referendum was on FPTP vs PR I might think differently.
AV will not equate % of overall votes to % MPs.
No, but the point is that anomalies always exist in any voting system, and it's a misunderstanding to think that "democracy" is tied to a particular system.
QuoteQuoteAV essentially simulates a series of elimination rounds: Each round, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and everyone gets to vote again for the remaining candidates.
If that were the case it might well be fair and reasonable. It is however only the votes of those who voted first for the eliminated candidate in each round which are added to the totals of the others.
QuoteEveryone votes for their highest-ranked option as long as it's available, and if it gets eliminated they move on to their second-ranked option, and so on
So, in practice (and I will admit this is an over simplification) only those who have voted for the fringe/no hoper/nutter parties will have their second (etc.) votes counted, not everyone. =/= democratic in my book as only a selection of people have effectively voted twice.
It sounds like you don't really understand what "simulates a series of elimination rounds" means. Everyone gets to vote in every round. If your first preference is still in the running, you get to vote for that. What, you want to vote for something else as well? Or you want you vote to weigh more? If anything, it's the people whose first choice has been eliminated and who have to choose from the remaining candidates who should be complaining.
Let's say we were trying to decide where to hold Mittens next year, and we had three proposals with different number of people in favor:
Canada - 12
Spain - 10
Netherlands - 5
Now, there's not a whole lot of support for the Netherlands, so let's rule that out, and we might get:
Canada - 12
Spain - 15
(Because the people who wanted to go to the Netherlands would rather stay in Europe.) Has this been unfair? Undemocratic? Have the people who originally wanted the Netherlands had "more votes" than anyone else?
Snarkys example is a good one and many have been made like it but the crux of the matter in the UK is that we have a generally liberal population divided amongst two parties. This is why the conservatives are most against it but labour and the lib dems are more in favour. It harms the conservative cause (in this particular case) more than anyone else.
AV would be pretty useless in a strong 2 party system like the US because the liberals and conservatives have a single party each and neither would want to support the other really (on strictly ideological grounds anyway, the swing voters are always a factor)
in britain however we currently have a conservative led government even though 60-odd% of the population voted for parties who are ideologically to the left of them.
Essentially the left vote is split and the right vote is not.
This referendum is just a show for them to say 'look how democratic we are, we're letting our people decide', but at the end of the day it's just another voting system, and there will always be people disappointed in the result of any election no matter what the system is. The last general election proved that we do need a change to the current system, and on that basis I find myself in the 'yes' camp... but is AV really the only other option?
Quote from: Snarky on Thu 05/05/2011 16:49:21
No, but the point is that anomalies always exist in any voting system, and it's a misunderstanding to think that "democracy" is tied to a particular system.
Perhaps so, but this is a long way from saying that every system is democratic or equally democratic.
QuoteIt sounds like you don't really understand what "simulates a series of elimination rounds" means. Everyone gets to vote in every round. If your first preference is still in the running, you get to vote for that. What, you want to vote for something else as well? Or you want you vote to weigh more? If anything, it's the people whose first choice has been eliminated and who have to choose from the remaining candidates who should be complaining.
Your opinion of my understanding is, of course, your own, as are your implications that I consider my vote should be more important than the vote of others. :)
My point by saying that everyone's second vote should count (you could read that as just mine if you're determined I suppose! ;)) is this. Why not take the first and second vote of all voters and not eliminate anyone, rather than only permit those with whom the fewest agreed to change their vote? Stilll no winner and it's the 1st, 2nd and 3rd votes etc. This also means that all candidates stay in so no-one needs to complain that their candidate was eliminated. After all it is possible that everyone who did not vote for the bottom candidate as their first choice may have voted for them as second choice.
No one's vote (including mine 8)) counts for anything more or less than anyone else's.
QuoteLet's say we were trying to decide where to hold Mittens next year, and we had three proposals with different number of people in favor:
Canada - 12
Spain - 10
Netherlands - 5
Now, there's not a whole lot of support for the Netherlands, so let's rule that out, and we might get:
Canada - 12
Spain - 15
(Because the people who wanted to go to the Netherlands would rather stay in Europe.) Has this been unfair? Undemocratic? Have the people who originally wanted the Netherlands had "more votes" than anyone else?
They are the only ones who have been able to use their
second vote. I do not accept that, even after their country (candidate) has been eliminated, their first vote is worth anything less that any other vote for an unsuccessful country (candidate). They have therefore had two "goes" when others - including others who were not "successful" - have not.
Obviously the option is still open to still only vote for 1 country (candidate) if that is the only thing you want.
Is it fair or democratic that some people's second (hird etc.) vote counts and other's don't? In my opinion the answer is No.
Yeah the NO campaign flyer spouted untruths! The black guy should totally have won that race because they can beat a white guy on a bike.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BwqSJ6IleFI/Tb_pSQcyImI/AAAAAAAAB64/Q3pO0ueVpyg/s1600/no2av.jpg)
that flyer is stupid in *so* many ways.
Firstly 'the winner should be the one who comes first'? That's 'first' under the FPTP system i imagine?
So the poster can be rewritten as:
"The winner should be the person who wins in a FPTP election system"
which can be rewritten as:
"The election system should be the FPTP system"
so they think that the voting system should be FPTP because the voting system should be FPTP.
Political genius.
hah, Nice Calin :D
Do I get to put FPTP as second choice?
I haven't been very moved by the whole campaign - actually just remembered voting was today about an hour ago! - but i'm not going to to let it pass me by. I have a vote, I should use it.
The discussion here has really helped and special thanks to Calin for the helpful video. I've found my poll card and i'm heading out now to vote Yes to AV. I'm sure it's not perfect, but it sounds fair to me. Primarily I like that it lessens the need for tactical voting.
Vote for Turtle! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
Quote from: Intense Degree on Thu 05/05/2011 18:08:36
Is it fair or democratic that some people's second (hird etc.) vote counts and other's don't? In my opinion the answer is No.
I'd say it is fair, because it's not their second or third
vote being counted. It's their second or third
preference making up their
one vote.
Anyway, the polls have closed and we'll find out tomorrow evening. I anticipate using the phrase, "brassin' frassin'" and shaking my fist at anyone who looks pleased.
Quote from: Snarky on Thu 05/05/2011 16:49:21
Canada - 12
Spain - 10
Netherlands - 5
Now, there's not a whole lot of support for the Netherlands, so let's rule that out, and we might get:
Canada - 12
Spain - 15
Just out of interest, not familiar with this system... What happens to the candidates of the party running third? I mean, in Finland, and most places, I guess, Spain and Netherlands could easily build a government with the majority of votes if neither liked Canada.
Nevermind, I think I get it now. So this is just local, right? Anyway, the gallup says the old one's going to win.
@Tuomos - I think you're thinking of a different part of the process. The third placed candidate wouldn't be part of the government in either system. This is about voting for candidates, not forming a government from those who have been elected.
If neither Spain nor Netherlands liked Canada then it's likely that their second choices would be the other, (i.e. Spain voters have Netherlands as their second choice and vice-versa), but it's not guaranteed. This is probably what the Conservatives are worried about - under AV it may well be that Labour and Liberal Democrat voters will have the other as their second choice.
It's so illogical to me that anyone would want to keep FPTP. I blame the scaremongering by the No2AV lot.
yeah, I realised there's only one cadidate per area who makes it through.
Also, a
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13297573
Once again it proves the forums aren't representative of normal people.
Oh well. There's always the next never.
This doesn't surprise me. It goes back to what I said in my previous post. "Is AV really the only other option?" The fact that 'No' came out on top doesn't necessarily have to mean that the majority of British people don't recognise the need for a change in the current system, just that they don't think AV is the way forward.
We were only given two choices: yes or no for a system that is barely any better than the current system and apparently quite confusing for many people. People have enough trouble getting off their arses to make one tick in a box, let alone asking them to choose their top three. Aren't they suposed to be encouraging people to go to the polls, not put them off? I think if we had been given a list of 3 or 4 possible alternatives (including proper PR) rather than just 1, then most of the 'No' voters would have voted for one of the other systems. Though, I guess the question of how best to count those votes might have needed a separate referendum of its own :-\
Seriously though, once I heard the words England and Reform I knew there'd be no hope :P
Quote from: Tuomas on Fri 06/05/2011 20:56:22
Seriously though, once I heard the words England and Reform I knew there'd be no hope :P
Goddamn corn laws!