Voting time!

[Sam.]

[Snarky]

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.

[Hudders]

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.

[Mr Flibble]

The "No" campaign is the most persuasive argument for voting Yes.

[Stupot]

@zooty - Here's a video to accompany that poster:
http://myhgwellsblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/on-going-to-pub-democratically.html

[Intense Degree]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

[Snarky]

...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.

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.

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.

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

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?

[Calin Leafshade]

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.

[Stupot]

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?

[Intense Degree]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Atelier]

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.

[Calin Leafshade]

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.

[Chicky]

hah, Nice Calin 

[Stee]

Do I get to put FPTP as second choice?

[straydogstrut]

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

[Ali]

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.

[Tuomas]

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.

[Hudders]

@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.

[Tuomas]

yeah, I realised there's only one cadidate per area who makes it through.

Also, a

[Atelier]

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.