|
|
Post by everso on Mar 30, 2011 11:59:23 GMT
Can we have a bit of a debate about AV? I'm not sure how to vote in the forthcoming referendum and I'd like to get some opinions from the board.
Why is it simply a choice between FPTP and AV, with PR not included?
|
|
|
|
Post by Weyland on Mar 30, 2011 14:17:38 GMT
Can we have a bit of a debate about AV? I'm not sure how to vote in the forthcoming referendum and I'd like to get some opinions from the board. Why is it simply a choice between FPTP and AV, with PR not included? Because PR would cripple the Tories. And Labour. I'm in favour of anything which is not FPTP. It was FPTP that landed us with Thatcher and Blair, with lots of power on nowhere near even half of the votes. |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Mar 30, 2011 15:06:52 GMT
I'm in favour of anything which is not FPTP. So long as you remember it's not proportional at all. Best reason for voting for AV is that at least it's a vote against FPTP and for change of some sort. |
|
|
|
Post by Weyland on Mar 30, 2011 15:59:42 GMT
I'm in favour of anything which is not FPTP. So long as you remember it's not proportional at all. Best reason for voting for AV is that at least it's a vote against FPTP and for change of some sort. I know. Isn't that what I said? |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Mar 30, 2011 18:10:22 GMT
Well, not entirely - I should have gone on: '...a change of some sort - even if it's not the change we really want. The problem is that it may be interpreted as an endorsement of the change we don't really want, which will mean we will be less likely to get the change we do want, but then, we were very unlikely to get that anyway.'
I was being elliptical.
|
|
|
|
Post by Weyland on Mar 30, 2011 18:19:15 GMT
Well, not entirely - I should have gone on: '...a change of some sort - even if it's not the change we really want. The problem is that it may be interpreted as an endorsement of the change we don't really want, which will mean we will be less likely to get the change we do want, but then, we were very unlikely to get that anyway.' I was being elliptical. Well — you should be ashamed of yourself. Go and stand in the corner. |
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on Mar 31, 2011 13:45:07 GMT
I'm leaning toward "keep everything as it is"...mainly because I don't understand what the new fangled thingy would entail and because Baroness Warsi says it's bad.  AH |
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Apr 4, 2011 7:47:52 GMT
As I understand it, if no single candidate gets more than 50% f the total vote, the second choices of the lowest polling candidate are added to the votes of the others, and the process continues until somene gets a majority of votes.
Last night (after a glass or two of wine) I was pretty sure that this could lead to a different result than if everyone's second choices were taken into account. This morning I took out pen, paper and calculator and couldn't work out a scenario where that happened.
So if those with a better mathematical brain can convince me that this AV method would produce exactly the same winner as if everyone's second choice were counted, I'll go along with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Weyland on Apr 4, 2011 9:39:52 GMT
As I understand it, if no single candidate gets more than 50% f the total vote, the second choices of the lowest polling candidate are added to the votes of the others, and the process continues until somene gets a majority of votes. Last night (after a glass or two of wine) I was pretty sure that this could lead to a different result than if everyone's second choices were taken into account. This morning I took out pen, paper and calculator and couldn't work out a scenario where that happened. So if those with a better mathematical brain can convince me that this AV method would produce exactly the same winner as if everyone's second choice were counted, I'll go along with it. I'm not sure I know what you mean, Sparra. Different from what? Doesn't the process stop at that point, if counting the second chances produces more than 50% for somebody? (As it happens, I don't really care about the details, just as long as it's not FPTP.) |
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Apr 4, 2011 20:23:39 GMT
In my vague Sunday evening daze, I thought that just counting the second choices of those who voted for the least popular candidate might produce a different result to (say) counting the second choices of those who supported candidates who polled less than 20% of the vote, or whatever. But it doesn't.
Yes, which gives some voters two cracks of the whip, and others only one. But I've convinced myself that it makes no difference to the outcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by Weyland on Apr 4, 2011 20:33:20 GMT
In my vague Sunday evening daze, I thought that just counting the second choices of those who voted for the least popular candidate might produce a different result to (say) counting the second choices of those who supported candidates who polled less than 20% of the vote, or whatever. But it doesn't. Yes, which gives some voters two cracks of the whip, and others only one. But I've convinced myself that it makes no difference to the outcome. You might well be right, Sparra, Sunday daze or no Sunday daze. But, as I said, I don't GaS as long as it's not FPTP. We'll get there – democracy – one of these days. Probably five minutes before the Heat Death of the Universe. |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 4, 2011 21:19:10 GMT
Well, not entirely - I should have gone on: '...a change of some sort - even if it's not the change we really want. The problem is that it may be interpreted as an endorsement of the change we don't really want, which will mean we will be less likely to get the change we do want, but then, we were very unlikely to get that anyway.' I was being elliptical. Either way, you are unlikely to get another go change, so change for change's sake is folly. You had better really want this change because you'll be stuck with it for a long time. I'm confused because I was unaware of anyone calling for such a change; it seems to be a politicians' idea of an important issue rather than the people's idea -- am I wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 4, 2011 21:20:49 GMT
I'm leaning toward "keep everything as it is"...mainly because I don't understand what the new fangled thingy would entail and because Baroness Warsi says it's bad. AH I like the Baroness. But you are right. If you do not understand it, it should definitely be abandoned. What's the point voting for a system that no one understands? |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 4, 2011 21:28:59 GMT
As I understand it, if no single candidate gets more than 50% f the total vote, the second choices of the lowest polling candidate are added to the votes of the others, and the process continues until somene gets a majority of votes. Last night (after a glass or two of wine) I was pretty sure that this could lead to a different result than if everyone's second choices were taken into account. This morning I took out pen, paper and calculator and couldn't work out a scenario where that happened. So if those with a better mathematical brain can convince me that this AV method would produce exactly the same winner as if everyone's second choice were counted, I'll go along with it. I think (think!) it's pretty much the same system that we have in ireland and it seems to work. The people that I think will get in, do. It works well here for smaller groups because it allows people to vote for them and not waste a vote so it allows a smaller party to build up a vote. It doesn't particularly work against large parties as they seem to waltz past the quotas quite easily because of their power. But then, we elect multiple candidates per constituency. Last election, for example, my constituency voted four people in. So it's never a case of one person taking it all and it seems fair to spread the vote out by using elimination methods. Is that the same for you? It only ever looks like one when I watch it on TV. The only part of the Irish system that I don't understand is that if we have, say, a quota of 10,000 votes, and Candidate A gets 12,000 - 2000 above the quota - and there aren't enough ballot papers to count anymore because Candidates X,Y and Z have already been eliminated and their votes redistributed but no other candidate has reached the quota, ... then we take the 2000 extra from Candidate A and redistribute them. But how can we be sure that's fair? |
|
|
|
Post by Weyland on Apr 4, 2011 21:29:50 GMT
I'm leaning toward "keep everything as it is"...mainly because I don't understand what the new fangled thingy would entail and because Baroness Warsi says it's bad. AH I like the Baroness. But you are right. If you do not understand it, it should definitely be abandoned. What's the point voting for a system that no one understands? Because whatever it is, it can't fail to be better than FPTP, the very wonderful system that brought us Thatcher . . . and Blair. A bit like kicking the shit out of the country . . . and then finishing off the remnants with a rusty axe. Things can only get better. |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 4, 2011 21:34:42 GMT
I like the Baroness. But you are right. If you do not understand it, it should definitely be abandoned. What's the point voting for a system that no one understands? Because whatever it is, it can't fail to be better than FPTP, the very wonderful system that brought us Thatcher . . . and Blair. A bit like kicking the shit out of the country . . . and then finishing off the remnants with a rusty axe. Things can only get better. Well, it's like this. Most politicians are shits so the chances are that you'll get one of them anyway. Regardless of system. But I'll say this against FPTP, to help Alph: The public is required to choose between the most likely shit, and the second most likely shit. Or waste their vote. So it seems a little like Hobson's Choice. And pro FPTP: you get a straightforward leader, a straighforward policy, and you know what you are getting. You get a very strong government. Although we know what we are getting for the most part because there are only so many combinations, we have no control over what might be compromised away. A perfect example is the LibDems and Trident. (If I recall correctly). I wonder how many youth votes were ignored in that compromise? |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 4, 2011 21:42:39 GMT
In my vague Sunday evening daze, I thought that just counting the second choices of those who voted for the least popular candidate might produce a different result to (say) counting the second choices of those who supported candidates who polled less than 20% of the vote, or whatever. But it doesn't. Yes, which gives some voters two cracks of the whip, and others only one. But I've convinced myself that it makes no difference to the outcome. You only need one if your candidate is already in or near enough. If your candidate doesn't get in (or is bottom of the pile) then you get a second, even third crack at it. You need to vote for several, not just 1, 2 and 3, because by the time your number one choice is eliminated, your numbers 2 and 3 may already have bitten the dust and if you haven't got a 4th down, nothing can be counted. Also, in Ireland at least, a certain amount of votes helps to underwrite your campaign so you get a subsidy from the state for your campaign expenses, or your deposit back, even if you don't do very well. If you do abysmally, you get nowt back. So it's important to fill in your 4th, 5th and 6th preferences too if you want the candidate to not be stuck for cash - even if it's a no hoper. |
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Apr 5, 2011 9:48:07 GMT
Thanks, Trubble. Counting the votes once is bad enough, but I see the potential for this to go on for days, unless there is now some electronic device to help.
|
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 5, 2011 10:40:20 GMT
We know most results within 24 to 48 hours usually. 72 tops. It's quite nice to have that quiet time between the canvassing and appointments; not to mention the suspense. Recounts are the fun bit. A previous Minister for the Environment lost his seat by 3 votes last time so of course there was a recount, which showed he lost it by something slightly larger. And two candidates in my constituency were so near each other that when it came to one being eliminated they had to recount them both. But even with all that, the results were in on the same day or next.
We tried electronic voting and dropped it. Huge waste of money.
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Apr 5, 2011 19:07:33 GMT
Thanks, Trubble. Counting the votes once is bad enough, but I see the potential for this to go on for days, unless there is now some electronic device to help. We have proportional representation for the Scottish General Elections (albeit of a different kind). You still get the Constituency seats announced during the night, but it can take a while to count the list votes, especially in the wilds when they have to helicopter in the ballot boxes to civilisation. It wasn't until late the next afternoon that the glorious truth became known of Alex Salmond's First Ministership. By that time I'd been on the couch drinking whisky for 24 hours. Trubble may remember. She and CG kindly joined me in the (JSG was it?) chatroom to keep up with events. We're having anothr one soon. I must remember to take the next day off work. Oh I hope so much that the Scottish people don't revert to their usual brutish stupidity in the ballot box. |
|
A.P.P.S
S C 