I had an odd discussion about voting systems
Over on Twitter I was having an odd argument about voting systems, where I really didn't understand the other person's argument. Probably because trying to put across a significant point in 140 character is. both hard and frustrating. So I offered to stick up a post about it, so we could continue the conversation over here. That being the case,
( Read more... )
OK -- so I start from the standpoint if you're going to look at a news item and go "hooray, this supports my viewpoint" you have to ask yourself the question "would you have accepted this argument if it was made in favour of something you disagree with". He're we're told "Electoral system X was used and 76% of people got their first preference". In general if you are told "X is good because Y=Z" you have to ask
(a) does Y=Z actually represent a "good" result
and
(b) is this a representative comparison of X versus some alternative
and
(c) is Y what you should look at anyway.
Continued next post.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I'm sorry but I view it as amazingly dishonest.
If you're taking this as an argument for multi-member versus single member then... well, it's an argument... it's not a great argument.
You keep coming across as if systems can only have one advantage. And that's simply not true.
Yes, but on the other hand, you're looking at something that STV is terrible at and being mislead by an abuse of stats into believing it is good at it. STV is bad at getting people their first choice candidate. This is by design.
what system you're thinking would produce it that's actually being suggested by anyone?The ( ... )
Reply
"you're looking at something that STV is terrible at "
No, I'm not. Because it seems to me that it is better than FPTP at it. And AV.
If anyone was actively suggesting FPTP multi-candidate elections for the UK then I'd understand comparing it with that, but as nobody is, I really don't see the point, any more than I'm comparing STV with Condorcet when gauging fairness.
Reply
Because it seems to me that it is better than FPTP at it.
It really is not. Multi-party FPTP is absolutely the optimal system for that metric.
If anyone was actively suggesting FPTP multi-candidate elections for the UK then I'd understand comparing it with that
That really does seem a cop out. Well, we *could* compare with a system that would be much better at this yes...
Reply
But why would we, as nobody is suggesting it? The infographic is comparing "Here's what happened under FPTP" with "Here's what happens under STV". If you want to go off and compare to 20 other voting systems that's your prerogative, but I fail to see what it has to do with this comparison right here.
I mean you seem to be floundering around here, both objecting to the actual evidence that STV produces more diversity, and more people getting a result they want, and then complaining that they didn't do the comparison that you would have liked them to make. It all seems very defensive, and I can't work out why.
Reply
AUGH! I could scream. You're a clever person. Why are you falling for this.
1) This tells us *nothing* about diversity. It doesn't even measure it.
2) This tells us *nothing* about STV. It tells us about multi-candidate elections. Almost any reasonable electoral system for multi-party elections would get that 76% figure. To be honest the surprising thing is how low it is.
Honestly, I know you're a big fan of PR but this tells us absolutely nothing about this.
It does tell us quite clearly that if you elect more people in an election then more people get the one they wanted most. That is not a surprise.
Reply
I didn't say it did. I said I had observed it, upthread. You seem to be ignoring large chunks of what I've written.
I don't consider it dishonest, no. Because I know, from looking at the results, repeatedly, that it does have that effect overall - if you took three constituencies next to each other before, and the same ones now that they're joined, the results are more diverse, and more people do get the candidate they wanted. If the results had been "one of each" before and were still "one of each" now, then yes, I'd agree that it was dishonest
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Hope you're doing something nice this weekend :-)
Reply
Reply
I'm having breakfast down by the beach, and then a friend is having a party _and_ there's a housewarming. Oh the horrors :-)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment