I dunno, it's not great but I find the scare tactics of the No vote ("this baby will die because the money to save it is going to AV!^^£$£!!") more disgusting.
Both sides are lying -- Part onefizzybootApril 15 2011, 11:47:25 UTC
I think part of the reason for this is that both campaigns are to some extent being dishonest. I think the no campaign are more dishonest, but I'm not an unbiased observer, since I'm part of the yes campaign.
The actual mechanics of AV are fairly simple to explain (my effort is here). The advantages of AV versus FPTP are more complex, but to my mind the most important one is that AV satisfies the independence of clones criterion
( ... )
Re: Both sides are lying -- Part twofizzybootApril 15 2011, 11:48:02 UTC
What about the pro-AV camp? Their arguments are also not entirely truthful. They say FPTP encourages MPs to be lazy and fiddle their expenses. But most MPs aren't lazy -- they typically work long hours, and stood for parliament in the first place because they genuinely wanted to make a difference for the better. The second part of their claim is on stronger ground: it is statistically proven that MPs with safe seats are more likely to be corrupt, and AV is likely to make seats less safe
( ... )
Re: Both sides are lying -- Part twozotzApril 15 2011, 11:51:15 UTC
One of the points I've never heard mentioned in the mass media is that if you vote for a smaller party you get two bites at the cherry - you get to increase the vote of the small party in the early rounds and then still have the same impact on the later choices. If you are campaigning for a larger party I don't think it's unreasonable to note that with a certain disquiet.
Re: Both sides are lying -- Part twofizzybootApril 15 2011, 12:30:28 UTC
"One of the points I've never heard mentioned in the mass media is that if you vote for a smaller party you get two bites at the cherry - you get to increase the vote of the small party in the early rounds and then still have the same impact on the later choices
( ... )
I've been wondering why this argument unnerves me somewhat, and I just realised it's because it paints the vote as a privilege. "No fair, they get more votes!"
Whereas really voting is a responsibility; candidates put themselves forwards and ask us who we prefer. If we are responsible, we turn up and give an honest answer, and a winner is chosen.
AV allows us to give a far more detailed answer to that question, which allows a more complex decision process. If some person's vote is particularly complicated, it may have to be reexamined multiple times, but it's still the same answer.
And we do. Everybody's votes get treated exactly the same.
One person might put a bunch of minnows as their first preferences, and the other might go for one of the big three parties. The former's vote will jump around as their top choices are eliminated, but that counts for exactly nothing - at the final, deciding, iteration, the weight of both votes are exactly the same.
Do you not see the privilege vs. responsibility thing? It doesn't matter how many times I make the counters process my vote slip, it confers no particular honour upon me. The simpler answers are just as important, merely easier to deal with.
(And if you're worried about people's full list of preferences being "thrown away", well, there's no reason why they can't be counted and published for statistical purposes.)
Everybody's vote works exactly the same way. Due to the AV algorithm, some will have to be processed multiple times, while others will only need to be processed once.
I guess what I'll do is turn this around and ask you why you think this is a problem. Avoiding emotive language such as "bites of the cherry".
According to that view, we don't have a problem at the moment - everyone's vote is processed according to the same algorithm and the fact that smaller parties get proportionally fewer seats needn't bother us. The point of reform, of course, is to find a system without such quirks.
And just to make things quite clear (again), I'm not vastly bothered about these things myself - I'm commenting on the campaigns and discussions, and in particular the widespread assumption that there are no valid arguments against change and therefore that favouring the status quo is in itself evidence of bad faith. In my view the problem with AV is that it changes so little it's hardly worth bothering with.
I'm just pointing out that saying "oh, but X system gives certain people more votes" is ridiculous. Everybody's vote is counted in the same way, and everybody's vote is equal.
All of AV, FPTP, and PR are fair insomuch as everybody is counted in the same way. That's not to say they're equally good. AV is better than FPTP since it takes into account a more accurate representation of the opinions of each individual voter, and PR is better still since it results in representation of minority views, rather than just forging a consensus.
It does, though, inflate the count of minor candidates without the virtue of giving a more proportional result overall. The count for these isn't of real votes, as such (or not entirely so) but it's a real effect that some people genuinely object to.
Re: Both sides are lying -- Part twoemarkiennaApril 18 2011, 22:29:37 UTC
I feel this is only a problem if you were to compare the votes of a minor party of a 1st round, to another party in a later round. But that's just bad statistics - it's only valid to compare the votes in any given round.
Is there a way that increasing the vote in the 1st round, and then still having a say in the last round, has an unfair impact on the election result itself?
(And FWIW I have seen much of this argument made by No2AV, in leaflets I've had through my door, and David Cameron also referred to multiple bites of the cherry. Although they are also linking it to the false claim of some people having more votes than others, which I note below that you don't claim.)
Reply
Reply
The actual mechanics of AV are fairly simple to explain (my effort is here). The advantages of AV versus FPTP are more complex, but to my mind the most important one is that AV satisfies the independence of clones criterion ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Whereas really voting is a responsibility; candidates put themselves forwards and ask us who we prefer. If we are responsible, we turn up and give an honest answer, and a winner is chosen.
AV allows us to give a far more detailed answer to that question, which allows a more complex decision process. If some person's vote is particularly complicated, it may have to be reexamined multiple times, but it's still the same answer.
Reply
Reply
One person might put a bunch of minnows as their first preferences, and the other might go for one of the big three parties. The former's vote will jump around as their top choices are eliminated, but that counts for exactly nothing - at the final, deciding, iteration, the weight of both votes are exactly the same.
Do you not see the privilege vs. responsibility thing? It doesn't matter how many times I make the counters process my vote slip, it confers no particular honour upon me. The simpler answers are just as important, merely easier to deal with.
(And if you're worried about people's full list of preferences being "thrown away", well, there's no reason why they can't be counted and published for statistical purposes.)
Reply
Reply
I guess what I'll do is turn this around and ask you why you think this is a problem. Avoiding emotive language such as "bites of the cherry".
Reply
And just to make things quite clear (again), I'm not vastly bothered about these things myself - I'm commenting on the campaigns and discussions, and in particular the widespread assumption that there are no valid arguments against change and therefore that favouring the status quo is in itself evidence of bad faith. In my view the problem with AV is that it changes so little it's hardly worth bothering with.
Reply
All of AV, FPTP, and PR are fair insomuch as everybody is counted in the same way. That's not to say they're equally good. AV is better than FPTP since it takes into account a more accurate representation of the opinions of each individual voter, and PR is better still since it results in representation of minority views, rather than just forging a consensus.
Reply
It does, though, inflate the count of minor candidates without the virtue of giving a more proportional result overall. The count for these isn't of real votes, as such (or not entirely so) but it's a real effect that some people genuinely object to.
Reply
Is there a way that increasing the vote in the 1st round, and then still having a say in the last round, has an unfair impact on the election result itself?
(And FWIW I have seen much of this argument made by No2AV, in leaflets I've had through my door, and David Cameron also referred to multiple bites of the cherry. Although they are also linking it to the false claim of some people having more votes than others, which I note below that you don't claim.)
Reply
Leave a comment