Why "One Voter, One Vote" is FUD

[pozorvlak]

[Non-UK readers: we're having a referendum on May 5th about whether or not to alter the voting system used to elect Members of Parliament. The alternative on offer is, appropriately enough, the Alternative Vote system, sometimes called Instant-Runoff voting

Comments

the sad thing is that

[anonymous]

FUD works. Especially so when seeing through it requires a small amount of Brain Application.

I very much fear this referendum will go the Wrong way. Still, at least the Tory Scum will render themselves unelectable for another decade after the next few years of them brutally raping our fine country.

-mat

Re: the sad thing is that

[necaris]

Still, at least the Tory Scum will render themselves unelectable for another decade after the next few years of them brutally raping our fine country.
Oh, I don't know, if your country's anything like mine (which I think it is) their unelectability is likely to be extremely temporary.

[necaris]

An interesting way to put it -- thanks for this.

...

[lesslucid]

People resort to dishonest and inaccurate arguments when they know that honesty and accuracy favour the other side. Hague, by resorting to this kind of nonsense, shows just how weak the case for FPTP is.

Re: ...

[pozorvlak]

People resort to dishonest and inaccurate arguments when they know that honesty and accuracy favour the other side.

I'd like to believe that, but all too many people are willing to accept and repeat any argument that supports their pre-existing point of view, confirmation bias being what it is. I accused Hague of lying above, but the sad truth is that it may well just be motivated cognition - he's deliberately blind to the faults in the argument, because he wants FPTP for other reasons (presumably because it benefits the Tory party).

Incidentally, the Yes2AV campaign's FAQ fails to address this argument head-on, and their AV myths page responds to it in a totally inadequate way, making a very shaky analogy to buying chips.

Re: ...

[lesslucid]

Yes... probably true. I think it's my anger at disinformation being spread that makes me want to characterise it as dishonesty, thereby justifying hatred of the person spreading it. But I'm aware confirmation bias affects everybody, and as hard as I try to correct for it in myself I'm sure I'm not 100% successful. But in a situation like this... Hague is an intelligent man and the argument he's making is so weak, it seems even a cursory effort to examine it honestly would reveal to him that what he's saying is wrong and invalid. I mean, what you've put here isn't just a "different point of view" or "another opinion about it"; it is a complete demolition of the idea that voters for minor parties get "more votes" under AV. I can't understand how, without intentional dishonesty or self-deception, someone could read the above or a version of it and then continue to propagate the idea that AV gives more votes to some voters than others. And... surely someone has a responsibility to at least canvas the counter-arguments to their own

Excellent logical argument; thanks!

[ext_435207]

Thanks a lot for putting this so clearly. I shall certainly be using this line as I attempt to persuade people that it's worth making the small effort this takes in order to get a somewhat fairer system in place.

Re: Excellent logical argument; thanks!

[pozorvlak]

Glad to be of assistance :-)