rmc28: Rachel smiling against background of trees, with newly-cut short hair (Default)
[personal profile] rmc28
Unlike Andrew Rawnsley (and quite a few of my friends) my tolerance for endless discussion of different voting systems is pretty low. I'm also not that keen on discussing hypotheticals rather than actual situations. I strongly feel that voting No in May because Alternative Vote isn't some other preferred alternative to First Past The Post, is making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Twitter's rubbish for discussion, so this is partly an attempt to sensibly expand on my recent exchange with @planetxanna about "why does no-one like AV?". My long answer is:

1. Most people don't think much about electoral systems and therefore neither like or dislike AV.

2. Of those that do think about voting systems, those who really prefer FPTP don't like AV at all. Those who want to get rid of FPTP electoral reform tend to favour systems that go even further than AV and deliver rather more proportionality. AV is a compromise1: it addresses some of the concerns of FPTP supporters: a clear winner, one MP per constituency, keeping the small fringe parties out of power. It addresses some of the concerns of electoral-reform supporters, in particular allowing voters to express preferences honestly.

1 Possibly even a miserable little one.

I like AV, and here are the two main reasons why:

1. The voter can be honest about what they want, rather than tactically voting based on guessing what everyone else in their constituency will do. Maybe for some people only one party will do, but most people have a second and third preference. Existing campaigning implicitly acknowledges this, whenever there's an effort to squeeze the third-party vote. "It's a Two-Horse Race" only works if people have more than one preference. AV lets people make their preferences explicit.

2. The 50% threshold will force candidates to appeal outside their core party vote, wherever a constituency isn't either solidly one-party or divided roughly evenly between two parties. At the moment only a third of MPs were chosen by more than 50% of the people who voted (and that's not addressing turnout issues). The current system encourages negative campaigning, especially in marginal seats and wherever more than two parties are in serious contention. "Vote for A to keep B out" is a depressingly common message. Under AV, there's far more incentive to campaign positively and to avoid pissing off supporters of your opponents with slurs, innuendo and insults.

I think these are desirable changes, and that's why I'm voting Yes in May.

Date: 2011-02-21 11:00 (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Surely point 1 ('The voter can be honest about what they want'), isn't quite right, as either your first vote is just a throwaway protest and so the tactical voting moves to the second, serious, vote -- or the first vote becomes part of a very complex tactical voting game, where you try to influence the order in which candidates are eliminated, as that can have a big influence on the result?

The '50% threshold' thing that seems to be the main argument supporters of AV use is also a bit disingenuous. For a start, it only applies if all voters put enough preferences that no votes get dropped as they run off the end of the preferences -- a circumstance vanishingly unlikely, and also one that seems rather unfair on those who only have one preference. If a lot of people go for one candidate and don't mark second preferences it's entirely possible for a candidate to be elected with less than 50% of the vote.

It's also disingenuous because even in the unlikely event no voters do drop off the ends of their lists, it implies that someone's second preference counts as much as someone else's first preference -- it basically says that if a candidate wins with 45% first preferences and 7% transferred second preferences, they had 52% of the support (ie, over 50%). But should a second preference really count, for these rhetorical purposes, as much as a first preference? That doesn't seem right to me. Presumably support for the candidate among those who marked them '2' was less than among those who marked them '1' (or they'd have marked them '1' as well), but to get the '50%' figure you have to ignore that and count transferred votes with as much weight as first-preference votes.

I've yet to see any argument for AV which doesn't, on closer inspection, turn out to be strictly worse than first-past-the-post, either because it's unfair to those who just vote for one candidate, or because (like the 50% thing) it relies on very dodgy assumptions and disingenuous rhetoric about 'support'.

And that's why I'll be voting no.


Date: 2011-02-21 11:43 (UTC)
emperor: (Default)
From: [personal profile] emperor
Voting for only one candidate means "I want this person, and have no preference among the remainder"; under AV that's what they get.

Date: 2011-02-21 11:48 (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
That doesn't make it any fairer that those who do have a preference among the remainder get to transfer their stake to a different horse mid-race, if the one they initially picked falls at the first fence.

FPTP puts everyone in the same situation -- one vote, you pick the winner great, you pick the loser, you lost. AV gives some people more chance to pick the winner because they get to jump to another mid-race -- that doesn't sit well with me.


Date: 2011-02-21 12:35 (UTC)
lavendersparkle: (Labservative)
From: [personal profile] lavendersparkle
Presumably support for the candidate among those who marked them '2' was less than among those who marked them '1' (or they'd have marked them '1' as well)

I think your logic is flawed. Some people might really like two of the candidates much more than all the others but not have a very strong preference between them. Someone else might not really care but vote because that's what you do and pick as their first preference who ever's name looks nice. Someone else might hate all of the candidates but pick the least bad option. You can tell by the preference ordering are ordinal, so you can't make interpersonal comparisons. Anyway, we don't base votes' weights on the strength of the voters' feelings or else my vote would count for way more than most people's.

Date: 2011-02-21 12:39 (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Okay, but doesn't that support my point that you can't claim that the winning candidate 'had the support of at least 50% of the voters' -- that that is disingenuous and misleading (as well as factually inaccurate, for the reason given above about single-preference voters) rhetoric?



rmc28: Rachel smiling against background of trees, with newly-cut short hair (Default)
Rachel Coleman

September 2017

    12 3
456789 10
1112 13141516 17
1819 2021222324

Page Summary

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 2017-09-22 11:46
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios