Friday Debate - AV Referendum 5th May

bails87

davmaggs wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Or, hypothetically, 60% of the population want a different system so they vote 'no'. This gets seen as an acceptance of FPTP and we're stuck with it forever.

That isn't particularly logical. If the no votes wins then it can only ever be said that the people were against AV and nothing else. That is all the question is asking.

Bail's is right. That's what'd happen.

Logic doesn't come into it.

Angry newspresenters were saying the Tories had been given a mandate to govern by the electorate this year despite getting plenty less than half the votes... :?

This is starting to prove my point. AV is being chosen not as a good idea on its own merits, but as some kind of anything but FPTP idea. Or worse, change to a system that is useless so that we can ask for another vote later on.

If you stick to the point that this vote is on AV and nothing else then you have a mandate to go to the people to ask about another system. If the AV campaign is really saying that this is about PR and the public goes along with that thinking and the AV vote is lost, then your case for another vote is very weak.

No, it's that no-one expects the lovely friendly Tories to offer this vote again. They already rejected a referendum on a more proportional PR system that the Lib Dems actually wanted. Why on earth would they grudgingly allow this one, and then decide to give another one that they've already chosen not to have?

davmaggs

bails87 wrote:

So parties that get a minority of votes might hold the balance of power, rather than say, all of it?

I'm not losing any sleep over the BNP. I don't think many Labour or Lib Dem voters would put BNP second or third. I don't think many Tory voters would, although possibly more. Yeah, a few UKIP/BNP voters might vote for the other as their second choice, but how many places are either of those parties doing well enough to get anywhere near the main 3? Nowhere. The BNP aren't an issue with AV, so I'm not sure why you call them a distraction and then use them to bash AV :?

I haven't used the BNP to bash AV. Never even said whether AV would or would not help them.

I mentioned the Israeli PR system in a separate paragraph because various posters seem to be saying that for them AV is a stepping stone to PR and going by examples from other nations (plus the share of past votes) then PR would be good for the BNP. Israel being an example often quoted.

bails87

I haven't used the BNP to bash AV. Never even said whether AV would or would not help them.

AV is a stepping stone to PR ........PR would be good for the BNP

In a PR like systems (like Israel) then minority parties get a massive say

davmaggs

bails87 wrote:

I haven't used the BNP to bash AV. Never even said whether AV would or would not help them.

AV is a stepping stone to PR ........PR would be good for the BNP

In a PR like systems (like Israel) then minority parties get a massive say

Don't chop the quotes up, that is dishonest and doesn't help your case.

DonDaddyD

The notion that if AV was in place then suddenly the BNP would have seats in Parliment is fear mongering. Just because there is a possiblity the BNP could become more predominate isn't a justifiable reason. What that argument doesn't acknowledge is all the legitimate parties (Green Party/Lib Dems) ahead of the BNP that would also benefit from the system and before the BNP would even get those vote.

Fact of the matter is parties like UKIP and the BNP exist and need to be acknowledged and tackled properly. Tackling them isn't supporting a system that prevents them from being represented. That same system holds back other parties. Tackliong the BNP is through education raising the standard of living and open the eyes of the ignorant (I'm looking at you, you know who you are).

There was a study that if AV was in place for the last election what would have happened. The Lib Dems would have had enough seats to form a majority Government with either Labour or the Tories (meaning they would have more bargining powers). Now their's a thought.

I'm for AV.

sketchley

The problem I have with this. Is that people will make a choice based on how it would have affected that last or next government. But this is change that will effect voting for a long time to come so should be considered in that context.

It would be good to see an estimate of say that last 10 general ellections and how they may of mapped out with AV. If such a thing is even possible!

thegibdog

bails87 wrote:

If noone has 50% then they add all the '2' votes. If the number of votes for any one candidate is now over 50% then that candidate wins. If there are two who've been pushed over 50% by the inclusion of the 2nd person I guess they take the one with the highest share.(?) If no-one has got 50% yet, then they carry on until someone does.

Not quite. If nobody has 50% the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and the second choices of those who voted for that candidate are counted. And so on. It's not possible for two candidates to get over 50% as each vote is only counted once in each round. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11243595

cycladianpirate

As long as you can still spoil your ballot paper, I'm not terribly fussed.

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

The Lib Dems would have had enough seats to form a majority Government with either Labour or the Tories (meaning they would have more bargining powers). Now their's a thought.

I'm for AV.

You seem mixed up....If they had enough seats to form a majority government they (by definition) wouldn't be doing that with either Labour or Conservative

They had enough seats to form a coalition government with either Labour or Tories in the last election under FPTP. They chose Tory and presuambly will rot in hell for all eternity as a result (Hiya Greg)

tailwindhome

thegibdog wrote:

bails87 wrote:

If noone has 50% then they add all the '2' votes. If the number of votes for any one candidate is now over 50% then that candidate wins. If there are two who've been pushed over 50% by the inclusion of the 2nd person I guess they take the one with the highest share.(?) If no-one has got 50% yet, then they carry on until someone does.

Not quite. If nobody has 50% the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and the second choices of those who voted for that candidate are counted. And so on. It's not possible for two candidates to get over 50% as each vote is only counted once in each round. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11243595

Scary how we're on page 2 and that epic fail wasn't spotted before

I'd cancel the referrendum

shouldbeinbed

Rick Chasey wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

The only real change that I would back 100% is to make it compulsory to vote and add a square for abstemption.

You risk a fine not to send back your census form, why not for failing to vote? People have fought, struggled and died to give all of us the right to vote - to not bother because you'd rather watch Corrie is unbelievable.

What if you're suddenly out on business that day, or a client calls and you need to stay late at work / travel out?

Many people don't vote because they can get to their polling booths because of other commitments.

(Not read past this but the 5 immediately obvious considerations)

A) how many people will that realistically be

if its a legal requirement then they'll understand / be compelled to give you time to vote.

C) 7am to 10pm is fair opportunity

D) if that is a possibility for you in your line of work then get a Postal Vote and your day is your own

E) How much longer before we get online voting do you reckon? Census, election of Ed M etc - its coming.

F) you forgot to ask about people in comas!

Back to topic

Edit: +lots to compulsory voting in 1st past the post & a none of the above option - which is why it'll never happen. NOTA would win a landslide victory until political ideology and dogma was shelved in favour of listening to rather than talking down at the electorate and do you honestly think Call me Dave, Bullingham Osborne, prostitute Clegg, Interchangeable Milliband 2 & the other career politicians give a toss what the electorate thinks or wants? (End edit)

I'm ambivalent to AV: you still don't get a candidate with a 50% approval vote. You'll get one with a 35% 1st choice vote and being the least/2nd least poor alternative for another 15.1%. That isn't the same thing at all. Its a coat of paint on what we have now, nothing radical and nothing that will alter the complexion of party splits across the country

Imagine the outcry if the person that polls the most 1st choice votes is beaten on 2nd, 3rd and potentially even 4th preferences. At least with the current system it is 1st past the post, AV could throw up 2nd or in close marginals 3rd past the post 'winners'

EKE_38BPM

It seems to me that pretty much all of the current crop of politicos are career politicos and have never had a job outside politics or the media (kinda similar jobs).
Politicians seem to want power for power's sake, not to provide a good service to the electorate, which is why they all seem so desperate to hold onto their jobs no matter if they are doing a good job or not.
The Tebbitts and Foots of yesteryear believed in something, the current crop just want to keep their current job, take their superior's job or to move into the job that their opposite number has and there seems to be no ideology behind their words/deeds.

I half remember a comedian (possibly Bill Hicks) saying something along the lines of:
"There should be a questionaire for machine gun ownership. It only needs one question on it:
Do you want a machine gun?
If you answer 'yes' you can't have one as no sane person wants a machine gun."

I've always thought the same kind of applies to politics. If you want to be a politician, you are probably a bit of a wrong'un.

To keep DDD happy (yes, he can have his third D back) I will give a super hero analogy:
Some are born great (Superman)
Some achieve greatness (Batman)
Some have greatness thrust upon them (Spiderman)
And some will do whatever it takes to have a veneer of greatness that will rub off all too quickly, but will be able to say that they were great for a short while (Gordon Brown)

I'm drunk, I'm going to bed.

sketchley

Does a candidate have to get 50% with 2nd preference votes? It must be possible to end up with 2 candiates left both with less than 50%. As there will be people who voted for neither of the last 2 candidates at any preference.

bails87

Not the second preference, but people keep getting eliminated until there are enough votes.

I'm aware I got the description wrong. I didn't think it sounded right but was too busy arguing to correct it

There's an interesting demonstration of it here:
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/201 ... .html#more

Headhuunter

SimonAH wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

The only real change that I would back 100% is to make it compulsory to vote and add a square for abstemption.

You risk a fine not to send back your census form, why not for failing to vote? People have fought, struggled and died to give all of us the right to vote - to not bother because you'd rather watch Corrie is unbelievable.

What if you're suddenly out on business that day, or a client calls and you need to stay late at work / travel out?

Many people don't vote because they can get to their polling booths because of other commitments.

That's just a question of mechanics which has multiple solutions - proxy vote, postal vote, e-vote, vote a different site, extend voting period to a couple of days. There are any number of ways around the problem. Most people don't vote because they are apathetic, uninterested and uninformed. If voting were compulsory then perhaps they would take the time to learn a little about what they were voting on?

The question is, do you want apatheitc people who really can't be bothered to make an informed choice actually voting? Their votes will simply be a reactioanry vote without any thought behind it. We live in a democracy anyway, so why should people be forced to vote if they don't want to?

mitchell_inman

I've actually been a candidate in an election that used AV. It was for a representative body at work.

It's pretty simple, and it's entirely possible that someone will move from second or third place after the first round, to win the election. It took til the fourth round of votes to get a winner in mine.

I left the election feeling that it was fair and representative.

I didn't get elected, BTW

As an aside, I found the whole thing quite a buzz - can't imagine what it would have felt like to win!!

Probably good indication of why I should never be allowed anywhere near politics :oops:

DonDaddyD

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

The Lib Dems would have had enough seats to form a majority Government with either Labour or the Tories (meaning they would have more bargining powers). Now their's a thought.

I'm for AV.

You seem mixed up....If they had enough seats to form a majority government they (by definition) wouldn't be doing that with either Labour or Conservative

They had enough seats to form a coalition government with either Labour or Tories in the last election under FPTP. They chose Tory and presuambly will rot in hell for all eternity as a result (Hiya Greg)

Sorry got my terms mixed up.

The report that I read on the BBC website basically concluded that:

Had AV been the method used in the last election the Lib Dems would have had enough seats to form a minorty Government with both Labour or the Tories.

Yes, in the last election the Lib Dems could have formed a Government with Labour but that still wouldn't have been enough seats so deals would have had to been made with other parties in order for a Labour/Lib/other coalition to form.

The Tories at the time was a less messy deal.

Any here's an interesting report with graph: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8506306.stm

EKE_38BPM

I can't believe DDD didn't comment on my superhero analogy. That was there just for him.

DonDaddyD

EKE_38BPM wrote:

To keep DDD happy (yes, he can have his third D back) I will give a super hero analogy:
Some are born great (Superman)
Some achieve greatness (Batman)
Some have greatness thrust upon them (Spiderman)
And some will do whatever it takes to have a veneer of greatness that will rub off all too quickly, but will be able to say that they were great for a short while (Gordon Brown)

I'm drunk, I'm going to bed.

Sorry, it was brilliant Twelfth Night adapted to suit my comic loving and the Nations Borwn hating!

I'd argue that Superman wasn't born great. He was born a regular Kryptonian, who, due to circumstances was sent to Earth where the Sun (Sol) gives him super-powers. His goldern age sense of character was nurtured by his god fearing middle American parents. This has been explored in Superman: Red Son where Supes lands in Russia and grows up to believe in a completely different set of values.

I would argee that Batman achieved greatness. Personally he achieved it when Bane broke his back he travels the World slowly healing and learning most physical forms of combat to become the Dark Knight we now know and love.

I would agree what Spider-man had greatness thrust upon him, but then that's the core element in all Marvel superhero characters - 'characters with flaws who achieve greatness'. Due to that being the case I would defer to the first and greatest of them all, Captain America.



Going back to beginning 'born great', that's easy. My favourite superhero of all time:


Also a comic character with a veneer of greatness that rubs off too quickly:

Tony Stark/Iron Man or Iron douche in some circles. I'll never forgive him for this



So glad when Thor opened a can on him:


I f*cking love Thor!

rjsterry

Thor's eyes are WAY too far apart. That's the trouble with these mythical deity types: not a big enough gene pool.

DonDaddyD

That painting. And it is a painted limited edition front cover is nothing short of amazing. How dare you. It is also my favourite front cover of that series. I own it.

You do have an eye for art though... do tell/share (create new thread).

Headhuunter

rjsterry wrote:

Thor's eyes are WAY too far apart. That's the trouble with these mythical deity types: not a big enough gene pool.

Yes, he does look a bit like a fly or something, not very artistically accurate. D+...

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

That painting. And it is a painted limited edition front cover is nothing short of amazing. How dare you. It is also my favourite front cover of that series. I own it.

You do have an eye for art though... do tell/share (create new thread).

A few life drawing classes or an anatomy text book would help - all those renaissance artists only really started getting people to look really convincing when they started dissecting cadavers to see how people go together. Even if you are drawing/painting mythical beings, they still need to look as though their arms actually join on to their shoulders properly, and the various part of the body need to be in proportion with one another, even if those proportions are distorted. I know diddly about comics, but I'd guess that the artist of that first Thor picture hasn't had much formal training, whereas the other images look more convincing.

Having said this, this is really a separate argument from the question of artistic merit. If you like it and it communicates with you in some way then what does it matter that his eyes are too far apart?

EDIT: not sure the above merits a whole new thread, and we did seem to be about done on AV.

Wallace1492

Kieran_Burns wrote:

PR puts the power into the hands of the minority, not the people most of the electorate (who bothered) actually voted for.

What we need is an end to England being the coinpurse for the UK and a separate parliament for the largest contributor and the only one with no separate voice.



(just call me Don)

Well, had the day off on Friday so just seeing this.... England might be the coinpurse, but the coins have come down a pipline from the North Sea.... What should have been Scotlands oil... not that I mind, after all England has required a huge amount spent on it.

But to AV...... it will work only if it gets radicallised and turns to PR. As to power in the hands on minority, well, look at the Lib coalition for that, and that was without PR!

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

A few life drawing classes or an anatomy text book would help - all those renaissance artists only really started getting people to look really convincing when they started dissecting cadavers to see how people go together. Even if you are drawing/painting mythical beings, they still need to look as though their arms actually join on to their shoulders properly, and the various part of the body need to be in proportion with one another, even if those proportions are distorted. I know diddly about comics, but I'd guess that the artist of that first Thor picture hasn't had much formal training, whereas the other images look more convincing.

Having said this, this is really a separate argument from the question of artistic merit. If you like it and it communicates with you in some way then what does it matter that his eyes are too far apart?

EDIT: not sure the above merits a whole new thread, and we did seem to be about done on AV.

Interesting...

Marko Djurdjevic He was self taught.

Some other pieces:




I will say that, in terms of comics, while its cool to see traditional artist's drawing/painting pictures. Given the context I prefer when they over exaggerate the proportions. It seperates the superheroes from your everyday person.

Alex Ross for example loves to give his [version of the] characters a mighty chest.



But then if you look at the characters he does that for (Superman and Captain Marvel) and you really think about what those 'Truth, Justice and the American way' type characters stand for you kind of understand why he chooses that route.

A bit of Irony:

bails87

Wallace1492 wrote:

But to AV...... it will work only if it gets radicallised and turns to PR. As to power in the hands on minority, well, look at the Lib coalition for that, and that was without PR!

Exactly. In 2005 Labour had a minority of the vote (40%, less than 10 million votes.). They were supported by a minority of the population. Yet they had complete control.

rick_chasey

OK > other than the guy who is pro PR and won't settle for anything less, who else here is against AV?

If so, let's where why, because I can't find any good reason why AV is worse than FPTP.

noodles71

I am originally from Australia so I have an idea how it works. One thing that seems different than back home is if you decided to place more than a "1" next to your choice then you are not obliged to number every other box in order. If I were to only number a few of the candidates and not all of them then in Australia this would be a spoiled ballot.

One thing though that does strike me about all this business is it seems to be purely party political as the Lib Dems want to use this to cement themselves into a position where they will always be the kingmaker in coalition governments. Hence their preference for PR but willingness to sell out most of the things on their manifesto for a vote on AV.

Most elections in Australia will put an independant or green into power who then does one of two things. They will go about selling out their principles and electorate in order to gain more influence than was granted by the voters of that MP's electorate. Otherwise they will demand support for their ideas and policies in order to make up the numbers for a coalition. Policy is then formed from back room dealings where you the voter gets no choice until the next election. Australia has had these kingmakers in the past insist on denying the choice of a woman on abortions, removal of civil-union legislation banning gay marriage, 18+ computer games refused classification therefore being unavailable for purchase, banning online gambling as well as many other nutty ideas.

You might laugh but a politician has gained power from only 0.8% of the primary vote going his way. Preference votes then put this guy into power where he held the balance of power and then insisted that all adult material be filtered from the internet for anyone in Australia. Google "australia internet censorship" if you don't believe me. So AV gave Mr Fielding's 0.8% of first round votes power to insist on restricting everything considered "adult material" for the entire country.

This is nothing but a power grab by a minority party to force this referendum on us all so they can have the next best opportunity after PR to perpetuate themselves as kingnmakers. We have already seen how easy it was for Mr Clegg to ditch his policies and promises to gain power.

Under AV your vote doesn't matter as much as what goes on behind closed doors where the politicians decide which policies or promises to implement. Did Lib Dem voters get what they expected or voted for? What makes you think that next time around they won't do a similar thing.

rick_chasey

Noodles - when hasn't political reform in the UK been to do with party politics?

I answered the very same question at A level with a resounding never and got full marks in the paper > smug.

It doesn't mean it's not a better form of representation that FPTP.

Kieran_Burns

I asked my best mate to clarify things for me (he is very Politically active.. VP of the CEP now (I think!))

His reply was the following: (copied with his permission)




OK, I plead guilty to the crime of psephology (the study of elections) and also voting systems.

At the Count on the very first time I stood for Parliament I gave a speech in favour of Electoral Reform.

I want Electoral Reform. I want a fairer voting system.

And for those reasons I oppose Alternative Vote because I don't want to replace a bad system with one even worse.

I was going to spoil my ballot by writing English Parliament Now on it, but I can't take the risk, I shall have to vote NO.

Consider the following. There are 4 candidates. In the first round all the votes marked "1" are added up with the following result:

A gets 33%
B gets 32%
C gets 31%
D gets 4%

Candidate B is well liked. So much so that all of A and C's second vote transfers (where they voted "2") are for B, meaning B has 96% of the first and second preferences.

But the extremist candidate D is eliminated first. Knowing this will happen and also his own weak position, C has pandered to the extremist's position and thus gained the second preferences from his voters.

These second prefernces for the weakest candidate are now added to everybody's totals.

So we know have:

Candidate A: 33%
Candidate B: 32%
Candidate C: 35%

In this second round the second preferences of A, B and C are all ignored, only the votes for the eliminated candidate are counted again. They have gone to Candidate C, meaning that B is no longer in second place and is now last - and so Candidate B is eliminated.

Note that Candidate B had more first choice (and also second choice) preferences than Candidate C and yet Candidate C goes forward.

The lesson from this is that it pays to pander to extremists because they're the first to be eliminated.

And also that the most broadly acceptable candidate loses because the second preferences of the majority of the votes cast are never counted.

Basically, it's a stupid system.

I am not arguing in favour of First-past-the-Post, I want to replace it with a fairer system. I just don't think that Alternative Vote is that system.

For example the Tory candidate will no longer worry about the threat UKIP poses because he will just assume he will automatically pick up their second preferences no matter what.

The big parties have both the money and the voting inertia which means they will automatically pick up enough votes not to be the first to be eliminated. I don't believe Alternative Vote will help small parties at all. It will just polarise elections even further, whilst magnifying the swings between the 2 biggest parties.

A sensible change that counted everybody's preferences simultaneously would be to switch to Approval Voting whereby you vote for ALL of the candidates of whom you approve, with whoever gets the most votes winning the election. It's simple, and mathematically it has been proven that there is no fairer electoral system for returning a single candidate.

But unfortunately, that isn't what is on offer. Alternative Vote, if passed, will mean no electoral reform for at least a generation. It looks like Proportional Representation because you number your votes, but it isn't proportional. And when nothing changes it will just sour people's attitude for genuine reform.

That's my take on it. I know it doesn't fit in with the conventional wisdom, but that's just me - I've never been one to follow the herd.




I'm voting NO.