AV then. Yes or No?
Comments
-
shouldbeinbed wrote:lets go for a tray of drinks:
4 people want coffee, 3 people want tea, 2 people want orange juice, 1 person wants ribena and 1 person wants water. but everyone has to have the same drink.
The ribena and water drinkers don't like hot drinks so orange juice gets up to 4 votes, the tea drinkers REALLY don't like coffee so have no other option even if they are allergic to orange juice but to pick it...
So prove me wrong, don't just wring your hands and tell me how wrong I am for not seeing the world through your eyes.
Using your example, the people who prefer coffee are 36% of the total; what's so magical about 36% that the preferences of the others can be disregarded? It isn't close to a majority, no-one else wants it, and if another drink has the support of the majority then surely that should be the winner? Don't forget, even your hypothetical tea-drinkers still prefer orange-juice to coffee - under AV 64% of people get the drink they can support and did support. How is this not better than 36%? You can argue about degrees of support, but the fact is that people expressed their preferences!
AV isn't my ideal - PR is fairest of all - but given the choices on the ballot it was my preference.
Mixed Member Proportional is one way of combining electorates with nation-wide proportional representation.jawooga wrote:Although I admit I don't know how you'd square full PR with constituency representation.0 -
jamesco wrote:shouldbeinbed wrote:lets go for a tray of drinks:
4 people want coffee, 3 people want tea, 2 people want orange juice, 1 person wants ribena and 1 person wants water. but everyone has to have the same drink.
The ribena and water drinkers don't like hot drinks so orange juice gets up to 4 votes, the tea drinkers REALLY don't like coffee so have no other option even if they are allergic to orange juice but to pick it...
So prove me wrong, don't just wring your hands and tell me how wrong I am for not seeing the world through your eyes.
Using your example, the people who prefer coffee are 36% of the total; what's so magical about 36% that the preferences of the others can be disregarded? It isn't close to a majority, no-one else wants it, and if another drink has the support of the majority then surely that should be the winner? Don't forget, even your hypothetical tea-drinkers still prefer orange-juice to coffee - under AV 64% of people get the drink they can support and did support. How is this not better than 36%? You can argue about degrees of support, but the fact is that people expressed their preferences!
AV isn't my ideal - PR is fairest of all - but given the choices on the ballot it was my preference.
No drink has the support of "the majority". It is utter fiction to claim that (say) the tea drinkers "support" OJ. The the drinkers support tea. Only the OJ drinkers support OJ. Giving someone a false choice ("I know you want water, but you can't have it, so what do you dislike the least out of two other drinks that you hate?") is not creating support.
AV gives the result supported by 18% of the sample. FPTP gives the result supported by 36%. Speaks for itself.
As for PR, I suppose you'd serve them all a cup containing a mixture of 36% coffee, 27% tea, 18% OJ, 9% Ribena and 9% water, would you?0 -
Greg66 wrote:No drink has the support of "the majority". It is utter fiction to claim that (say) the tea drinkers "support" OJ. The the drinkers support tea. Only the OJ drinkers support OJ. Giving someone a false choice ("I know you want water, but you can't have it, so what do you dislike the least out of two other drinks that you hate?") is not creating support.
AV gives the result supported by 18% of the sample. FPTP gives the result supported by 36%. Speaks for itself.
As for PR, I suppose you'd serve them all a cup containing a mixture of 36% coffee, 27% tea, 18% OJ, 9% Ribena and 9% water, would you?
No drink is the first preference of a majority. That's not the same as no drink having the support of the majority. Remember: under the AV proposal there is no requirement to order all candidates - the voter can stop at their first pick if that's the only one they like. Anyone that they do list, they're expressing a preference for and that should count. Your political affiliation is only a binary choice if you happen to be a politician or married to one! And in the end, 64% support is a lot more than 36%, and this wasn't even my metaphor
As to PR, this drinks-metaphor breaks down. Everyone's vote counts and the majority of representatives form a government representing a majority of the population.0 -
jamesco wrote:shouldbeinbed wrote:lets go for a tray of drinks:
4 people want coffee, 3 people want tea, 2 people want orange juice, 1 person wants ribena and 1 person wants water. but everyone has to have the same drink.
The ribena and water drinkers don't like hot drinks so orange juice gets up to 4 votes, the tea drinkers REALLY don't like coffee so have no other option even if they are allergic to orange juice but to pick it...
So prove me wrong, don't just wring your hands and tell me how wrong I am for not seeing the world through your eyes.
Using your example, the people who prefer coffee are 36% of the total; what's so magical about 36% that the preferences of the others can be disregarded? It isn't close to a majority, no-one else wants it, and if another drink has the support of the majority then surely that should be the winner? Don't forget, even your hypothetical tea-drinkers still prefer orange-juice to coffee - under AV 64% of people get the drink they can support and did support. How is this not better than 36%? You can argue about degrees of support, but the fact is that people expressed their preferences!
AV isn't my ideal - PR is fairest of all - but given the choices on the ballot it was my preference.
.
so no proof then, more spin.
you're a right one for your selective quoting arent you, and asking the question I've already answered in my post. I suggest you go back and read it again.
I clearly say they're both cr@p systems there isn't anything magical about 36% and I never claimed there was other than in actual Preferences (i.e. what you'd really like), it was in excess of every other option and twice as popular as the eventual cobbled together winner.
There is a significant difference between 'preference' and 'settling for' or 'tactically voting against' they are not the same thing at all and its yet more disingenuous spin to suggest otherwise.
64% of people did not express a preference for the OJ, only 18% of them did that. (whilst simultaneously 50% more expresed a preference for Tea and 100% more expressed a preference for Coffee) For the others is was a compromise and in the tea drinkers case not even their best compromise because they'd both been removed from the running beforehand.
If they'd counted the Tea, Coffee and OJ rankings a the same time, it would have been the OJ that fell at the first hurdle, as it was it got elected. Stone last loser to victorious champion by nothing more democratic than sequencing, it didn't get any more or less votes in any different places, it won or lost simply by which lower rankings got counted when.
AV doesn't give a definitive result it gives any number of permutations and winners depending on which compromise choices you choose to count and which you choose to ignore (for now but may come back and count later or may not, it all depends). Anything that can give a variety of winners based on the sequencing of the losers can't possibly be credible as a mandate from the masses.
But each to their own & thanks for fixing my mind quite definitely that I made the right choice in voting not to sell us into a guess who democracy & at least we can both agree there is something better than it out there waiting its turn.
Edit: Guess Who, hmmmm, I think its more like a Kerplunk democracy. pulling different straws at different times means different ones fall down.0 -
I think you guys are missing the point about the "lets go for a drink" analogy. The way I understood the example as used by the Yes campaign was that the left wing/liberal vote is split by FPTP, but not by AV. This is why it clearly a good thing for Lib/Lab and why the Conservatives were so against it. Its the perfect system for anyone who votes for "anyone but the tories".0
-
notsoblue wrote:I think you guys are missing the point about the "lets go for a drink" analogy. The way I understood the example as used by the Yes campaign was that the left wing/liberal vote is split by FPTP, but not by AV. This is why it clearly a good thing for Lib/Lab and why the Conservatives were so against it. Its the perfect system for anyone who votes for "anyone but the tories".
If so, odd that half the Labour party weren't behind it.
Anyhoo.
I was having a think about AV on the way in. Since it's now dead as a dodo as a voting proposition, and in its wake it seems unlikely that an alternative to FPTP will be on anyone's agenda for a good few years, perhaps now is a good time to engage in a bit of speculation.
One aspect of AV that is (to me) fundamentally wrong is this: a voter marks candidate X as his fourth choice. When the votes are transferred, that vote is transferred to X, and in X's hands it carries just as much weight as a first choice vote for X.
So what about weighted AV? Say you have five candidates. The fifth preference votes are transferred, but they are only worth a fraction of a whole vote when transferred. The fourth preference votes ditto, but they are worth a larger fraction, and so on.
Questions:
(1) How do those in the "yes" camp regard a weighted AV system such as this? Good, bad, indifferent? Better or worse than FPTP?
(2) Should the weighting be linear (e.g 1.0, 0.9, 0.8, 0.7...) or non linear (eg 1, 0.1, 0.01...).
(3) How big should the weight difference between first and second preference be? Larger than that between second and third (eg 1, 1/2, 1/3) or the same (eg 1.0, 0.9, 0.8)?0 -
Oh my god is this still going on?
AV lost, the majority of those that voted (you can't say Country, I don't even think it was a representative proportion) voted No. The rest of th Country wasn't interested and/or didn't understand it.
Yes you can argue that some out there decided not to vote as a protest against the Lib Dems, but lets face it the Lib Dems aren't the largest party in England with the highest number of supporters, so how much impact was their protest vote really going to have given the sheer number of people who voted No.
And finally, AV wasn't even the voting system the Lib Dems wanted. They originally proposed Proportional Representation and the Tories said no. Had this been a vote between PR and FPTP then if PR lost I would be arguing till the cows come home.
But as it stands it's not and even though I voted Yes, I can be gracious in defeat.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Greg66 wrote:notsoblue wrote:I think you guys are missing the point about the "lets go for a drink" analogy. The way I understood the example as used by the Yes campaign was that the left wing/liberal vote is split by FPTP, but not by AV. This is why it clearly a good thing for Lib/Lab and why the Conservatives were so against it. Its the perfect system for anyone who votes for "anyone but the tories".
If so, odd that half the Labour party weren't behind it.
I think many labour politicians are happy to sacrifice being out of power for a while for total and utter control when they do get into gov't, and also to remain by far and away the main 'left' party despite being only marginally more popular than the lib dems by proportion (going by last election results anyway).
FPTP provides virtual party dictatorships for 5 years.
For all the complaints both sides have of Thatcher or Blair or Brown - they wouldn't have been able to exert so much power and( thus been so extreme) over the government had they been in a system which was fundamentally based on proportion.
A lot of the pain and issues that are caused on both sides is that sharp pendulum swing from one extreme to the other. It starts off as having the power to fulfill the mandate, but that quickly subsides and becomes more. The public sector cuts are a great example. There wouldn't have been quite so many there in the first place because that would have been tempered, nor would the cuts be quite so severe. Less pain all round.
'Strong' gov'ts are overrated.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Greg66 wrote:notsoblue wrote:I think you guys are missing the point about the "lets go for a drink" analogy. The way I understood the example as used by the Yes campaign was that the left wing/liberal vote is split by FPTP, but not by AV. This is why it clearly a good thing for Lib/Lab and why the Conservatives were so against it. Its the perfect system for anyone who votes for "anyone but the tories".
If so, odd that half the Labour party weren't behind it.
I think many labour politicians are happy to sacrifice being out of power for a while for total and utter control when they do get into gov't, and also to remain by far and away the main 'left' party despite being only marginally more popular than the lib dems by proportion (going by last election results anyway).
FPTP provides virtual party dictatorships for 5 years.
For all the complaints both sides have of Thatcher or Blair or Brown - they wouldn't have been able to exert so much power and( thus been so extreme) over the government had they been in a system which was fundamentally based on proportion.
A lot of the pain and issues that are caused on both sides is that sharp pendulum swing from one extreme to the other. It starts off as having the power to fulfill the mandate, but that quickly subsides and becomes more. The public sector cuts are a great example. There wouldn't have been quite so many there in the first place because that would have been tempered, nor would the cuts be quite so severe. Less pain all round.
'Strong' gov'ts are overrated.
^^This^^
Its getting rid of the "pendulum swing" that made AV so attractive to me. Less party political. More progressive.
All moot now though of course...0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:'Strong' gov'ts are overrated.
I see what you mean (not intended in a patronising way, btw), but the flip side is that:
1. a strong govt raises the game for the opposition and forces them to focus on their getting their act together e.g. Labour post-Kinnock and the Tories during Blair; whereas
2. a weak or coalition govt allows a weak opposition (like Labour at the moment) to take a more negative approach by merely trying to force a wedge between the coalition parties (although Miliband's job is being made a bit easier by good ol' Vince) in the hope that a GE is called.
I read that Lord Mandy supports AV and I seem to recall him calling for it when he was talking to Paxman on GE night last year when the exit polls were predicting a hung Parlt, but, more significantly, a defeat for Labour. I don't recall him calling for it when he was in a strong govt. Motivated by a desire to be in power or for more a representative govt?FCN 2-4.
"What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
"It stays down, Daddy."
"Exactly."0 -
Hi,
Can I just highlight that we do have PR in the UK, and it has just returned a clear majority government to Holyrood.
AV lost, 'cos it's pants, not 'cos FPTP is the best system for the country.
Under PR, If people want clear leadership they can vote for it. Under FPTP they get it whether they want it or not... The Lib Dems are being punished because the people who voted for them didn't want the Tories but the current coalition was all Nick Clegg was able to achieve with the mandate he was given and the intransigence of the outgoing Labour administration... The coalition is strongly delivering right of centre policies, moderated by the Lib Dems, and the left wingers in the party hate that they are party to it... never mind that they did not have a viable alternative.
Cheers,
W.0 -
WGWarburton wrote:Hi,
Can I just highlight that we do have PR in the UK, and it has just returned a clear majority government to Holyrood..
We have a version in Northern ireland too for the Assembly elections
There were 3 votes last Thursday (AV vote, Assembly and Councils)
We're still countingnever mind that they did not have a viable alternative.
They could have let the Tories form a minority goverment. They then could have choosen to support the government on a vote by vote basis.
They chose not to.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:WGWarburton wrote:
never mind that they did not have a viable alternative.
They could have let the Tories form a minority government. They then could have chosen to support the government on a vote by vote basis.
They chose not to.
Or they could have pitched in with Labour.0 -
cjcp wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:'Strong' gov'ts are overrated.
I see what you mean (not intended in a patronising way, btw), but the flip side is that:
1. a strong govt raises the game for the opposition and forces them to focus on their getting their act together e.g. Labour post-Kinnock and the Tories during Blair; whereas
2. a weak or coalition govt allows a weak opposition (like Labour at the moment) to take a more negative approach by merely trying to force a wedge between the coalition parties (although Miliband's job is being made a bit easier by good ol' Vince) in the hope that a GE is called.
I read that Lord Mandy supports AV and I seem to recall him calling for it when he was talking to Paxman on GE night last year when the exit polls were predicting a hung Parlt, but, more significantly, a defeat for Labour. I don't recall him calling for it when he was in a strong govt. Motivated by a desire to be in power or for more a representative govt?
1. I disagree - I think that the other party (so labour at the moment) know they don't have a chance for a while so they don't have that drive or incentive to really go for it now.
2 - I tend to agree. No nation wants what Belgium currently has. I do however thing that there are issues there which are so divisive (i.e. Flemish - Waloonian nationalism) that are not applicable to the UK - and I think the UK would not suffer such 'weakness')
The example of Germany for me is a great case example of how to do it correctly.
I also think that in the UK, due to the lack of real exposure to normal coalition politics make too mcuh of the ' gap between the coalition'. You can have raging arguments and hate each other as long as you eventually come to a consensus about how to govern. All the chat about the coalition and wedges seems quite childish when I flick over to the Dutch coverage of their gov't.
I prefer AV to FPTP but I don't think it's great.0 -
Greg66 wrote:TailWindHome wrote:WGWarburton wrote:
never mind that they did not have a viable alternative.
They could have let the Tories form a minority government. They then could have chosen to support the government on a vote by vote basis.
They chose not to.
Or they could have pitched in with Labour.
According to Paddy Ashdown on Question Time last week that was never an option.
He suggested that the key people in the Labour Party preferred a period in opposition.
Not sure if GB was one of these key people“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Greg66 wrote:TailWindHome wrote:WGWarburton wrote:
never mind that they did not have a viable alternative.
They could have let the Tories form a minority government. They then could have chosen to support the government on a vote by vote basis.
They chose not to.
Or they could have pitched in with Labour.
I disagree. Paddy Ashdown stated just last week that Labour specifically rejected their approaches. It also seemed highly unlikely at the time (and, I feel, in retrospect, too) that the electorate would have accepted a continuation of Labour involvement in government, given their comprehensive rejection at the polls.
I think that only looks like an option if you ignore the context.
Similarly, there was little appetite for minority government. However, the issue there is not credibility but whether the Lib Dems would have been able to be more effective on that basis than on a coalition footing.
Given the number of their policies that have been adopted by the coalition it seems to me that they have done pretty well. We need to bear in mind that they are the minority party in the coalition... no-one should ever have expected them to be able to dictate policy.. indeed it would be exactly the sort of "power brokering by minority" that some complain about if they did!
They are being punished at the polls for a predicament that the electorate put them in...
Cheers,
W.
PS ( and edit ): It is said that the Lib Dems have betrayed their voters. I wonder if it's more accurate to say that their voters have betrayed them.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Greg66 wrote:TailWindHome wrote:WGWarburton wrote:
never mind that they did not have a viable alternative.
They could have let the Tories form a minority government. They then could have chosen to support the government on a vote by vote basis.
They chose not to.
Or they could have pitched in with Labour.
According to Paddy Ashdown on Question Time last week that was never an option.
He suggested that the key people in the Labour Party preferred a period in opposition.
Not sure if GB was one of these key people
We will never know. I would not be surprised if (esp Lab cabinet members) wanted to get the fcuk out of Dodge after having implemented a pre-election scorched earth policy (the "we've run out of money" post-it would have been less funny when re-read by its returning author); nor would I be surprised to hear that Mandy initiated the talks with the LDs and pushed Gordo purely to up the price that the Cons had to pay to get the LDs onside.
However, for all his perceived integrity, I think Paddy has a knack of saying what it suits him to say.0
