The AV Debate

[Shultzy]

I'm trying to get to grips with AV before voting. I've found plenty of places which give a view but without much detail. Just to see if I'm on the right track is this how it works

On the first ballot
Candidate A gets 33 votes
Candidate B gets 31 votes
Candidate C gets 20 votes
Candidate D gets 16 votes

As no candidate has 50% Candidate D is eliminated and their votes are redistributed according to the second preferences, so

Candidate A gets 33 votes + 6 from Candidate D = 39 votes
Candidate B gets 31 votes + 6 from Candidate D = 37 votes
Candidate C gets 20 votes + 4 from Candidate D = 24 votes

As no candidate has 50% Candidate C is eliminated and their votes are redistributed according to the 20 second preferences and 4 third preferences, so

Candidate A gets 33 votes + 6 from Candidate D + 7 from Candidate C= 46 votes
Candidate B gets 31 votes + 6 from Candidate D + 17 from Candidate C= 54 votes

so Candidate B wins.

Now this is only with 4 candidates so its easy to work out, but in the 2010 election theoretically there could have been up to 12 candidates on the ballot paper!

Now I believe we don't have to put all the candidates in order but if you don't express a preference for one of the remaining candidates in the race then the ballot paper is referred to as 'exhausted' and plays no further part in deciding the result.

It seems to me it very complicated to count and prone to mistakes. With an average of 8 candidates per ward that might be 5 redistributions.

Discuss

 

[Muina]

I think that's right :? It's a lot more confusing and covered in possible flaws, but it's supposed to be ultimately fairer as in the case that the "winning" candidate doesn't get more than 50% of the votes then there is more than 50% of the population that doesn't want them in power.

However I don't really see why they're trying to introduce a new system, the old one's worked pretty well for the past however long.

Anthony

 

[cambournepete]

However I don't really see why they're trying to introduce a new system, the old one's worked pretty well for the past however long.

But has it?
Sure, it gets us a democratically elected government, but is it the right one?

For example in the last election the Conservatives won 47% of the seats with 36% of the vote, whereas the Lib Dems won less than 9% of the seats with 23% of the vote. That surely can't be fair, whether or not you like (or used to like) the Lib Dems.

There are too many people that live in safe constituencies (like the one I live in) where one party is almost guaranteed to win. I don't vote for them so my vote is pointless (although I cast it on principle).

I'd prefer a pure AV system, so if enough people in the country voted green for example then they'd get an MP, but I think this system is better then what we currently have.

If the new system means that people think their vote counts for more than it does now in many constituencies and means they are more likely to vote then I think it's a good idea.

 

[StevieB]

But the problem there Pete is 'where do you site the MP enough people voted for'. AV can, as you say, redistribute the vote. But in safe seats this still makes very little difference if the votes cast count only for that seat. If the votes count on an England wide basis and you allocate MPs according to share of the vote received across the country then how do you distribute those MPs across the constituencies? I was under the impression it was AV on a seat by seat basis rather than a country wide basis, can anyone confirm this? As such, in safe seats I do not see it making much of a difference, and in marginals it would depend on whether you see the third party supporters (typically Liberal Democrats) as being closer to Conservative or Labour supporters. Traditionally Liberal Democrats have been closer to Labour than Conservative in terms of policy (current coalition notwithstanding) and as such you would expect AV to benefit Labour and the Liberal Democrats at the expense of the Conservatives. This would chime wiith the way the parties seem to be campaigning, with the added complication of the additional cost a change in the voting system will bring being a stick to beat anyone who campaigns for change too vociferously.

Erm, is this straying into politics and a taboo subject? apologies to the mods if so - feel free to delete as appropriate!

Steve

 

[RogerS]

On what basis are you working out the redistribution of votes from Candidate D (and then C), Schultzy? If you're doing it pro-rata then that's not how AV works.

Voters rank their candidates in preference. So if their first preference is eliminated (D in your example), then their papers are reviewed and reallocated according to who their second preference is. NB They do not have to provide a second, third etc preference if they don't want to. So in your example, if six voters had Candidate A as their second choice then their votes would go to Candidate A; likewise for the six voters with Candidate B as their second choice etc.

Only three other countries in the world have AV and a couple of them are thinking about changing.

AV is a poor alternative to true proportional representation...it's neither one thing nor the other. It wil cost £250 million every election.

And for all those reasons, it ain't getting my vote.

 

[RogerS]

.....
Erm, is this straying into politics and a taboo subject? apologies to the mods if so - feel free to delete as appropriate!

Steve

I don't think it is as we're not getting exercised about Labour vs Conservative vs Liberal. This thread is about democracy.

 

[RogerM]

The devil, as always, will be in the detail. There is a level of tactical voting even under the current system. I can't help feel that there will be even more scope for manipulating the vote under an AV system. There hasn't been nearly enough debate on the subject so far - either in the press or on tv/radio giving pros and cons. This is important stuff that goes to the very core of our democracy and shouldn't be changed without lengthy debate that is available to all.

A bit of Googling reveals that there are approximately 200 democracies in the world. Of these, only 3 use AV - Australia, Papua New Guinea and Fiji. Nothing in the Americas, Europe, Asia or Africa! And by all accounts most Australians would ditch it if they could.

My instinct is for the "status quo". We shouldn't just change for the sake of it, or because some people "just want a change". This is not something to be changed on a whim, or as an experiment. What I do know is that I will be really tee'd off if it goes down to the wire and is carried by the Scottish vote (again) - he said in a non party political way.

 

[RogerS]

Quite a well-reasoned argument for no AV is here

and here.

Both address head-on the (to me..spurious) claims as to why AV is 'better'.

Seems to me that the proponents of AV are desperately clinging on in the mistaken belief that AV is somehow 'proportional'.

 

[softtop]

My humble opinion is that what we have is not representative of the votes cast, and you have to ask why so few people bother to vote - they are not engaged with the democratic process. As Pete so correctly says, what we have now just favours the two main parties and leads a lots of people is safe seats to feel it isn't worth voting. It may be that AV isn't perfect, and I would favour true PR but that isn't on offer right now.

One thing you can't say is that the current system "ain't broke", as has been shown by the appalling mess politicians have made of our economy and the foul sight of them all with their snouts in the trough over expenses. If we could have a more diverse group running the country, rather than an old-boy collection of like-minded Tories or Labour, then I would hope that we might have better, fairer government.

But then perhaps I'm just a dreamer...

 

[RogerS]

.....

One thing you can't say is that the current system "ain't broke", as has been shown by the appalling mess politicians have made of our economy and the foul sight of them all with their snouts in the trough over expenses. .....

I think you are confusing our electoral system - which is what the referendum is about - with the integrity of a politician. Doesn't matter which system we have, if the politicians are greedy or incompetent.

 

[softtop]

Sorry my point (possibly badly made) is that the current system encourages a large number of MPs to be from the same party, who then proceed to behave collectively (badly or otherwise), whereas with a more mixed group (which PR would certainly supply, and AV hopefully to some extent) you would, with luck, have more checks and balances put in place by the smaller parties. Well that's certainly my hope!

 

[bugbear]

The devil, as always, will be in the detail. There is a level of tactical voting even under the current system. I can't help feel that there will be even more scope for manipulating the vote under an AV system.

Heh. Given that it's claimed to be too complex to understand, I don't see how anyone is going to manipulate it!

As I see it, the main advantage of AV is in situations where a "split vote" lets someone in that the majority of voters didn't want.

To avoid actual politics (rightly banned on this forum) I'll use a very hypothetical case.

Obvious case - due to a local split in part B, the 3 candiates are A, B1 and B2. Now, B1 and B2 have very few actual differences in policy - they just hate each other!

Now, in the good old days, 60% of the people supported B, and only 40% part A. But with the B vote split down the middle, candidate A romps home...

So we should (with AV) see an awful lot less pamphlets talking on about "wasted votes", the major cause of current tactical voting (I really want BLAH, but they have no realistic chance of getting in, so I'll vote BLOF instead)

BugBear

 

[cambournepete]

But the problem there Pete is 'where do you site the MP enough people voted for'. AV can, as you say, redistribute the vote. But in safe seats this still makes very little difference if the votes cast count only for that seat. If the votes count on an England wide basis and you allocate MPs according to share of the vote received across the country then how do you distribute those MPs across the constituencies? I was under the impression it was AV on a seat by seat basis rather than a country wide basis, can anyone confirm this? As such, in safe seats I do not see it making much of a difference, and in marginals it would depend on whether you see the third party supporters (typically Liberal Democrats) as being closer to Conservative or Labour supporters.

I agree that with pure PR you don't get the constituency MP in the same way you do now. Is that a big problem? My local MP (Andrew Lansley) is a cabinet minister so can't spend much time on constituency duties anyway...
The proposed AV is on a seat-by-seat basis. Those in safe seats (well over 50% of the vote currently) will not be affected, but those like me that live in a relatively safe seat (he got 46% last time) might be more engaged if they think their vote (especially their 2nd preference) can make a difference.

 

[RogerS]

If AV is supposed to make 'better' politicians - whatever that means - then what is stopping them becoming better politicians now?

 

[Eric The Viking]

If AV is supposed to make 'better' politicians - whatever that means - then what is stopping them becoming better politicians now?

Pineappling good question!

I once attended a big rally addressed by Bernard Connolly, formerly an economics advisor to the EU (who kicked him out for whistleblowing). On proportional representation, he said, "PR puts in power people you can't get rid of".

Now technically AV isn't PR, but only just. The outcomes are the same. The change to the balance of the parties returned to Westminster gives a greater probability of coalitions, and in effect makes the smaller coalition party(ies) king-makers. This we are now finding out, and Israel (for one example) has long been aware of, with the ultra-orthodox holding the balance of power many times in the last few decades. The practical outworking is to 'damp' the system, making change harder to achieve, and entrenching established parties and individuals, representative or otherwise.

Then there's the not so small matter of electoral fraud and corruption. I've seen fraudulent ballot papers with my own eyes, and I know the system is played by the big parties whenever they can get away with it. The Welsh assembly, for example, was voted-in by a majority of 0.5% (the English weren't asked, even though they're funding it!). The ratio was indeed 200:199 in favour, and it 'magically' appeared in certain specific places, where crucial ballot boxes were reportedly 'lost' and 'rediscovered' thus clinching the vote. An awful lot of Welsh politicians are now paid from the public purse as a consequence. 'Go figure', as they say elsewhere...

In elections rather than referendums, AV makes it easier for fraud rather than harder. In the first-past-the-post system fraudulent votes are relatively easy to spot. The more our system diverges from simply going to a booth to make one cross on one piece of paper on the day, the easier it gets to cheat and buy elections. This goes for postal votes, electronic voting, and AV, which makes the effect of fraud harder to spot - once a vote goes from being part of an easily-checked pile of paper to a byte in a computer, the audit trail goes with it.

So check out the money trails: who benefits, and why? They'll be the people clamouring for change (or paying for the clamour), and they're the people I trust least of all.

Beware the consensus politicians, for men without conviction are too frequently men without morality also. As Sam Goldwyn famously put it, "These are my principles gentlemen. If you don't like them... I have others."

E.

 

[Shultzy]

On what basis are you working out the redistribution of votes from Candidate D (and then C), Shultzy? If you're doing it pro-rata then that's not how AV works.

No Roger, I just redistributed them arbitrarily.

Electoral fraud is likely to increase when ballot papers contain more than a cross. In my example only 2 redistributions occur but the likelihood is it could be 5 or 6. This means that each eliminated candidates ballot papers need to be kept separate and when redistributed the next highest nomination is used. What happens at a recount, chaos, need I say more.

 

[bugbear]

It wil cost £250 million every election.

(chuckle). The evidence gathered for that claim includes £82 million on the referendum itself, and £100 million on voting machines that there are presently no plans to use.

BugBear

 

[miles_hot]

I think the debate about what's broken in politics is fundamentally not about how we vote; AV is only a watering down of PR which is what the smaller parties have always wanted as it gives them a crack at power. PR has a history or allowing minor parties (usually extremists) holding the balance of power - the old example of the Nazis coming into power legitimately - as well as making for even more back room deals and politicking behind closed doors.

I fear that the issue is far, far harder to address - that of apathy from the voters. Reasons I can see for this would include:
1) a feeling that I have no voice - why would I bother to tell my MP what I think on something - he's going to vote the way his boss (party boss) tells him to usually.
2) how do I even talk to him? I'm not going to take time to attend a surgery - that's time I'm not earning - maybe I can email him???
3) "they don't listen" - a strong feeling that the whole political system lives in a bubble; talking only to itself and worrying about what the papers say. I think this is very true across the world - just look what happened everywhere that actually held a referendum on Europe - the result always came as a shock to the political village and was usually against their recommendation. This is a sorry indictment of the village affect I think.
4) The old "my vote won't make a difference" argument which has been proven to be bobbins - it's the only way that the NF got any seats - their actual number of votes stayed the same but the other parties total take dropped - hey presto national embarrassment - it's just a shame that the media didn't make more of it to shame people back to the poling booths next time - your vote DOES make a difference.
5) Distrust of politicians - it's an old problem but the recent scandals and subsequent vacillations around what the rules should be is just stupid. There's a set of rules at the moment - those set out by the Inland Revenue for all businesses which everyone (except MPs) have to abide by. Why on earth aren't these being applied to the MPs? Just define them as businesses with a clear set of objectives and hey presto you have a fair. policed, proven set of rules which are equally applied to the populous and the rulers.

So what to do about it? Goodness only knows but I do know that it will be an uphill and long battle to get more than 50% - 75% of the population voting. Suggestions I would make:
1) Sort the expenses
2) Open up as many lines of communication as possible from me to my rep
3) Reduce the spin and in return throttle back on the howls of outrage if someone changes their mind - I adapt my personal position as time goes on / event change why can't we allow our MPs to do the same?
4) Have a LOT more referendums - not legally binding but use internet / phone voting (automated) to make it cheep - on the main issues of the week / month. Have a people's vote which is shown alongside the polititions vote - if they diverge too many times question why. Note that I am not saying here that we should always be right - those in the Houses of Commons should have more information that I do on stuff as well as more time to investigate it so should be more capable of making the right decision - especially if it is a hard one. We can't always have what is best for us personally.
5) For the "peoples' vote" idea link votes to small loyalty payments / points / entry into a draw etc - incentives to vote. Drive some habit and engagement into the process. If we are a) more informed and b) more used to voting we are more likely to actually vote in the election. If we link a vote to a bank account that will at least ensure that only "real" people get to vote rather than having a massive raft of made up people. There could be issues with people who don't have a bank account (I wonder how many there are - maybe it would force the banks to actually allow people to have an account who can't get one??). I'm not sure how to stop people casting multiple votes because they've got multiple accounts....Something in there about the electoral role?
6) Find some way to allow people to caste their vote in the general election on the move - apps, phone votes, red button, internet etc. I know this carries a risk of both high costs and fraud but the banks manage it so why can't the government? I only just managed to Vote last time as I had an early meeting and stuff when on all day so I squeaked in with 10 mins to spare at the end of the day - and I'm very committed to voting (not sure that this would have carried any weight with any passing speed cop though! )
7) Find some way to get easy to understand information direct to the population without using "media" - the stuff that normally comes out is so weighty and hard to digest that you've got to be 100% committed to get through it so we allow the media to explain it. Hence they control the flavour of information as well as the agenda. Not healthy I fear.

Anyway that was meant to be a short reply on the AV stuff but I wandered off a bit (I'm not in favour of the AV - it's a distraction and is a sop to the Lib Dems not being allowed to push for PR).

Miles

 

[RogerS]

Good points, Miles. Item 2 - communication with your MP - I think that there already are well-established lines of communication.

 

[miles_hot]

Good points, Miles. Item 2 - communication with your MP - I think that there already are well-established lines of communication.

True, there may be but are they as fulsome as they could be in the modern age? I had to have a search to find who my local MP actually is (my essay prompted me to work out why I wasn't engaging. He's got a site, a twitter feed (one every few weeks) and the normal letters etc. I can email him etc. All good stuff and to be commended. I found mention of an app for the iphone which would allow MPs to post things but only to people with a iphone (no intention of supporting Android). So it seems that many of the possible channels are open - I'll be interested to see if he replies to an email I sent and how much interesting stuff comes over on Twitter.
Miles