Everything.
Dear supporters of AV, let us first clarify that this is not a referendum on ‘Is the current voting system imperfect?’ – It is specifically about gauging the supposed virtues of the alternative vote.
Today we have the first past the post system (“FPTP”). One member from each constituency is elected on the basis of a majority vote. Voters only select one name from amongst the list of the candidates.
Issue here is that this only reflects the views of some, albeit the biggest group, of voters and ignores the other votes, which are “wasted”. It then becomes a question of strategy whereby we as voters simply chose to manipulate the two leading candidates of our constituency to avoid supporting the party we are against rather than “wasting” our vote on the party of our choice which happens to be a laggard. And so the Lib Dems are banished to insignificance with no hope of authority…
But then came the unlikely coalition with the Tories and so here we are discussing the AV to give the plucky little party a chance…
Note: This is not about better representation of the electorate. This is about diluting the gap between the party(s) that gets voted in the one that doesn’t (ever).
In AV, (a) each of us will rate, say 5, candidates for our constituency in an order of preference from 1-5.
(b) Round 1, involves counting the 1 rating received by each candidate. If this leads to a clear majority, the candidate is elected
(c) Otherwise, round 2 takes place, where the bottom candidate is eliminated and his votes are proportionally allocated to the candidates and their 2 Ratings are counted (1 rating being entirely ignored now). If this new count results in a clear leader, he/she is elected
My head hurts from thinking through this process but I’m sure it’s all going to be really simple and transparent.
(d) Otherwise round 3 happens, and so on.
The conclusion of this arithmetic puzzle means that unless (a) is achieved, the result is an aggregation of everyone’s view without actually representing any single one of us. If (a) was to happen it would result in the same outcome as the current FPTP as Rating 1 would be allocated by each of us to the candidate who we are inclined to vote for. Instead we now get through potentially multiple rounds, a result that leaves everyone of us thinking “who ever voted for that guy?” when in fact, no one really did. Yes, very democratic indeed.
When it comes to politicians we tend to either strongly support one side or we pick the lesser of two evils. That one vote is all that counts. If I can barely manage to pick one candidate who I think deserves my support, thinking about 4 others and then their relative merits is meaningless.
The outcome of the AV, was Britain to foolishly adopt it, would mean that our 1 rated candidate would represent our view of who we support but when it comes to rating the others, how many of us are either well informed enough to do so or could be bothered to do anything more than randomly allocate numbers?
This proposed system effectively equates the 1 Rating with 2, 3, 4 or 5 (hence ignoring it in round 2 of the election process) and in the event that a clear candidate does not emerge in round 1 (which the lib dems want) the subsequent rounds will be unrepresentative of voters’ sentiments.
I don’t deny that the current system isn’t infallible, but please do not think that AV is the answer.
A brief look at around got me to consider the Scottish and Welsh system. Consider this as the alternative (to the alternative)…
As per the current FPTP system, we each vote for 1 candidate – the one we actually support. In addition, to avoid wastage of votes, a second “top up allocation” is also nominated to capture a broader view of the electorate’s sentiment.
But of course, the Lib Dems don’t want this! As the third party of recent British Politics, they need the AV to pick up straggling votes accumulated through round 2 or 3 or 4 or beyond.
The referendum is not about fairer representation so don’t vote yes. If you want your voice heard, vote No and campaign for a better system, not the AV system.
Dear supporters of AV, let us first clarify that this is not a referendum on ‘Is the current voting system imperfect?’ – It is specifically about gauging the supposed virtues of the alternative vote.
Today we have the first past the post system (“FPTP”). One member from each constituency is elected on the basis of a majority vote. Voters only select one name from amongst the list of the candidates.
Issue here is that this only reflects the views of some, albeit the biggest group, of voters and ignores the other votes, which are “wasted”. It then becomes a question of strategy whereby we as voters simply chose to manipulate the two leading candidates of our constituency to avoid supporting the party we are against rather than “wasting” our vote on the party of our choice which happens to be a laggard. And so the Lib Dems are banished to insignificance with no hope of authority…
But then came the unlikely coalition with the Tories and so here we are discussing the AV to give the plucky little party a chance…
Note: This is not about better representation of the electorate. This is about diluting the gap between the party(s) that gets voted in the one that doesn’t (ever).
In AV, (a) each of us will rate, say 5, candidates for our constituency in an order of preference from 1-5.
(b) Round 1, involves counting the 1 rating received by each candidate. If this leads to a clear majority, the candidate is elected
(c) Otherwise, round 2 takes place, where the bottom candidate is eliminated and his votes are proportionally allocated to the candidates and their 2 Ratings are counted (1 rating being entirely ignored now). If this new count results in a clear leader, he/she is elected
My head hurts from thinking through this process but I’m sure it’s all going to be really simple and transparent.
(d) Otherwise round 3 happens, and so on.
The conclusion of this arithmetic puzzle means that unless (a) is achieved, the result is an aggregation of everyone’s view without actually representing any single one of us. If (a) was to happen it would result in the same outcome as the current FPTP as Rating 1 would be allocated by each of us to the candidate who we are inclined to vote for. Instead we now get through potentially multiple rounds, a result that leaves everyone of us thinking “who ever voted for that guy?” when in fact, no one really did. Yes, very democratic indeed.
When it comes to politicians we tend to either strongly support one side or we pick the lesser of two evils. That one vote is all that counts. If I can barely manage to pick one candidate who I think deserves my support, thinking about 4 others and then their relative merits is meaningless.
The outcome of the AV, was Britain to foolishly adopt it, would mean that our 1 rated candidate would represent our view of who we support but when it comes to rating the others, how many of us are either well informed enough to do so or could be bothered to do anything more than randomly allocate numbers?
This proposed system effectively equates the 1 Rating with 2, 3, 4 or 5 (hence ignoring it in round 2 of the election process) and in the event that a clear candidate does not emerge in round 1 (which the lib dems want) the subsequent rounds will be unrepresentative of voters’ sentiments.
I don’t deny that the current system isn’t infallible, but please do not think that AV is the answer.
A brief look at around got me to consider the Scottish and Welsh system. Consider this as the alternative (to the alternative)…
As per the current FPTP system, we each vote for 1 candidate – the one we actually support. In addition, to avoid wastage of votes, a second “top up allocation” is also nominated to capture a broader view of the electorate’s sentiment.
But of course, the Lib Dems don’t want this! As the third party of recent British Politics, they need the AV to pick up straggling votes accumulated through round 2 or 3 or 4 or beyond.
The referendum is not about fairer representation so don’t vote yes. If you want your voice heard, vote No and campaign for a better system, not the AV system.
Andrew Thornton
ReplyDeleteHi Riddhi, long time no speak, but there's a problem with your notation of "When it comes to politicians we tend to either strongly support one side or we pick the lesser of two evils." AV allows the many people who have done that picking of the lesser two evils to actually show who they really want instead of denying them their right to express their view. It finally shows politicians exactly who or what people are really interested in, instead of allowing them to fanny about ignoring the issue that although they won the 35% of the local constituency vote, almost a third of that came from people who actually wanted something else.oh and I'm not talking about just the lib-dems here, I'm talking about UKIP, the Greens, Plaid Cymru, the SNP, the English Democrats; all of the small parties and the independents who people might actually prefer but feel that they can't vote for them because otherwise their vote is wasted.
When you say that voters get to express their views and politicians have to take notice, I assume you mean this is facilitated by the proposed AV system in the following way: labour or tories, in trying to win round 2/3/4 votes from other supporters, will try to consider broader issues that are otherwise mainly supported by greens, UKIP, etc. Now consider the government we are faced with today. Every Lib Dem ought to be rejoicing. Also along with them, AV "yes" voters ought to be happy too. The current coalition government is a very likely outcome from the proposed AV system were that in place. Yet, Lib Dem supporters despise Nick Clegg accusing him of u-turns. Secondly, the Tories know what the voters want on many issues, most vocally uni fees, yet they choose to ignore them. This experience is going to be the reality of the AV system were it to be voted in. Parties in power within a coalition (more likely in AV) cannot deliver what they promise in their manifesto since compromises have to be made. The british population appears to not be ready for this. And honestly, politicians don't need to deliver on their election promises even if they do pander to broader issues for winning votes. That shouldn't be a shocker. I don't deny that FPTP is flawed but the proposed AV system isn't addressing the very issue that you highlight as a drawback. The proposed AV system is replacing lack of representation with mis-representation. 35% of voter support at least does reflect the views of 35% of the voters. AV blurs the views of individuals to the extent that no single individual is represented so that "35%" that you highlight as being too low just became 0%. If you talked about the Scottish election system I would probably have more trouble criticising that as a means to address the FPTP issue you raised.
ReplyDeleteLet's be serious here, if people give shit about an issue and what their politicians to hear from them, then pick up a pen or email your MP. If not your MP then write to your MEP to harass your MP - I've done that with much ease and a lot of success so there are a lot of ways to get your way in FPTP without compromising transparency. I could go on. A last brief point (or two) - all these people going on about tactical voting in FPTP should realise that in AV, instead of voters have to "waste" votes by voting tactically, now politicians will get tactical by laying claim to issues they don't intend to act on, for the sake of votes. And lastly, don't forget that the reason the Yes campaign is so successful today compared to the NO is because of the funding they have received from the company that counts the votes...thanks for writing and keep in touch. x
Just a couple of factual points (since I'm not at a very usable keyboard):
ReplyDeleteEven if you think AV counting is terribly complicated (and I don't think it's that hard to understand), you don't have to do it. Voters just put their preferences on the paper and leave the returning officers to deal with the adding up.
The proposed system does not include mandatory ranking of all candidates. If you can't decide between some of them, don't make it up. Just leave it blank.
First preference votes are not discarded in subsequent rounds.
There is definitely no way that the winner can be someone that nobody voted for. If there's more than one round then "Who voted for that guy" will be, well, all the people who preferred that guy. Which will be more than the people who preferred the other guy.
Whichever way you vote, there is unlikely to be another opportunity to change the system.