AV: Yes or No?

[Rhys Benjamin]

Your opinions please.

[Jon O'Neill]

I don't really care either way so I'm going to vote for my default political position: whatever David Cameron doesn't want.

[Rhys Benjamin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cmvl3tikUA

[Michael Wallace]

The no campaign is so adorably retarded. I don't really <3 AV especially (I'd much rather something more proportional, but I guess that's never going to happen), but the retardedness of the no lot is quite a good motivator to vote against them.

This is my favourite dissection so far of it.

[Clive Brooker]

I think a "No" result will be interpreted as a ringing endorsement of our existing simple relative majority system. I refuse to call it first past the post since its primary characteristic is the absence of any post which it is necessary to pass.

I suppose the one thing I can say in defence of the current system is that its shortcomings are easily understood. It seems that AV is just as deeply flawed, but in ways that are far less easy to see or predict. This might just be enough to sway me, but I'm pretty sure I'll go for the option that challenges the status quo - wherever that may lead us eventually.

[Craig Beevers]

I'm not sure. As a pure voting system it's no improvement.

Labour are unbelievably unaccountable as it is without having a system like this in place. I mean Labour have just completely fucked the country over for 3 terms and people still vote for them. Would coalitions stifle their incompetence or would it just mean they're constantly in power fucking things up? But hell if another used car salesman had been leader instead of Gordon Brown then Labour would still be in power. Frightening. We Buy Any Car (dot com) could have been running this country.

What we need is a complicated voting system. AV isn't too bad but we need something that will really weed out the morons.

[Gavin Chipper]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cmvl3tikUA

That analogy is an epic fail. The situations have nothing in common.

Try this.

Anyway, I would say that AV is much better than first past the post. Not that it would be my first choice (I know, sorry). It reduces the need to vote tactically. If, say, 40% of people wanted the Tories to win in a constituency and 30% each for Labour and Lib Dem but all of those 60% would put the other one of Labour/Lib Dem ahead of the Tories, I don't see why it's more democratic to have the Tories in. AV would deal with this. Obviously this is massively oversimplified but it also means that someone could vote for a minority party and not have their vote wasted. If hardly anyone else supports them, their second choice will be looked at.

But even for a one constituency/one winner system, AV wouldn't be my preferred method. I think something like Kemeny-Young would be better. If a party gets a lot of second preferences, it might be that they would win in a head to head against any other party but still get knocked out under AV due to the simplistic nature of knocking out parties purely based on the first preferences.

I would want a more proportional system but not one where you end up with party lists. I think larger constituencies that have more than one candidate elected would be the best solution. Obviously there are different ways to determine this - to be discussed in another post! Have a look at this though.

[Ben Hunter]

I'd bet all the money in my bank that Rhys Benjamin won't counter any of the arguments put against him in this thread.

[Soph K]

i dunno, i dont really think much about these votes that only 18+ people can vote on because there's not really any point if you're not 18.

[Gavin Chipper]

I've been thinking about voting methods. In another thread last year I suggested you could have multiple MPs in a constituency but with different voting power depending on how many votes they get (or what scores they get). But that is probably a bit too messy. I'd still go for multiple MPs per constituency but let them have equal power. I would do this:

Let's say there's four MPs to be elected in a constituency (doesn't have to be four - obviously we'd have larger constituencies than now so we don't get too many MPs). Each person can vote for up to four candidates. No ranking, no scoring, just a cross by up to four of them. At that point you definitely do not just add up the crosses for each candidate and work out your top four from that.

In a simplistic case where there are eight candidates - A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H - and 51% of the voters all vote for A, B, C and D and 49% go for E, F, G and H, if you simply add up the crosses, then A, B, C and D would get in, but I don't think it would represent the views of the voters very well. I think a fairer result would be to have two of each of the "groups". What I'd do is plot everyone's vote on a multi-dimensional graph, where each candidate has their own dimension. So if you vote for A, B, C and D your coordinates would be 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0. Then you find the point that minimises the mean squared distances to the votes that is a valid result. In this case, a point with four 0s and four 1s. So although it wouldn't be the mean point, it would be the "meanest" valid point.

Another way of doing it (because it's simpler to show you what would happen in my example) would be to compare each set of four candidates against each voter's selection by counting the different choices. So take A, B, C and D. For the 51% of voters that voted for them, this would get 0 difference. But for the 49% that went for E, F, G and H the difference is 4. Then you find the four that minimises the mean squared difference.

So in our example A, B, C and D would give (51 * 0^2 + 49 * 4^2) / 100 = 7.84. But if you picked two from each "group" - e.g. A, B, E, F, you'd get (51 * 2^2 + 49* 2^2) / 100 = 4. Interestingly giving the two "groups" two each would be the winning option up until 62.5% of people went for one group at which point it would draw with 3 and 1. Above 62.5%, 3 and 1 would win. 4/0 would win after 87.5%. Arguably they are the "right" ratios. Not sure what results the multi-dimensional graph would give so I'll keep my options open for both these methods for the time being.

Edit - Of course we do not have to limit voters to placing the same number of votes as candidates that will be elected. We could allow them to put as many or few Xs as they want and still get a reasonable system out of it.

Under my second adding up system (i.e. not the coordinate system) for each possible set of four candidates you would just see how many aren't on each voter's list and that would be the number you square. Actually for people who use fewer than four votes, I think you'd do it the other way round and see how many on their list aren't on the set of four.

Under the coordinate system, you might want to "weight" the coordinates when people use different numbers of votes but I'm not entirely sure what results it would produce under what circumstances at the moment.

[Clive Brooker]

i dunno, i dont really think much about these votes that only 18+ people can vote on because there's not really any point if you're not 18.

I disagree. If you have an opinion, you can post it on a forum like this one, where it can be read by any number of people. If it's sufficiently persuasive, you may influence the destination of many votes, in which case you've achieved far more than anyone ever does by casting his or her own single vote.

[David Williams]

I think AV would be fine for, say, a national vote for who is PM. But in a general election we are voting for both the national government and a constituency MP. Lib Dems will be the second choice of a lot of people. No-one's going to have a problem with a Lib Dem looking after the constituency, and one less vote in parliament for "the other lot" increases the chances of "our lot" being in power. But you can think all that and still think a Lib Dem government is the worst outcome of all.

And for me PR is the worst of the lot. We have 10 MEPs round here. No-one could name a single one. Eight of them, to all intents and purposes, are chosen by their political parties. Not my idea of democracy.

Not that FPTT doesn't have just as many deficiencies, of course. Some sort of amalgamation of anarchy and military dictatorship seems to be the best way. It would be a lot cheaper than what we do now, and life would just go on for most people.

[Craig Beevers]

And for me PR is the worst of the lot. We have 10 MEPs round here. No-one could name a single one. Eight of them, to all intents and purposes, are chosen by their political parties. Not my idea of democracy.

Democracy is a load of bollocks anyway. But aside from that do you think having a system where the elected party gets to fiddle the boundaries in their favour is a good one? Or in a more sense, where getting around 20% of the vote means you get less than 10% of the MPs, yet 35% can give you a massive majority? Or how about when Labour won after getting less votes than the Tories?

We don't get to elect who's in the cabinet. We don't have a say in so many other things. Democracy only ever works up to a point and as it happens PR is more democratic than the other two systems being talked about. But far more importantly it's a lot better and more representative. Whether the results would be any better is another matter because it would result in lots of coalitions again.

[Soph K]

i dunno, i dont really think much about these votes that only 18+ people can vote on because there's not really any point if you're not 18.

I disagree. If you have an opinion, you can post it on a forum like this one, where it can be read by any number of people. If it's sufficiently persuasive, you may influence the destination of many votes, in which case you've achieved far more than anyone ever does by casting his or her own single vote.

oh. well anyway, this morning i asked my mum all about it and now i understand it - we are voting to change (or not to change) to a different voting system when voting for a prime minister and now i think YES!

[Gavin Chipper]

Democracy is a load of bollocks anyway.

Well yeah, to an extent. You can't really trust the population to elect the "best" people. But is there a better way?

We don't get to elect who's in the cabinet.

No. We could do away with it. I think Parliament could be totally reorganised. I don't like the idea of "parties" for one thing. Well, I think it's fine for people to join organisations where they agree with most of the ideologies, but what organisation they join shouldn't have any official standing in Parliament. Parties shouldn't be mentioned on ballot papers. Candidates stand as individuals and enter Parliament as individuals. And I don't think there needs to be such a hierarchy in Parliament. We certainly don't need a "leader". Within Parliament they could elect spokespeople on certain matters but they don't need to have any more power than the others.

Obviously without such a hierarchical structure you'd need to work out exactly how a motion gets to be voted on etc. but it's not the end of the world. MPs could just put their name to certain things and if there's enough names, it gets debated and voted on.

[Martin Bishop]

This is my favourite dissection so far of it.

That is a very good explanation. My only concern is that it puts Simon Cowell on the side of good.

I really hate the No argument that you can finish third and still win. If you win you finish first, that's what winning means. The argument basically boils down to "If you change the rules, you might occasionally get a different result" - well duh, why change the rules otherwise?

FPTP supporters basically see elections as a competition of who can get the most votes, when it should be an exercise in charting the opinions of the electorate.

[Clive Brooker]

Have you seen the picture where No2AV imply the winner can be the one who finished last? It would be nice to hear someone from No2AV being asked to explain how that can happen.

[Gavin Chipper]

By the way, does anyone know exactly what system the Lib Dems would adopt if they could choose any of them? Obviously a more proportional system, but there are several of them I think.

Edit - http://www.libdems.org.uk/news_detail.a ... 12c33044fa

“Only the Single Transferable Vote in multi-member seats would abolish MPs’ meal tickets for life," said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary.

OK. (This was the best I could find.)

[Ryan Taylor]

Have you seen the picture where No2AV imply the winner can be the one who finished last? It would be nice to hear someone from No2AV being asked to explain how that can happen.

To be fair, I think the majority of the UK probably don't understand AV or care too much whereas on this forum it's not exactly representative of the UK population. So basically, AV is getting dissected on this forum and people who post in this topic have views on it wheras the NO to AV leaflets and stupid video's will probably do the trick and hoodwink a lot of people into thinking "wow AV is bloody silly if the winner doesn't even win" and therefore vote NO. Maybe this is who the NO campaign are targeting? Then again, how many of these people would actually vote.

Not that relevant but I fall into the category of not really caring about anything political wise, it doesn't interest me and I don't see the point. Maybe I will show an interest in a few more years time but I'm pretty sure I'll just remain in this scummy band of English citizens who are apathetic with politics, don't understand politics and therefore get sneered at by the likes of people on this forum. So yeah, I won't be voting on May 5th.

[Gavin Chipper]

Not that relevant but I fall into the category of not really caring about anything political wise, it doesn't interest me and I don't see the point.

Regardless of political considerations, I find voting systems interesting on a geeky level and I find some of them more pleasing than others. Neither First past the post or AV particularly excite me, but I prefer AV.

Edit - Just found this by the way. Much more reasonable than the silly sports day analogy.

[Ryan Taylor]

Not that relevant but I fall into the category of not really caring about anything political wise, it doesn't interest me and I don't see the point.

Regardless of political considerations, I find voting systems interesting on a geeky level and I find some of them more pleasing than others. Neither First past the post or AV particularly excite me, but I prefer AV.

Oh yeah I can udnerstand that too. That's cool.

I should have stated really that I didn't mean not see the point in politics altogether, what I really meant is that I understand why politics exists and is needed and other things on a basic level but what I don't see the point in is why I should bother. Like I can't change things on my own so I just don't even bother in the first place. If that makes any sense...probably not.

[Mike Brown]

I should have stated really that I didn't mean not see the point in politics altogether, what I really meant is that I understand why politics exists and is needed and other things on a basic level but what I don't see the point in is why I should bother. Like I can't change things on my own so I just don't even bother in the first place. If that makes any sense...probably not.

If we didn't choose the politicians, who would? And if enough people think the same way, things can be changed - although I accept that's probably quite a rare occurrence! I definitely think it's worth voting (despite the fact that many people feel disenfranchised by the current system), although I'm not in favour of making it compulsory. And just to keep this post completely on-topic, I'll be voting 'no', despite often voting for one of the lesser parties. I might be in favour of some kind of electoral reform, but not the one that's on offer here - it just seems too unwieldy, expensive and might (although I'm not sure about these) lead to weaker governments and allow some rather dubious minorities a voice.

[Martin Bishop]

And just to keep this post completely on-topic, I'll be voting 'no', despite often voting for one of the lesser parties. I might be in favour of some kind of electoral reform, but not the one that's on offer here - it just seems too unwieldy, expensive and might (although I'm not sure about these) lead to weaker governments and allow some rather dubious minorities a voice.

Which dubious minority might that be? The Lib Dems?

Under FPTP I can definitely imagine the BNP getting 25% of the vote and winning a seat. But 50%? Not a chance.

On the expense front, the Australians count their AV votes by hand. You don't need George Osborne's £130m counting machines.

[Mike Brown]

Which dubious minority might that be? The Lib Dems?.

On the expense front, the Australians count their AV votes by hand. You don't need George Osborne's £130m counting machines.

No, but we'll probably get them. (or should that be ?)

[Richard Adams]

Are any of you yes voters swayed by Danny Finkelstein's principal objection to AV, which is that 'the system gives my fourth preference the same weight as someone else’s first preference'?

I believe AV accounts for Ed Miliband having beaten his brother, despite having been nowhere in the initial rounds of voting.

Finkelstein reckons that AV swaps some of the disadvantages and unfairnesses of the current system for one that is even worse.

[Gavin Chipper]

Are any of you yes voters swayed by Danny Finkelstein's principal objection to AV, which is that 'the system gives my fourth preference the same weight as someone else’s first preference'?

Not really. When it comes down to it, if the party that would win under first past the post ultimately loses in the final head to head, it's because more people would rather the other party won the the FPTP winner. So what if it might be my fourth choice? The FPTP winner must be at best my fifth choice! Edit - the point being here that you can look at it as comparing a party that someone really wants to get in against a party that someone else doesn't really want to get in very much, but by doing this you'd be ignoring how much the person using his fourth choice probably dislikes the other person's first choice so this is their vote against that party as much as it is a vote for their fourth choice.

It also reduces the need for tactical voting. Under FPTP, many people might actually vote for their fourth choice (certainly second or third) anyway because it's the only chance they might make a difference.

I don't actually think AV is the best anyway, but first past the post is seriously rubbish. And most of what I have seen from the No campaign involves little more than intellectual dishonesty and deceit.

I believe AV accounts for Ed Miliband having beaten his brother, despite having been nowhere in the initial rounds of voting.

OK.

Finkelstein reckons that AV swaps some of the disadvantages and unfairnesses of the current system for one that is even worse.

Finkelstein can think what he wants. Who is he anyway?

[David Williams]

Are any of you yes voters swayed by Danny Finkelstein's principal objection to AV, which is that 'the system gives my fourth preference the same weight as someone else’s first preference'?

I think there is some merit in the argument, but not a lot. If one of the top two is someone's first preference and the other is their last, whereas I don't like either very much (or even like them both a lot), should my marginal preference for one or the other count for as much? Maybe not, but it's no different to FPTP if there were only two candidates.

[Charlie Reams]

the NO to AV leaflets and stupid video's will probably do the trick and hoodwink a lot of people into thinking "wow AV is bloody silly if the winner doesn't even win" and therefore vote NO. Maybe this is who the NO campaign are targeting?

I'm certain it is. Whatever you think about the politics of Cameron et al, they are for the most part highly intelligent people and there's no way they buy their own extremely poor arguments against AV. They may genuinely believe some more subtle arguments and feel like the general public is too stupid to understand them, or maybe they're just looking out for whatever's good for their party in the short term. My only hope is that there is some correlation between having a clue and bothering to vote.

[Ryan Taylor]

the NO to AV leaflets and stupid video's will probably do the trick and hoodwink a lot of people into thinking "wow AV is bloody silly if the winner doesn't even win" and therefore vote NO. Maybe this is who the NO campaign are targeting?

I'm certain it is...My only hope is that there is some correlation between having a clue and bothering to vote.

There must be. Everyone who does have a clue will definitely vote leaving those that don't have a clue the task of having to make their way to a polling station to vote on something that they don't care about and therefore will come to the conclusion of not bothering. Obviously this is just pure speculation but I reckon there must be some stats to back it up somewhere. If not, WHY NOT?!

[Mike Brown]

I'm certain it is. Whatever you think about the politics of Cameron et al, they are for the most part highly intelligent people and there's no way they buy their own extremely poor arguments against AV. They may genuinely believe some more subtle arguments and feel like the general public is too stupid to understand them, or maybe they're just looking out for whatever's good for their party in the short term. My only hope is that there is some correlation between having a clue and bothering to vote.

Do I take it you're for AV, Charlie? If so, i'd like to hear your arguments, as you have this habit of making me think hard when I read your posts.

[Charlie Reams]

Do I take it you're for AV, Charlie? If so, i'd like to hear your arguments, as you have this habit of making me think hard when I read your posts.

Well, thanks for the compliment! Now you've let yourself in for some real tl;dr.

I am pro-AV although I think it's only a small improvement over FPTP (a horrible misnomer) and therefore I'm not a huge evangelist for the cause; it's more the blatant dishonesty of the No campaign that's irked me. The main factor for me is that AV greatly reduces the significance of tactical voting, and allows people to more honestly represent their preferences. It's all well and good to say "well don't vote tactically, vote honestly!" (and I try to follow that) but wouldn't it be nicer to have a system where there was no conflict?

The three misleading anti-AV arguments that I've heard the most are:

1) "It's expensive." The £250M figure is based on some hugely disingenuous accounting. A more realistic number, even using the No campaign's own figures, is £26M: about 50p per person. And that's mostly allocated to educating people to use the new system. If AV can stand on its other merits, then the cost shouldn't be a significant brake.

2) "AV empowers extremist parties." (People always say BNP but it's just as beneficial to the extreme left.) This is unpersuasive to me, because if 51% of people want to give their approval to the BNP then, well, you gotta let them have their way if you really believe in democracy. If that were to happen, which I sincerely doubt, then the mainstream parties would need to take a good look at what they were doing to create those attitudes in the first place. It's not good enough to just create a system which effectively burns the "extremist" vote, especially since that's such a subjective judgment in the first place.

3) "It's too complicated." This is just insulting. Even for people who are somehow too stupid to understand the vote counting system, it isn't hard to actually cast a ballot. Everyone from politicians to comedians has been adopting the tactic of deliberately explaining it in a complicated way, and then saying "ta-da, it's complicated!" That's just BS because you can explain multiplication in a way that would leave most people baffled, and that doesn't prove anything. You should be judging by the simplest available explanation, not the most complicated.

There are lots more that I could easily strawman. The only point I really concede is that AV would create more coalition governments. In my opinion that's true but not a big problem. Lib-Con is going okay and that's about the most difficult coalition you can imagine. Either way it doesn't outweigh the many advantages.

Anyway a lot of this stuff has been said before by other people and probably better. In particular, this is a really exhaustive treatment of just about every pro and con of both systems. Worth a read no matter your current perspective.

[Craig Beevers]

2) "AV empowers extremist parties." (People always say BNP but it's just as beneficial to the extreme left.) This is unpersuasive to me, because if 51% of people want to give their approval to the BNP then, well, you gotta let them have their way if you really believe in democracy. If that were to happen, which I sincerely doubt, then the mainstream parties would need to take a good look at what they were doing to create those attitudes in the first place. It's not good enough to just create a system which effectively burns the "extremist" vote, especially since that's such a subjective judgment in the first place.

Indeed. Unless their definition of empowering is to get more votes in the early rounds before inevitably being eliminated. The middling parties would be much more likely to pick up 2nd and 3rd preferences - Lib Dems I think would gain the most because they'd probably be either 1st or 2nd choice from the main three parties in the UK. If you're polarising opinion you're generally going to be 1st or last preference for people, not good when you need over half the vote - compared to FPTP where you could sneak in as MP with 20%. I think AV would make it much less likely that the BNP would get an MP. Some small parties would gain from the reduction of tactical voting. I think under AV you'd perhaps get some fluke situations where say a Green candidate did really well with the aid of "anyone but the Tories" vote.

[Liam Tiernan]

The main factor for me is that AV greatly reduces the significance of tactical voting, and allows people to more honestly represent their preferences. It's all well and good to say "well don't vote tactically, vote honestly!" (and I try to follow that) but wouldn't it be nicer to have a system where there was no conflict?

What's so wrong about tactical voting? In the General Election a couple of months back, both my first and second choice candidates were pretty much odds-on to be elected, (in a 3-seater constituency) so I switched my first preference vote to the candidate who seemed most likely to challenge the one guy I didn't want to get elected. Pity it didn't work, but it was much closer than the pre-election polls predicted, so I'm sure I wasn't the only one voting that way.

[Charlie Reams]

The main factor for me is that AV greatly reduces the significance of tactical voting, and allows people to more honestly represent their preferences. It's all well and good to say "well don't vote tactically, vote honestly!" (and I try to follow that) but wouldn't it be nicer to have a system where there was no conflict?

What's so wrong about tactical voting?

Because it turns the act of voting into a complicated game of second-guessing everyone else, rather than a representation of what individuals actually want. Even the concept of a "wasted vote" is wrong-headed; as an example, if the Greens were getting 10% of the vote then, even though they'd never get elected, you'd soon see (some of) their policies being adopted into the mainstream parties. And that's exactly how democracy should work. Nevertheless this is a slow and subtle effect and it would be better to have a voting system which reflects the fact which is acknowledged in every other area of life: people may have various levels of preference.

[Gavin Chipper]

The only point I really concede is that AV would create more coalition governments. In my opinion that's true but not a big problem. Lib-Con is going okay and that's about the most difficult coalition you can imagine. Either way it doesn't outweigh the many advantages.

A lot of people have said that it will create more coalition governments, so someone must have done their homework on it, but intuitively (to me) it wouldn't make that much difference. You're still electing one person per constituency and ignoring the rest (however things are added up to achieve this), and that to me was always the number one reason why FPTP doesn't have many coalitions.

Anyway, although I'm not sure everyone would agree that the current coalition is "going okay", I disagree that a "strong government" is a good thing. A system that enables a party to have a majority in Parliament despite not having a majority of the votes isn't really very democratic. People might like it because it's "strong" but then why not do away with democracy altogether and have a nice strong dictatorship?

What's so wrong about tactical voting?

Because it turns the act of voting into a complicated game of second-guessing everyone else, rather than a representation of what individuals actually want.

And it's not that it's wrong for an individual to vote tactically; it's wrong to have a system that makes it beneficial to do so. (It may be impossible to eliminate this entirely but you can greatly reduce the need.)

[Soph K]

Forget all those tiny little unimportant details that you think are important - just say: YES TO AV! YES TO AV! YES TO AV! YES TO AV!

[Rhys Benjamin]

NO TO AV! NO TO AV!

Disease and deprivation stalk our land like 2 giant stalking things. AV will be a third.

[Soph K]

NO TO AV! NO TO AV!

Disease and deprivation stalk our land like 2 giant stalking things. AV will be a third.

i did YES TO AV more times than you so so there i win!

[Phil Reynolds]

I'd bet all the money in my bank that Rhys Benjamin won't counter any of the arguments put against him in this thread.

NO TO AV! NO TO AV!

You owe Ben all the money in his bank. (Note: all the money in his bank, not in his bank account.)

[Craig Beevers]

The only point I really concede is that AV would create more coalition governments. In my opinion that's true but not a big problem. Lib-Con is going okay and that's about the most difficult coalition you can imagine. Either way it doesn't outweigh the many advantages.

A lot of people have said that it will create more coalition governments, so someone must have done their homework on it, but intuitively (to me) it wouldn't make that much difference. You're still electing one person per constituency and ignoring the rest (however things are added up to achieve this), and that to me was always the number one reason why FPTP doesn't have many coalitions.

Anyway, although I'm not sure everyone would agree that the current coalition is "going okay", I disagree that a "strong government" is a good thing. A system that enables a party to have a majority in Parliament despite not having a majority of the votes isn't really very democratic. People might like it because it's "strong" but then why not do away with democracy altogether and have a nice strong dictatorship?

It wouldn't make a huge difference in terms of seats, I think mainly it would boost the number of seats the Lib Dems get - because as mentioned before they'd pick up a lot of 2nd/3rd preferences. So that's where you'd get more hung parliaments. Basically the Lib Dems could end up being in power (albeit in a coalition) as much as Labour or the Tories. This is where the big difference is. The Lib Dems could have a lot of situations similar to the last general election where despite being the 3rd party they're a certainty to be part of any coalition, so they would have quite a lot of power and influence.

[Martin Bishop]

I believe AV accounts for Ed Miliband having beaten his brother, despite having been nowhere in the initial rounds of voting.

David Miliband won the AV vote of Labour members and Labour MPs. The reason Ed won overall was the support of the unions.

I can't be bothered to check the numbers, but let's take the probably inaccurate position that those who voted for Diane Abbott swung the final vote to Ed. It's an argument I've heard before - that the people who held opinions that were the least valid of the lot ended up deciding the election. The logic goes that if you're mad enough to vote for Abbott, you don't deserve to pick a Miliband.

Under FPTP, I would assume most of those voters would have voted whether Diane stood or not. If her voters were that crucial to the final result, then a FPTP election would have been entirely decided by Diane Abbott. If she decides to stand, David wins. If she decides not stand, Ed wins. I don't think that's any fairer.

[Rhys Benjamin]

I'd bet all the money in my bank that Rhys Benjamin won't counter any of the arguments put against him in this thread.

NO TO AV! NO TO AV!

You owe Ben all the money in his bank. (Note: all the money in his bank, not in his bank account.)

I'm not done yet! I'm writing a VERY BIG draft.

[Lesley Hines]

There's a Newsnight special starting on it in 15 mins (22:30) on BBC2 If that's past your bedtime there'll be the repeat on iPlayer for a while.

[Mike Brown]

Thanks Charlie (and others). You've certainly given me plenty to think about. I think I've heard more reasoned debate on here than anywhere else, tbh. And I must try and catch that Newsnight programme on iPlayer. (Where's BBC2+1 when you need it? )

[Michael Wallace]

Where's BBC2+1 when you need it? )

You mean BBC3?

[Ryan Taylor]

Where's BBC2+1 when you need it? )

You mean BBC3?

A-lol! No but seriously?

[Charlie Reams]

The only point I really concede is that AV would create more coalition governments. In my opinion that's true but not a big problem. Lib-Con is going okay and that's about the most difficult coalition you can imagine. Either way it doesn't outweigh the many advantages.

A lot of people have said that it will create more coalition governments, so someone must have done their homework on it, but intuitively (to me) it wouldn't make that much difference. You're still electing one person per constituency and ignoring the rest (however things are added up to achieve this), and that to me was always the number one reason why FPTP doesn't have many coalitions.

I think the logic is that minority parties are more likely to get a few seats, increasing the probability of "rainbow coalitions" as are common in, for example, Israel.

Anyway, although I'm not sure everyone would agree that the current coalition is "going okay", I disagree that a "strong government" is a good thing.

I didn't mean to imply they're super popular or anything, but I haven't seen any evidence of the slow decision making or other issues that people predicted at the start. The problems they've faced (and caused) are pretty much the same as a non-coalition Tory government would've done.

A system that enables a party to have a majority in Parliament despite not having a majority of the votes isn't really very democratic. People might like it because it's "strong" but then why not do away with democracy altogether and have a nice strong dictatorship?

Indeed.

[Ben Hunter]

You owe Ben all the money in his bank. (Note: all the money in his bank, not in his bank account.)

I'm not done yet! I'm writing a VERY BIG draft.

I look forward to not reading it.

[Martin Long]

AV is better than FPTP so I am voting "yes". I don't think it will actually make much difference to election results but its a step in the right direction.

[Charlie Reams]

AV is better than FPTP so I am voting "yes".

Your logic astounds me!

[Gavin Chipper]

You owe Ben all the money in his bank. (Note: all the money in his bank, not in his bank account.)

I'm not done yet! I'm writing a VERY BIG draft.

I look forward to not reading it.

Really? I'm definitely going to read it! I've been looking forward to it.

[Rhys Benjamin]

ARGUMENTS - PART 1
Craig Beevers - I'm not going to delve too much into your webyanycar.com and the Labour party. I understand your point about complications, but my main reason against Alternative Voting is that it is too complicated. Also, bear in mind that I am only 12, and although I am more interested in politics than my peers , my classmates have said that "I want to vote no because the elections will take longer."

Gavin Chipper - Your analogy is not a true analogy. There is not a choice between Parma Violets and dogshite. The choice is between a number of respectable alternatives and less respectable alternatives, and there is no chance of the less respectable political parties (equivalent to the dogshite in your analogy) winning. Under First Past The Post, in the political context, a vote for, say, Labour or Conservative is not going to let in an extremist party (i.e. the dogshite). However, AV gives disproportionate weight to the dogshite vote.

Gavin again - Paragraph 1 - I must have missed that, as I haven't heard of it, but it sounds like a good system, but I can't link it to this debate in any shape or form that's not far-fetched.
The rest - You haven't shown how a scatter graph will show who wins the by-election, and the point about the differences does not make sense. It seems that you are doing it according to letter order. Anyway, how is this order determined? And the difference between 51% and 49% is NOT 4 in the United Kingdom! Your mathematical "proof" is not making too much sense. Despite reading it no less than 36 times, I can't make any sense out of it, only that you wasted server space by explaining a pointless and time consuming graph.

David Williams - I think that you want to change to the American presidential elections, as I see your point about PM's, but only in presidential countries they actually choose the member. In Prime ministerial countries, such as the UK, the Prime Minister and Members of Parliament do not have totalitarianism.

Craig again - Although you have no real point to make, I think that what you're saying is confusing as AV would result in more coalitions as, like David said, a Liberal "Democratic" government would quite possibly be a worst case scenario.

Sophie Krol - You're 10. How long do the current elections take to count up? WAY past your bedtime, and I daresay, many adults on this forum as well. In last years election, when I went to school on Friday morning, the election still hadn't been decided. AV may result in elections taking much, much longer to complete. We may not know who the Prime Minister is (or, since AV will produce more coalitions, was) by Sunday night!

Gavin - I am tempted to say, "are you a disestablishmentist?" You would have quite enjoyed being alive during 1641!

Martin Bishop - The word occasionally is not applicable here. In fact, the Yes campaign admitted that we would be more likely to get a person who did not come first being Member of Parliament! An election should be most votes wins, it's like saying, (excuse the racing terms) "Lewis Hamilton comes first! But...... we're going to say he doesn't win yet because he's not 10 seconds (as an example) ahead of Pastor Maldonado!"

Clive Brooker - It's marginal, but I would say number 211 was last, not the fella in the black waistcoat! (Also, 209 goes over the line with undone shoelaces - but he could still win!)

Gavin (again!) - Er.... The Lib Dems actually wanted this to happen - they started the Yes campaign back in late February, I think.

Ryan Taylor - No real point, just a rant about politics.

Gavin (yet again!) - I also find voting systems interesting on a geeky level, but the video is a bit... er, dodgy. Dan Snow might have told me about The Spanish Armada, but it's clearly poorly scripted and autocued. The "real life" scenarios were better and more understandable under FPTP. Most people did not want to go to the pub, they wanted to go to the coffee shop - 3 votes is quite clearly more than 2 votes.

Mike Brown - That is almost word perfect for what David Cameron said 1 year ago. He said that

I want a certain electoral reform for a certain scheme.

The Lib Dems and their harsh, unfair, coalition policies mean that they wanted AV. Quite frankly, Mike, I couldn't agree with you less except the bit about the lesser parties, (see the dogshite post) but David Von Geyer (controverisal Series 57 "quarter-finalist" (the PARQUETRY one)) heads up the "vote for yourself" campaign. I have contacted him privately and he said he'll vote NO.

Martin Bishop - Even though I have a strong dislike for the British National Party, I would suggest that they got the most votes, so they get the seat. First Past The Post is, as I say, MOST VOTES WINS.
My Australian uncle says that in Australia elections take the longest to count in the world, and since everyone is FORCED to vote, some peoples votes count more than others. Under FPTP, there is one person, one vote.

Richard Adams - Ed Milliband looks like the man who would come round and clean your windows. Under FPTP, David would have won, and I would have preferred that.

Charlie Reams (and Ryan Taylor to an extent) - I know, quite possibly, the stupidest person in the world and he understands. Saying that is like putting wheels on a tomato - useless.

[Ryan Taylor]

ARGUMENTS - PART 1
...

Wow. I'd love to dissect your post here but it's going to be way funnier watching others do it.

[Peter Mabey]

You're never going to be able to find a system to satisfy everybody - especially if you stick to single member constituencies. It is quite likely that a voter will rate A as better than B, and B better than C, but than consider C better than A because they each emphasize different aspects of government.
There was a huge debate in the Electoral Reform Society even before the referendum was proposed, but most members have conceded that it's better to support AV than to hold out for something fairer.
I am now looking forward to the possibility of electing someone who reflects my views in my lifetime, as I was too young to be able to exercise my vote for the Cambridge University seat. (I paid the fee to go on the register, but the seat was abolished before the election )

[Charlie Reams]

Charlie Reams (and Ryan Taylor to an extent) - I know, quite possibly, the stupidest person in the world and he understands. Saying that is like putting wheels on a tomato - useless.

I've made one of the longest and most detailed posts in this thread, so I was expecting a bit more in the way of feedback. Also I have no idea what your point is -- he understands what? AV? Doesn't that contradict your argument that it's too complicated?

You could've saved a lot of time writing such a long post by just writing "I don't like AV because it's worse for the Conservatives", then at least you'd have the benefit of intellectual honesty.

[Michael Wallace]

Rhys - I think your time would be much better spent giving us a blow-by-blow of why Tim Gowers is wrong. Because even though Charlie linked it in this thread, you don't seem to have read it!

Edit: and in case it's too long for you (I know now that you hate to have to stay up late for things), why not focus on the "Some claims by the NO2AV campaign section", since that seems to be mostly all you've 'argued' yourself.

[Oliver Garner]

Found this website supporting the 'No' campaign, which seems to be a little more sophisticated than the stuff we all got in the post, but I guess it doesn't mean that they're any more right.

http://av2011.co.uk/index.html

Dissect away!

[Mike Brown]

I'm actually really surprised that the weight of opinion on here is so heavily in favour of AV. I don't know if it's an age thing or whether I'm hopeless out of touch, but hey ho. It's certainly making me reconsider my choice, though.

And thanks for your feedback, Rhys. I'm not sure I want to be compared to David Cameron and I think I was making a different point to him, anyway. I'm also not sure I agree with your comment about the LibDem policies all being unfair. That would be as opposed to all of those of the Conservative (or Labour) Party, which are scrupulously fair, I suppose? And it's a bit rich saying you "frankly disagree with me almost totally" when you appear to be in favour of a 'no' vote, isn't it? (Yes, you have provoked me into replying!)

[Charlie Reams]

http://av2011.co.uk/index.html

I didn't read a huge amount of this but their argument seems to be that we should reject AV because PR and STV would be better. Whatever you think of that, I'd be fairly confident that if people vote No on the current referendum then that'll be the end of all talk of voting reform for the next 50 years. It'll be seen as total vindication of FPTP.

I'm actually really surprised that the weight of opinion on here is so heavily in favour of AV. I don't know if it's an age thing or whether I'm hopeless out of touch, but hey ho. It's certainly making me reconsider my choice, though.

And thanks for your feedback, Rhys. I'm not sure I want to be compared to David Cameron and I think I was making a different point to him, anyway. I'm also not sure I agree with your comment about the LibDem policies all being unfair. That would be as opposed to all of those of the Conservative (or Labour) Party, which are scrupulously fair, I suppose? And it's a bit rich saying you "frankly disagree with me almost totally" when you appear to be in favour of a 'no' vote, isn't it? (Yes, you have provoked me into replying!)

A very charitable reply.

[Graeme Cole]

Okay, I'll bite.

Martin Bishop - The word occasionally is not applicable here. In fact, the Yes campaign admitted that we would be more likely to get a person who did not come first being Member of Parliament! An election should be most votes wins, it's like saying, (excuse the racing terms) "Lewis Hamilton comes first! But...... we're going to say he doesn't win yet because he's not 10 seconds (as an example) ahead of Pastor Maldonado!"

The No campaign's use of that racing analogy would be funny if there weren't people who actually believe it.

It would be more accurate to say "if AV were applied to a race, the person in third place at the end of the first lap can end up winning the race", but that's a perfectly ordinary description of a race and doesn't achieve the goal of making AV sound silly, so they shorten it to the nonsensical "the person who comes third can win". This does make AV sound silly; the fact that it has the drawback of being wrong doesn't seem to matter to them.

Gavin (yet again!) - I also find voting systems interesting on a geeky level, but the video is a bit... er, dodgy. Dan Snow might have told me about The Spanish Armada, but it's clearly poorly scripted and autocued. The "real life" scenarios were better and more understandable under FPTP. Most people did not want to go to the pub, they wanted to go to the coffee shop - 3 votes is quite clearly more than 2 votes.

Nope. Watch it again. Seven people wanted to go to the pub, but they didn't initially agree on which pub. Three people wanted to go the coffee shop. Under a FPTP-style election, the coffee shop won even though it was contrary to what most of the group broadly wanted.

My Australian uncle says that in Australia elections take the longest to count in the world, and since everyone is FORCED to vote, some peoples votes count more than others. Under FPTP, there is one person, one vote.

Ignoring that compulsory voting is nothing to do with AV (and doesn't give different people's votes different weights anyway), it should be pointed out that AV doesn't give one person more than one vote - it allows you to redirect your vote once your candidate is out of the running. The No literature that's come through my letterbox pleads us to "Keep One Person One Vote", but doesn't specifically say that AV violates this principle. This is because it doesn't. If you're still confused, go and read about AV and try to identify for me exactly where in the process one person's vote has more weight than another's.

On the off-chance your reply is along the lines of "Say you vote for candidate A, B, C and D in that order, and I vote only for candidate A, then if candidate A is eliminated in the first round your vote will subsequently count and mine won't", the rebuttal is as follows: if you only make one preference, you're effectively abstaining from any round after the one where your candidate is eliminated. You could have indicated your preferences between the remaining candidates, but you chose not to. Is FPTP undemocratic because people who choose to vote get more say than those who choose to abstain?

Ed Milliband looks like the man who would come round and clean your windows.

This I agree with.