Re: AV: Yes or No?
Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 6:00 pm
A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/
It must be said that your existence provides good evidence that the British public are indeed too stupid for AV.Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Keep up. That was last year.James Robinson wrote:The mega irony is that all these Tory posters are going up all over the place with the slogan: "VOTE FOR CHANGE".
Oh, and do VOTE FOR CHANGE.
Maybe so, but I went past 3 on the way back from work TONIGHT!!!Rhys Benjamin wrote:Keep up. That was last year.James Robinson wrote:The mega irony is that all these Tory posters are going up all over the place with the slogan: "VOTE FOR CHANGE".
Oh, and do VOTE FOR CHANGE.
If we do vote no, which now seems most likely, we will have shown that we don't deserve a better system.Charlie Reams wrote: It must be said that your existence provides good evidence that the British public are indeed too stupid for AV.
I'm not sure you can infer that, Oliver. People may have sound reasons for supporting FPTP, or perhaps they're not comfortable with the alternative being offered (pun not intended). To say people don't deserve a 'better system' is a bit OTT, in my opinion.Oliver Garner wrote:If we do vote no, which now seems most likely, we will have shown that we don't deserve a better system.
Re: The first part (switched off when they got the horse racing bit) - It is trying to say that being part of the coalition is leaving Clegg and co off scot-free despite their ridiculous policies whilst the good ol' Tory's are taking all the blame even though their punitive policies will somehow save the world. Not so. The Lib Dem's popularity is in freefall, and probably rightly so. But as Gowers said in his piece, why should the popular anger surrounding Clegg's tuition fees broken promise shape the country's politics for the next 50-100 years?Rhys Benjamin wrote:
They're certainly keeping quiet about them!Mike Brown wrote:People may have sound reasons for supporting FPTP
Yeah, I'll retract that remark, simply because it lowers myself to the level of various people on both (but mainly the NO) campaigns who have used smear tactics against the opposing view. But those who go on the claims such as that thousands of sick babies may have been saved if we hadn't had this referendum/3rd placers would win (as if an election is somehow a race)/removes omowov to make their decision don't for sure.Mike Brown wrote:I'm not sure you can infer that, Oliver. People may have sound reasons for supporting FPTP, or perhaps they're not comfortable with the alternative being offered (pun not intended). To say people don't deserve a 'better system' is a bit OTT, in my opinion.Oliver Garner wrote:If we do vote no, which now seems most likely, we will have shown that we don't deserve a better system.
Most original.Kai Laddiman wrote:If I could vote, I'd vote "Yes" to AV, with "No" as my second preference.
Basically, idiots vote No, and most people are idiots.Adam Gillard wrote:I know I'm jumping in to this discussion a bit late, but a poll done for The Guardian yesterday (4 May) predicted 68% 'No' and 32% 'Yes'. The poll on this thread (admittedly of 31 people) predicts 84% 'Yes' and 16% 'No'. Quite a discrepancy there. Any thoughts?
ty tyOliver Garner wrote:Most original.Kai Laddiman wrote:If I could vote, I'd vote "Yes" to AV, with "No" as my second preference.
Unless you live in a polling station, the time it takes to write down a few extra numbers isn't going to add significantly to the bother it causes you to vote, when you consider the bother overhead of getting there in the first place. I'm surprised the No Campaign didn't use this though.Ian Fitzpatrick wrote:If AV gets the go ahead, how many people will bother with second, third etc preferences - I'm not sure I would!
If everyone does that then it's the same as FPTP and no candidate is likely to get 50%.
Yeah, it would tie in quite well with their "you're too thick" angle.Jon O'Neill wrote:I'm surprised the No Campaign didn't use this though.
I think the figure here is over 90% .Ian Fitzpatrick wrote:If AV gets the go ahead, how many people will bother with second, third etc preferences - I'm not sure I would!
Countdown-ability correlates to a flair for maths and logical thinking. This in turn is linked to an ability (and willingness) to understand the arguments for/against AV.Adam Gillard wrote:I know I'm jumping in to this discussion a bit late, but a poll done for The Guardian yesterday (4 May) predicted 68% 'No' and 32% 'Yes'. The poll on this thread (admittedly of 31 people) predicts 84% 'Yes' and 16% 'No'. Quite a discrepancy there. Any thoughts?
From my experience of working at election counts here, the figure is nowhere near as high as 90%. 75% would be a generous guesstimate. There doesn't seem to be any official figures available online though, which is a shameLiam Tiernan wrote:I think the figure here is over 90% .Ian Fitzpatrick wrote:If AV gets the go ahead, how many people will bother with second, third etc preferences - I'm not sure I would!
May be slightly different over here with only three main parties. I can see the Lib Dems clearing up as Tories won't second pref Labour and Socialists won't second pref the Tories!Oliver Garner wrote:Only once in 1,500 AV elections in Australia has the third place party won.
No official guessesJames Doohan wrote:From my experience of working at election counts here, the figure is nowhere near as high as 90%. 75% would be a generous guesstimate. There doesn't seem to be any official figures available online though, which is a shameLiam Tiernan wrote:I think the figure here is over 90% .Ian Fitzpatrick wrote:If AV gets the go ahead, how many people will bother with second, third etc preferences - I'm not sure I would!
Yes in some marginal constituencies that will happen. But all the second preferences from the other candidates won't catch somebody in a predominantly Labour or Tory seat. Some people contributing here seem to think that the first round vote is completely discarded when the second round of counting starts.Ian Fitzpatrick wrote:May be slightly different over here with only three main parties. I can see the Lib Dems clearing up as Tories won't second pref Labour and Socialists won't second pref the Tories!Oliver Garner wrote:Only once in 1,500 AV elections in Australia has the third place party won.
Can't believe you're still arguing about this multi-voting bollocks, but if we're appealing to authority then I'll take Ipsos/MORI over a guy who has a rather obvious vested interest.Chris Corby wrote:David Cameron being interviewed by John Humpreys where he put the exact points you were collectively making to Cameron about multi-votes to get the response "You are wrong John. That is actually quite worrying. If the lead brodcaster on the BBC doesn't understand the system, and you are explaining it to the public, that is worrying."
Maybe you should reflect further on that. We've demolished every argument you made, insofar as you made any at all, and you just continued to repeat the same thing over and over. This strategy works pretty well on a certain portion of the electorate, but apparently not so well on C4C.Chris Corby wrote:Cannot believe that the voters of UK Ltd. have more sense than most of the contributors to this debate on here.
David Cameron is, after all, an independent and omniscient arbiter of all arguments on voting reform. It's completely impossible that he would lie to confuse the public.Chris Corby wrote:I actually was on holiday with a relative who was all for AV until we had a long discussion over a beer (if only we could have done that here) on how it worked. It took ages to convince him it was bollocks, but convince him I did. However, I cannot have a go too much. I had to laugh on Tuesday morning listening to me, sorry I mean David Cameron on Today (around 8.20pm if you want to listen to it on i-player) being interviewed by John Humpreys where he put the exact points you were collectively making to Cameron about multi-votes to get the response "You are wrong John. That is actually quite worrying. If the lead brodcaster on the BBC doesn't understand the system, and you are explaining it to the public, that is worrying."
Is it remotely possible that saying he agreed with you was the only alternative to slitting his wrists?Chris Corby wrote: I actually was on holiday with a relative who was all for AV until we had a long discussion over a beer (if only we could have done that here) on how it worked. It took ages to convince him.
Yes, I accept John Humphrys got it wrong (2:22:30), but here's a transcript:Chris Corby wrote:I had to laugh on Tuesday morning listening to me, sorry I mean David Cameron on Today (around 8.20pm if you want to listen to it on i-player) being interviewed by John Humpreys where he put the exact points you were collectively making to Cameron about multi-votes to get the response "You are wrong John. That is actually quite worrying. If the lead brodcaster on the BBC doesn't understand the system, and you are explaining it to the public, that is worrying."
Yep, agreed, I think he wanted to get a quick and short rebuttal in and hadn't really thought it through. Either way, having listened to it, I don't get the impression that Cameron "won" that argument at all.Graeme Cole wrote:John Humphrys was indeed wrong - his second preference vote won't count unless and until his first preference is eliminated. I don't know if he misunderstood the rules or he just said the wrong thing
I've never been happy with this particular argument myself. They have over 50% of the counted votes when compared directly against the other candidate in the "final" but if I rank Tory over BNP and they're the final two, neither really have my support.Chris Corby wrote:I appreciate that the AV-ers will say under that system every candidate ends up with over 50%, I agree but it's the way that they get there that I cannot agree with.
I checked this with him. You are right David.David Williams wrote:Is it remotely possible that saying he agreed with you was the only alternative to slitting his wrists?Chris Corby wrote: I actually was on holiday with a relative who was all for AV until we had a long discussion over a beer (if only we could have done that here) on how it worked. It took ages to convince him.
"Disagreed with" is not the same as "demolished" so I accept the former and reject the latter. And for "certain portion" substitute "vast majority".Charlie Reams wrote:Maybe you should reflect further on that. We've demolished every argument you made, insofar as you made any at all, and you just continued to repeat the same thing over and over. This strategy works pretty well on a certain portion of the electorate, but apparently not so well on C4C.Chris Corby wrote:Cannot believe that the voters of UK Ltd. have more sense than most of the contributors to this debate on here.
Michael, thanks for that. A good read, especially the references. Wish I had seen this a week or so ago but the argument is over now I suppose but all this bitching seems to be about the interpretation of whether a ballot paper that shifts from one party to another, maybe several times, is having more than one vote or it is just voting once but indicating other preferences if the favoured candidate cannot win.Michael Wallace wrote: Can't believe you're still arguing about this multi-voting bollocks, but if we're appealing to authority then I'll take Ipsos/MORI over a guy who has a rather obvious vested interest.
Rather proving the NO campaign's pointClive Brooker wrote:I'm prepared to give Cameron the benefit of the doubt on this, and assume that he genuinely doesn't understand how AV works. If so, it's a pity Humphrys made his slip when he did.
"Alternative Vote: so complicated even the Prime Minister doesn't understand it!"Oliver Garner wrote:Rather proving the NO campaign's pointClive Brooker wrote:I'm prepared to give Cameron the benefit of the doubt on this, and assume that he genuinely doesn't understand how AV works. If so, it's a pity Humphrys made his slip when he did.
You can be certain that he knows exactly how it works. That's why he's against it.Clive Brooker wrote:I'm prepared to give Cameron the benefit of the doubt on this, and assume that he genuinely doesn't understand how AV works.
Chris Corby wrote:
When I said to Liam that he did not have the AV system that we were proposing in Ireland he said that I was "wrong". I hesitated to say that he was wrong as he lives there, but apparently only three countries in the world have the AV system that we were proposing and Ireland wasn't one of them. So there. Factually, over 50% of the countries in the world that elect governments have the FPTP system.
Did you not read my reply. When applied to a single-seat election (such as the Presidency) STV is AV.The President is directly elected by secret ballot using the Alternative Vote, the single-winner analogue of the Single Transferable Vote.
Ok, so I was a few years out. I forgot that that the first president was elected unopposed.With such superficial research skills it's no surprise that you can't understand AV. You obviously haven't tried very hard.The first Irish presidential election was held on 14 June 1945
So there.
Made me smile.Liam Tiernan wrote: So there.
I said:Chris Corby wrote:Made me smile.Liam Tiernan wrote: So there.
Liam, this forum is discussing AV when it comes to electing members of our Parliament. Correct me if I am wong but when you do this you use proportional representation, don't you? How you elect your President is not relevant to this discusssion, any more than it is me describing the system as to how the Conservatives or Labour parties here elect their leaders.
You said:Its's a simple system. We've had it here for 80 years. It's really not that difficult to understand.
I said:Really? I thought Ireland had the STV (Single Transferrable Vote) system which is simliar to AV but not the same
You said:Wrong again. It's how our Presidential elections are decided.
I said:but apparently only three countries in the world have the AV system that we were proposing and Ireland wasn't one of them.
You said:The President is directly elected by secret ballot using the Alternative Vote
The first Irish presidential election was held on 14 June 1945
Actually it is, since we're talking about understanding how AV works, but you've chosen to ignore that fact since it no longer suits your purpose.How you elect your President is not relevant to this discusssion
Liam, your selective editing would do a Sun journalist proud. The first time you mentioned AV was in response to the above post. I was talking about a real constituency election result, which you quote suggesting that's what you want to reply to. If you had said "It's a simple system. We have used it to elect the Irish president for 80 years" there would have been no confusion on my part at least. But can we please stop this? Even I'm getting bored and it's not very exciting for the others...Liam Tiernan wrote:Wrong. Since the BNP candidate has now been eliminated, he still has one vote, which has transferred to the UKIP. Its's a simple system. We've had it here for 80 years. It's really not that difficult to understand.What I find difficult to understand is how a party with a 25% share of the vote nationally can end up with less than 4% of the seats.Nationally that adds up to a discrepancy of over 100 seats. And that is a real election result I'm quoting. Can anybody reasonably justify that?Chris Corby wrote:This is a great ding-dong, bringing out the best and worst in all of us. I am genuinely surprised by some of the vitriol spouting forth from our collective mouths. Politics or religion - can't beat it! Back to my real general election result and the BNP "multi-vote" argument. Remember we had this:
LD 16,806 43.7%
Con 14,116 36.7%
Lab 5,061 13.2%
UKIP 1,243 3.2%
BNP 1,213 3.2%
Let's say a voter, we'll call him Jono, goes into vote under the present system and votes BNP. He adds 1 vote to the BNP party and that's it, his election is over. 1213 votes is not enough to take the seat. At the declaration, his one vote is included in the BNP's grand total. Under AV, he votes like this: 1 BNP, 2 UKIP, 3 LAB, 4 LIB DEM and stops there because he can't bring himself to vote Conservative.Counting starts. It is still 1213 votes for BNP (being last in this poll). His BNP vote does not go in the bin but is passed to the UKIP pile. The UKIP vote has now gone up 1. Jono has added 1 vote to BNP and 1 vote to UKIP. Under FPTP the only way this could happen is for one person to vote BNP and another person to vote UKIP. But we haven't stopped there. On the third count, his ballot paper in the UKIP pile is now added to Labour. So far, he has now incremented 3 parties by one vote each. Finally his ballot paper in the Labour pile gets passed to the Lib Dems adding 1 to their total. So his ballot paper has added one vote to four parties, which wil be reflected in the final tallies.
Now to me he has had the power of four voters. But I am keen to listen to arguments why this is not so.
Maybe he does. But I'm sure there are many thousands of highly intelligent people who merely think they do.Liam Tiernan wrote:You can be certain that he knows exactly how it works. That's why he's against it.Clive Brooker wrote:I'm prepared to give Cameron the benefit of the doubt on this, and assume that he genuinely doesn't understand how AV works.
I did, here, in my very next post, in reply to your first assertion that I'd got it wrong. You must have missed it.Chris Corby wrote: If you had said "It's a simple system. We have used it to elect the Irish president for 80 years" there would have been no confusion on my part at least.
Gavin Chipper wrote:I wonder how awkard multi-seat constituency STV ballot papers are in practice. You might have six seats in a constituency and the main parties might all field six candidates. Then you've got all the minor parties and indpendents. That's going to be a pretty big ballot paper.
It's quite interesting looking at that to see how STV works in practice. I suppose my ideal of not having part names listed on ballot papers would require too big a memory feat from voters when you've got all those candidates.Liam Tiernan wrote:The highest number of candidates in the last general election was 18 in the five-seater Wicklow constituency. You' can see here that four of the top five in the first count (i.e. FPTP) got elected. The exception was the Sinn Fein candidate, who like most extremist candidates, struggled to pick up second and subsequent preferences. That's the exact opposite of the argument that AV would greatly favour small extremist parties such as BNP. Incidentally, I've read that under STV the optimum number of seats to ensure as little large-party bias as possible is ten.
Well that's that sorted then.Rhys Benjamin wrote:One more input -
I did a survey today at school with 50 people, and I retired to count the votes. I provided the totals and the reactions were (under First Past The Post) "I'm happy with that." Under Alternative Voting, the reactions were, "that's fucking well messed up, blad, innit, man?"
There was nothing new there that hadn't already been pointed out on here regarding whether AV gives some people more votes.Chris Corby wrote:Michael, thanks for that. A good read, especially the references. Wish I had seen this a week or so ago but the argument is over now I suppose but all this bitching seems to be about the interpretation of whether a ballot paper that shifts from one party to another, maybe several times, is having more than one vote or it is just voting once but indicating other preferences if the favoured candidate cannot win.Michael Wallace wrote: Can't believe you're still arguing about this multi-voting bollocks, but if we're appealing to authority then I'll take Ipsos/MORI over a guy who has a rather obvious vested interest.