...does what it says on the tin. AV / FPTP : comments.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
2
|
3 |
4
|
5
|
||
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
My most major concern of all is perhaps somewhat cynical: politicians could pretend that AV had given voters fuller control over who represented them and therefore try to shift blame for mishaps onto the electorate. As things stand, both the public and other politicians seem to blame the politicians, with notable exceptions such as the Don't blame me I didn't Vote Boris merchandise which implicitly criticises other voters. If we had AV, how likely would complex excuses like "It's not our fault — 37% of the electorate placed XYZ party in first-, second- or third-preference position and their influence stopped us doing the right thing." become? If the electorate doesn't understand the nuances of the voting system, does it become easier to shift blame onto them?
Another concern is that it's currently simple to compare results between the polls in different seats of one general election, or between the same seat in consecutive general elections. AV obfuscates this. By some metric or another, practically anyone could claim their level of support had improved. This would be a fairly unattractive pissing contest even between the main parties, but what would the effect be when, say, the BNP claimed that 40% of the population had voted for them (…at any preference position)?
Moreover, even though we'd be no more likely to see extremist candidates winning, the share of first-preference votes enjoyed by the extremists would surely likely increase? AV makes extremist protest voting much easier.
Another issue is that we do have a high level of tactical voting in the UK. Though it might be argued that AV reduces the need for tactical voting, I didn't spot Dr Renwick providing any evidence that it would reduce the actual incidence. I'm not sure what the risks are of 20% of the population attempting to vote tactically under AV. And the consequences could then play into my first concern.
Also overlooked are appeals to more emotive concerns such as tradition on the one hand or being perceived as backward by the rest of the EU on the other.
(no subject)
I think that's a GOOD thing, and thus a Feature of AV. It would be great if everyone with non-mainstream views got to express them in elections, even if their vote ends up being counted for the mainstream party they least hate in the end anyway. That would allow us to get a better idea of what the electorate really want (which is probably "a wide variety of different and non-compatible things").
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
What would that influence be? I mean, if we still have a majority Government, that Government has the power to get things done, without being able to blame anyone else, surely?
Moreover, even though we'd be no more likely to see extremist candidates winning, the share of first-preference votes enjoyed by the extremists would surely likely increase? AV makes extremist protest voting much easier.
Even though this information would worry me, I'm not sure why we're better off if the information is hidden. If X % of the population would prefer the BNP first, we might as well know it. (We both agree that this won't lead to an increase in seats, so that's okay.)
Regarding tactical voting - given that most people seem completely unaware that tactical voting is possible under AV; and even out of those of us who do know, many would be unwilling to gamble the risk of getting it wrong, I'd be surprised if the number of tactical votes was anywhere remotely near 20%.
(no subject)
Personally, I would rather that BNP supporters felt lonely and isolated, rather than having delusions of grandeur. The moment the BNP in the UK thinks it's got a fighting chance of replicating le Pen's small but significant victories in France, they might suddenly turn out to be right.
(From this you can tell that I take a pragmatic view of democracy: it's a means to an end, not the end in itself. An electoral system that lets the BNP gain power is a wrong electoral system, even if that's the clearly-expressed will of an outright majority of the population. (-8 )
While right now the average person isn't aware that tactical voting is possible in AV, and it's a fickle business at the best of times. Unfortunately, given the number of people who will believe that there are systems to beat casinos or win the lottery, there will inevitably be people who would believe hogwash articles in the Daily Mail about how to do tactical voting.
(no subject)
Well sure, if there's a Hung Parliament and a coalition, you get influence from the minor parties, but that happens now in a coalition, under FPTP.
But the fact that under AV, the choice of coalition could be decided by looking at the voter preferences seems to me a good thing, not a bad thing. Consider, with the most recent election, on the one hand people claimed the coalition should be with the Tories as they got most votes and seats; on the other hand is the claim that Lib Dems would mostly prefer Labour to Tories, so overall there's more support for a Lab/Lib coalition - under AV, we'd have a much better idea who was right.
That Governments in a coalition can blame the other party seems to me a criticism against coalitions, not AV.
Personally, I would rather that BNP supporters felt lonely and isolated, rather than having delusions of grandeur.
Isn't it better for that then, if, despite a small increase in 1st preferences, they find everyone else has ranked them last?
An electoral system that lets the BNP gain power is a wrong electoral system, even if that's the clearly-expressed will of an outright majority of the population. (-8 )
I feel that FPTP will make it more likely for the BNP to ever get a seat than AV (in a constituency where the BNP have significant support, the problem is that the vote of everyone else is split between several parties, even though all those people might agree on hating the BNP most).
Also your argument only happens to apply against the BNP now; if heaven forbid a fascist party grew enough that it had a chance of forming Government, the reverse would be true: under AV, they'd have less 1st choice votes. Whilst I think it's reasonable to design systems that do things like protecting certain rights and so on (I don't believe in a "true" direct democracy, after all), this needs to be done in a way that does so consistently, rather than picking one that just happens to be bad in some way for one particular party we don't like at the moment. And if we're designing systems to keep the BNP out, we might as well have a system of "The BNP automatically get 0 votes".
While right now the average person isn't aware that tactical voting is possible in AV, and it's a fickle business at the best of times. Unfortunately, given the number of people who will believe that there are systems to beat casinos or win the lottery, there will inevitably be people who would believe hogwash articles in the Daily Mail about how to do tactical voting.
The method of tactical voting that I've seen are also dependent on only a certain number of people voting that way. Under FPTP, you tactically vote for a candidate that you've decided you're happy with. Under AV, you may be tactically voting for a party you don't want to win (the idea is to not let them drop out too soon) - yet too many people do that, and that party does end up winning. So it's unclear to me how you'd get tactical voting to work like that - and if widespread tactical voting ends up with it going disasterously wrong, that in itself will surely put an end to it in future elections.
On top of that, it seems to me that the strategy for tactical voting would be very much dependent on a particular constituency, so it wouldn't work for the Daily Mail to simply tell people who to vote for (well, I suppose they could publish a list of every constituency...)
(And people voting based on what the tabloids tell them happens under FPTP, whether it's allegedly for tactical reasons or not...)
(no subject)
Also: it is legitimate and reasonable for a voter to prefer majority government to coalition. AV doesn't let voters express that, either (though I accept it doesn't militate against majority government in the same way proportional systems do). I'm not sure it's typical (within the UK's political landscape) for coalitions to work as well as the current one.
Isn't it better for [marginalising the BNP] then, if, despite a small increase in 1st preferences, they find everyone else has ranked them last?
I don't think so. AV muddies the waters somewhat: there are a great many factoids one could extract from the typical AV poll, with greater or lesser degrees of statistical legitimacy. For example: most people probably won't rank all the candidates, only their preferred ones, so the BNP wouldn't be ranked last by a large proportion of the electorate. And if people did rank all candidates in order to put the BNP last, the BNP would simply say that a majority of the electorate had listed them as one of their preferred candidates. Or whatever.
Given some of the garbled explanations of AV I've encountered from purported experts in the past few days (even on Radio 4), it's clear that a lot of people — perhaps even most people — don't properly understand AV's mechanism, let alone its practical consequences. It would be pretty easy to pull the wool over people's eyes in making statements about a system they didn't understand.
Worse, it would be pretty easy to convince someone that a result they didn't like had happened for unfair reasons. If the reasoning they used was that AV doesn't satisfy the Condorcet criterion people would have a hard time refuting it.
FPTP is also unfair, but is simple, well understood and well established. AV lacks those countervailing benefits.
And if we're designing systems to keep the BNP out, we might as well have a system of "The BNP automatically get 0 votes".
There are two key pragmatic criteria for an electoral system:
- It seems fair
- It gets a good government
Importantly, "representing the wishes of the people" is not a criterion, except to the extent that it achieves those two objectives. The ideal voting system would be acceptable to everyone, yet would guarantee that the BNP couldn't get elected no matter how much support they had.if widespread tactical voting [under AV] ends up with it going disasterously wrong, that in itself will surely put an end to it in future elections
Not necessarily. The compulsive gambler, when faced with a disastrous loss, does not go "I'm no good at this; I should stop". Rather, they think "I think I see where I went wrong; I can make good my losses next time". Especially unwise gamblers double the stakes each time they lose, fallaciously adopting the Martingale system. I'm not quite sure how similar thinking would play out under an AV electoral system, but the results are possibly best observed from the country next door.
On top of that, it seems to me that the strategy for tactical voting would be very much dependent on a particular constituency, so it wouldn't work for the Daily Mail to simply tell people who to vote for (well, I suppose they could publish a list of every constituency...)
They could recommend a nation-wide order in which to rank the parties? "Confused by AV? Want to support traditional family values, curb immigration and stop those filthy poofters taking over our bed-and-breakfasts? Here's how:"