First Past the Post or Alternative Vote

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Britain has had a referendum on wether or not to change the way votes are counted.

First Past the Post.

The candidate who gets the most votes wins.

Currently used system in Britain

Alternative Vote. (AV)

Candidates are voted in order of preference from 1 (most prefered) to least prefered. Candidates need to get 50% to win. If no candidate gets 50% of the votes, the last candidate drops out and his votes are shared according to the second preference. Then the next last candidate drops out and his votes are shared according to the next lower preference. This carries on until either one candidate gets 50% or there are no more choices to be counted.

This system is used in Australia, Fiji, Papua New Guinea

  Edited May 7, 2011 by Merlin of Flyote  

[jim 546 43]

My view is that the system works, why fix what isn't broken?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

We are first past the post. However, that system looks like it might be slightly better so long as each seat represents a riding that returns a candidate who ran in the election.

Mixed Proportional voting schemes reserve seats for party hacks who haven't actually run, but are appointed by the party. This means there have to be more seats than ridings, and I am against having people in the House that the people haven't had a chance to hear from on the hustings.

Since Britain loves majority governments, how will this system prevent minorities and coalitions? This is the doom of the Israeli parliament, and having a party pull out of coalition, which they often do, causes a government crisis. It is like a drunk staggering from pillar to post.

Besides, in our case, we got a majority with 40% of the votes cast. With three main parties running and some splinters, in theory you need only get around 33% to form a government (minority), so you can easily see how getting around 40% just might be a magic number. The new official opposition got around 30% so the new Parliament here will have representatives of at least 70% of the electorate active, while the rest can either participate in the opposition or not. The electorate this time was around 61% of eligible voters. The only way I can see to fix that is to make voting mandatory.

With first past the post, it is completely understandable, and has been in use since the country was formed, and it works. A few socialists want to change it, but I am not one of them.

[astronelson 339]

I was not aware you are still using FPTP. You'll likely end up with more minor parties gaining seats, depending on how popular the minor parties are. I'll be interested in the result.

My view is that the system works, why fix what isn't broken?

Everything works, for a given value of working. There is a school of thought, which is well-supported, that the Alternative Vote is more representative of the views of the electorate. The system may not be broken, but that doesn't mean it can't work better.

The "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality is an alluring one, until, of course, a lack of maintenance means it breaks entirely. A stitch in time saves nine.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Since Britain loves majority governments, how will this system prevent minorities and coalitions?

With first past the post, it is completely understandable, and has been in use since the country was formed, and it works. A few socialists want to change it, but I am not one of them.

It won't that's why the Lib Dems are pushing for it.

The Labour party is split on the issue, some Conservatives are in favour of AV although most are against, the BNP are against, and so is the British Communist Party aparently (I didn't know that still existed).

It will be interesting to see how the results pan out tonight. Polls shut at 10pm.

  Edited May 5, 2011 by Merlin of Flyote  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Since Britain loves majority governments, how will this system prevent minorities and coalitions?

With first past the post, it is completely understandable, and has been in use since the country was formed, and it works. A few socialists want to change it, but I am not one of them.

It won't that's why the Lib Dems are pushing for it.

The Labour party is split on the issue, some Conservatives are in favour of AV although most are against, the BNP are against, and so is the British Communist Party aparently (I didn't know that still existed).

It will be interesting to see how the results pan out tonight. Polls shut at 10pm.

Well, I hope you voted.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Since Britain loves majority governments, how will this system prevent minorities and coalitions?

With first past the post, it is completely understandable, and has been in use since the country was formed, and it works. A few socialists want to change it, but I am not one of them.

It won't that's why the Lib Dems are pushing for it.

The Labour party is split on the issue, some Conservatives are in favour of AV although most are against, the BNP are against, and so is the British Communist Party aparently (I didn't know that still existed).

It will be interesting to see how the results pan out tonight. Polls shut at 10pm.

Well, I hope you voted.

Yes of course, always do, many people around the world don't have that luxury. Those that do, should.

If you don't vote you can't complain about that which you don't like.

  Edited May 5, 2011 by Merlin of Flyote  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Since Britain loves majority governments, how will this system prevent minorities and coalitions?

With first past the post, it is completely understandable, and has been in use since the country was formed, and it works. A few socialists want to change it, but I am not one of them.

It won't that's why the Lib Dems are pushing for it.

The Labour party is split on the issue, some Conservatives are in favour of AV although most are against, the BNP are against, and so is the British Communist Party aparently (I didn't know that still existed).

It will be interesting to see how the results pan out tonight. Polls shut at 10pm.

Well, I hope you voted.

Yes of course, always do, many people around the world don't have that luxury. Those that do, should.

If you don't vote you can't complain about that which you don't like.

When you can vote and don't you get the government you deserve.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Votes won't be counted until this afteernoon, but polls suggest that First Past the Post will be retained.

Hopefully we will have the result this evening.

And the result is No to AV.

Lib Dems have lost heavily in the local elections where they were held as well.

Scottish National Party holds majority of seats at the Scottish Parliment in Edinburgh for the first time, referendum promissed on independence from the UK within 4 years.

Welsh National Party (Plaid Cymru)lost seats to Labour/Lafur.

  Edited May 6, 2011 by Merlin of Flyote  

[Duke87 1,070]

Even ranking candidates isn't necessarily representative of people's views, since it assumes that the opinions are always evenly spaced. A voter who really loves candidate A and really hates candidate B will get counted the same as a voter who likes candidate A marginally better than candidate B. The logical solution would be to go with a system of "rank these candidates on a scale of 1-10", and just tally up the points. But this wouldn't actually work well in practice (at least not in the US), since the vast majority of voters are likely unfamiliar with any candidate on the ballot who isn't from a major party, and thus has no opinion of them. I, before election day, try to look up information on every candidate to see what I think of them (even the nobodies from minor parties), and would encourage everyone to do likewise... but, sadly, this is decidedly unusual behavior, and the sort of thing that gets you funny looks when you tell people you do it, of the "jeez, what a dork!" variety (or, alternatively, from many people my age around here, "you mean you actually consider voting for Republicans?").

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Even ranking candidates isn't necessarily representative of people's views, since it assumes that the opinions are always evenly spaced. A voter who really loves candidate A and really hates candidate B will get counted the same as a voter who likes candidate A marginally better than candidate B. The logical solution would be to go with a system of "rank these candidates on a scale of 1-10", and just tally up the points. But this wouldn't actually work well in practice (at least not in the US), since the vast majority of voters are likely unfamiliar with any candidate on the ballot who isn't from a major party, and thus has no opinion of them. I, before election day, try to look up information on every candidate to see what I think of them (even the nobodies from minor parties), and would encourage everyone to do likewise... but, sadly, this is decidedly unusual behavior, and the sort of thing that gets you funny looks when you tell people you do it, of the "jeez, what a dork!" variety (or, alternatively, from many people my age around here, "you mean you actually consider voting for Republicans?").

Yes you raise some good points. Luckily the No to AV camp won the day. The Lib Dems who were pushing this also got a drubbing and lost lots of local council seats. They usually come third in National Elections and so would likely have always been the "King Makers". Strangely though they might join Labour in a co-ilition in Wales, where as they are in co-ilition with the Conservatives in England.

Figures realeased are 19.1 million voted with over two-thirds (68%)against AV.

  Edited May 7, 2011 by Merlin of Flyote  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Ah! The "it's not broken, don't fix it" vote.

Somehow its only the third place or lower parties that are interested in this kind of thing.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Ah! The "it's not broken, don't fix it" vote.

Somehow its only the third place or lower parties that are interested in this kind of thing.

Actually it was mainly the third party, the other lower parties were in favour of the first past the post.

  Edited May 7, 2011 by Merlin of Flyote  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

As of last week we only have three official parties. I think only the Greens (one seat) would be interested in anything other than FPTP now. If we had proportional or mixed proportional they would have more seats and we would probably have had another minority mess.

[astronelson 339]

FPTP winning is an interesting result, and one I can't say I agree with or think is the best.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

FPTP winning is an interesting result, and one I can't say I agree with or think is the best.

1. No one has shown it is broken.
   
2. Why play poli-sci games with reality?
   

[astronelson 339]

What definition of "broken" are we using? Providing a government only a minority of the electorate wants is kind of broken, and that is an easily demonstrable possibility with FPTP when more than 2 candidates are running. AV removes the spoiler effect that causes this.

I'm not sure what you mean on the second point - AV works quite well where it is implemented, many of which were formerly parts of the British Empire. It would be replacing one system with another that has shown to be more representative of the views of the electorate.

It appears the "No" side invented some of the figures they were using to convince people to vote for them. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/05/campaign-figure-blunkett

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

I'm not sure what you mean on the second point - AV works quite well where it is implemented, many of which were formerly parts of the British Empire. It would be replacing one system with another that has shown to be more representative of the views of the electorate.

It appears the "No" side invented some of the figures they were using to convince people to vote for them. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/05/campaign-figure-blunkett

You mean Fiji, Australia, Papua New Guinea. Two of which don't want the system.

Could it just possibly be that the majority of voters just weren't interested. In Britain we have a saying "keep it simple stupid" only the Lib-Dems were pushing this and it's not what they really wanted, which was Proportionate Representation which the Conservatives will never go for.

Interesting fact, only 10 places voted in favour of AV:-

Glasgow, Edinburgh, Oxford, Cambridge, and 6 Labour controlled London boroughs.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Interesting. I've found that you do better with KISMIF rather than KISS. Keep It Simple, Make It Fun, works better than the pejorative version. You know you slide much further on meadow muffins than you can on sand paper.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Interesting. I've found that you do better with KISMIF rather than KISS. Keep It Simple, Make It Fun, works better than the pejorative version. You know you slide much further on meadow muffins than you can on sand paper.

I've never heard that one used in Britain.

[astronelson 339]

I'm not sure what you mean on the second point - AV works quite well where it is implemented, many of which were formerly parts of the British Empire. It would be replacing one system with another that has shown to be more representative of the views of the electorate.

It appears the "No" side invented some of the figures they were using to convince people to vote for them. http://www.newstates...figure-blunkett

You mean Fiji, Australia, Papua New Guinea. Two of which don't want the system.

Ah, so all the places where AV is used were parts of the British Empire.

Australia is quite happy with the AV system.

Papua New Guinea changed from FPTP to AV in 2007, entirely because FPTP made their political system rather volatile. I have not found any reports about a dissatisfaction with the change.

Fiji is not a good example. It is accurate to say its government does not want the AV system, but this is merely a side effect that they have not wanted any elections at all, and have not held any since the coup in 2006.

No idea where you're getting "Two of which don't want the system". One of the three likes it, the second changed to AV recently because FPTP was causing major problems, and the third hasn't held elections in 5 years because their government was taken over by the military.

Could it just possibly be that the majority of voters just weren't interested. In Britain we have a saying "keep it simple stupid" only the Lib-Dems were pushing this and it's not what they really wanted, which was Proportionate Representation which the Conservatives will never go for.

It is quite likely that most people weren't interested. It is, after all, quite difficult to get worked up over something that, at first glance, does not seem to change much.

The saying "Keep It Simple, Stupid" is used widely, although numbering candidates in order of preference is not at all difficult or complex. Indeed, you can't order candidates at all using complex numbers, but I digress.

Interesting fact, only 10 places voted in favour of AV:-

Glasgow, Edinburgh, Oxford, Cambridge, and 6 Labour controlled London boroughs.

Alone that statistic means nothing. What was the percentage for or against in each one? What was voter turnout like? How many electorates are there?

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

I'm not sure what you mean on the second point - AV works quite well where it is implemented, many of which were formerly parts of the British Empire. It would be replacing one system with another that has shown to be more representative of the views of the electorate.

It appears the "No" side invented some of the figures they were using to convince people to vote for them. http://www.newstates...figure-blunkett

You mean Fiji, Australia, Papua New Guinea. Two of which don't want the system.

Ah, so all the places where AV is used were parts of the British Empire.

Australia is quite happy with the AV system.

Papua New Guinea changed from FPTP to AV in 2007, entirely because FPTP made their political system rather volatile. I have not found any reports about a dissatisfaction with the change.

Fiji is not a good example. It is accurate to say its government does not want the AV system, but this is merely a side effect that they have not wanted any elections at all, and have not held any since the coup in 2006.

No idea where you're getting "Two of which don't want the system". One of the three likes it, the second changed to AV recently because FPTP was causing major problems, and the third hasn't held elections in 5 years because their government was taken over by the military.

Could it just possibly be that the majority of voters just weren't interested. In Britain we have a saying "keep it simple stupid" only the Lib-Dems were pushing this and it's not what they really wanted, which was Proportionate Representation which the Conservatives will never go for.

It is quite likely that most people weren't interested. It is, after all, quite difficult to get worked up over something that, at first glance, does not seem to change much.

The saying "Keep It Simple, Stupid" is used widely, although numbering candidates in order of preference is not at all difficult or complex. Indeed, you can't order candidates at all using complex numbers, but I digress.

Interesting fact, only 10 places voted in favour of AV:-

Glasgow, Edinburgh, Oxford, Cambridge, and 6 Labour controlled London boroughs.

Alone that statistic means nothing. What was the percentage for or against in each one? What was voter turnout like? How many electorates are there?

Not all Australians want AV. There's a group for change there.

Putting an X for the candidate you want is the most simple.

The turnout was 42% of which 68% voted NO to AV so over two thirds of voters.

There are 600+ constituencies.

[krbe 193]

If you really can't be arsed to think through what kind of politics you want the most, and then keep that thought while thinking about what kind of politics you want next if your first choice is not viable, WHILE being in a voting booth, then yes, just putting an X is the simplest method. Also one which make voting useless for a lot of people, and politics into a beauty contest rather than an expression of the will of the people.

[astronelson 339]

"Not all Australians want" is not the same as the entire country not wanting it, or even a majority.

I know the KISS mantra. I also think things should be as simple as possible and no simpler, and if something slightly more complex is much more effective, then I'd choose the latter over the former any day. Our current way of life is much more complex than that of humans 10,000 years ago, but I know which I'd rather have.

68% of those who voted, where voters are 42% of those eligible to vote, is 28.56% of the general population, rather less of a majority. It's rather sad more people didn't show up. Our voter turnout is 90% plus, but voting is compulsory here. Failure to do so gets you a fine of $20, unless you provide an excuse. If you do not pay or provide an excuse within 21 days, the fine becomes $50 plus court costs. There is no law against handing in a blank ballot paper. About 5% of voters do this.

[Frdm920 50]

I'm surprised nobody brought up the lies told by the 'No to AV' campaign yet. Things such as Australia wanting to switch to FPTP. There isn't a single government in Australia that plans to switch. This Blog has some rather good points

Australia has PV which is different to AV. In PV you must rank all candidates by preferences, in AV you have the choice to either put a 1 in the box of the candidate you want to vote for and leave the others blank (thus making it like FPTP) OR putting as many preferences as you feel is necessary.

Random Example: FPTP vs PV (I won't do AV because it would create additional parameters)

10 candidates running for a seat.

FPTP

Candidate 1: 20% of the vote

Candidate 2: 10%

Candidate 3: 5%

Candidate 4: 10%

Candidate 5: 15%

Candidate 6: 4%

Candidate 7: 12%

Candidate 8: 12%

Candidate 9: 4%

Candidate 10: 8%

Candidate 1 wins with 20% of the vote (not supported by the majority)

PV

Candidate 1: 20% of the vote

Candidate 2: 10%

Candidate 3: 5%

Candidate 4: 10%

Candidate 5: 15%

Candidate 6: 4%

Candidate 7: 12%

Candidate 8: 12%

Candidate 9: 4%

Candidate 10: 8%

#6 and #9 are eliminated after polling the lowest and their preferences flow to others

Candidate 1: 22%

Candidate 2: 12%

Candidate 3: 7%

Candidate 4: 12%

Candidate 5: 15%

Candidate 7: 12%

Candidate 8: 12%

Candidate 10: 8%

#3 is eliminated and his preferences flow to say #1

Candidate 1: 29%

Candidate 2: 12%

Candidate 4: 12%

Candidate 5: 15%

Candidate 7: 12%

Candidate 8: 12%

Candidate 10: 8%

And so on until you get say

Candidate 1: 55%

Candidate 2: 45%

And hence Candidate 1 still wins however this time with the approval of the majority of the voters.

Obviously this situation is rather exaggerated as I doubt 10 people will ever run for a single seat but it still gets the point across.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

In Britain we often get large numbers of candidates viz:-

Conservative, Labour, Liberal-Democrat, UKIP, Green, BNP, Monster Raving Looney Party, Independant and Others.

as well as in:-

WALES Plaid Cymru

SCOTLAND Scottish National Party

[astronelson 339]

10 is about right. Elections for senators (6 elected per state) can surpass that number by far, although that ballot does allow you to vote "above the line" for a particular party and the preferences are allocated as that party has said. You may also vote "below the line" for the candidates. There is a horizontal line separating the two, so that's where the names come from.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

What provision is made for people who are innumerate? dyslexic? Nothing could be simpler than placing a good old X. Assistance is available for the illiterate, who are still entitled to vote.

[astronelson 339]

Those with dyslexia should have no problem numbering (difficulty with mathematics being defined as dyscalculia). I am not any sort of expert on learning disabilities, so I cannot say whether that affects the ability to write numbers in order.

The Australian Electoral Commission says you may request assistance, if you require it: http://www.aec.gov.a...stralia.htm#213

[Frdm920 50]

Also with AV, because it doesn't require you to number all the boxes (though you can choose to do so) at the discretion of the electoral authorities a simple X in the box will count as a "1" vote, which if that candidate gets eliminated after the first round of counting, that vote shall be exhausted

  Edited May 12, 2011 by Frdm920