Voting systems

[IM Jack Rudd]

As requested by Peter Turland in another thread; this happens to be an area of interest for me as well, and one into which I've done a bit of research.

My reckoning is that Alternative Vote is a minor improvement over our current system, but it has a number of nasty little flaws of its own; it should be interesting to see whether any of them come up should the referendum pass. I'll be voting for, but not very enthusiastically; I'd be much happier voting for Approval Voting.

[Rob Thompson]

Similar to Jack, i think that Alternative Vote is pretty poor, but slightly better than FPTP. My preference would be an STV system of voting

[PeterTurland]

Yes and yes, but I want to be able to vote as to who runs the BEEB.

[Alex Holowczak]

I'll be voting "yes" too, but I don't think it'll make much difference at a practical level should be implemented for future elections. The vast majority of seats are "safe" seats, and very few would have swung had they had different voting systems. It'll take a generation or two for people to lose their habit of just voting red or blue, occasionally yellow, just because they're the only parties likely to get in.

[David Buckley]

As requested by Peter Turland in another thread; this happens to be an area of interest for me as well, and one into which I've done a bit of research.

My reckoning is that Alternative Vote is a minor improvement over our current system, but it has a number of nasty little flaws of its own; it should be interesting to see whether any of them come up should the referendum pass. I'll be voting for, but not very enthusiastically; I'd be much happier voting for Approval Voting.

Does it have any nasty little flaws that are not also shared by the FPtP system?

[IM Jack Rudd]

As requested by Peter Turland in another thread; this happens to be an area of interest for me as well, and one into which I've done a bit of research.

My reckoning is that Alternative Vote is a minor improvement over our current system, but it has a number of nasty little flaws of its own; it should be interesting to see whether any of them come up should the referendum pass. I'll be voting for, but not very enthusiastically; I'd be much happier voting for Approval Voting.

Does it have any nasty little flaws that are not also shared by the FPtP system?

Yes: FPtP satisfies the Monotonicity Criterion and the Participation Criterion, Alternative Vote doesn't.

Monotonicity Criterion: if you raise a candidate to a higher position on your ballot (keeping all the other candidates in the same order), this must not cause him to lose an election he was previously winning. Similarly, if you lower a candidate, this must not cause him to win an election he was previously losing.

Participation Criterion: if you turn up and cast an honest vote, the result must be at least as good (from your point of view) as that caused by your turning up and casting no vote at all.

ETA: Burlington 2009 is a good example of how Alternative Vote can fail those criteria.

[David Buckley]

I'll be voting "yes" too, but I don't think it'll make much difference at a practical level should be implemented for future elections. The vast majority of seats are "safe" seats, and very few would have swung had they had different voting systems. It'll take a generation or two for people to lose their habit of just voting red or blue, occasionally yellow, just because they're the only parties likely to get in.

I'll also be voting "yes" (probably). In theory AV could lead to more choice as the main parties no longer have to worry about their vote being cut in half if they divide along ideological lines. It could also lead to more realistic outcomes as minor parties aren't being denied their fair share of votes due to tactical voting. It would also help compromise candidates over marmite (love em or hate em) candidates. Of course these are all theoretical points. In practice you're probably right that the composition of parliament won't change very much as a result. Does anyone honestly believe the yes campaign that the expenses scandal was caused by the present voting system?

[Matt Mackenzie]

Not directly, no - but it could be argued that FPTP creating so many "safe" seats didn't really help there

[David Buckley]

Not directly, no - but it could be argued that FPTP creating so many "safe" seats didn't really help there

It could also be argued that these safe seats will all magically disappear under AV but I'll believe that when I see it

[IM Jack Rudd]

Not directly, no - but it could be argued that FPTP creating so many "safe" seats didn't really help there

Alternative Vote may well do the same thing, though - it's easy to think of scenarios in which a seat could be marginal under FPtP and a safe seat under Alternative Vote, just as it's easy to think of scenarios in which the reverse would happen.

[Phil Neatherway]

This article might be of interest:-

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/PVSC ... ysis2.html

You can also forecast election results on this site; there are FPTP and AV options.

I live in a constuency (Oxford West and Abingdon) where (arguably) the result at the election last year would have been different under AV. However, I voted for the 3rd place candidate, and I don't particularly care which of the other 2 wins, since they are in coalition together!

[Jonathan Bryant]

As requested by Peter Turland in another thread; this happens to be an area of interest for me as well, and one into which I've done a bit of research.

My undergraduate dissertation was on voting systems. This was back in 1992 when some within Labour were floating the idea of voting reform because they were repeatedly getting their backsides handed to them in FPTP General Elections back then. Curiously it all went quiet after 1997.

I'm not sure I'd say this was "research" on my part, but still I dug out my old dissertation a couple of months ago. I remember starting out as a sceptic viz voting reform but ended up favouring the German system - half MPs constituencies as now, half party list.

I'll probably be voting no in the referendum - on the grounds that AV is rubbish and bringing it in could delay proper reform rather than encourage it - but I may yet change my mind and vote yes.

[Phil Neatherway]

The conclusions on the electoral calculus site are :-

1) AV is likely to be bad for the Conservatives
2) AV is likely to be good for the Liberals
3) it doesn't make much difference for Labour - except that in 1992, Kinnock might have been able to form a coalition.

The figures are all there on the site, including the assumptions behind their predictions of voters' second choices. It's well worth a read if you're interested.
.

[PeterTurland]

This article might be of interest:-

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/PVSC ... ysis2.html

You can also forecast election results on this site; there are FPTP and AV options.

I live in a constuency (Oxford West and Abingdon) where (arguably) the result at the election last year would have been different under AV. However, I voted for the 3rd place candidate, and I don't particularly care which of the other 2 wins, since they are in coalition together!

A very good link Phil, thanks, the point it makes is rather subtle.

* The AV systems provides a moderate change to the electoral system
* The change benefits the Liberal Democrats, and makes the system less "unfair" to them
* The change hurts the Conservative party, and makes the system more "unfair" to them
* The Labour party benefits slightly in terms of seats, but is helped by the weakening of the
Conservatives
* "Fairness" is a complex concept and can be persuasively argued by both sides

It seems to me, that most people vote not for the candidate, but for the party, if people voted more for the candidate we might end up with less 'rentamouths' like Prescott.

On a deeper level, I believe our species in the main, is living in a non sustainable fashion and for this reason will vote for change.

[David Buckley]

As requested by Peter Turland in another thread; this happens to be an area of interest for me as well, and one into which I've done a bit of research.

My undergraduate dissertation was on voting systems. This was back in 1992 when some within Labour were floating the idea of voting reform because they were repeatedly getting their backsides handed to them in FPTP General Elections back then. Curiously it all went quiet after 1997.

I'm not sure I'd say this was "research" on my part, but still I dug out my old dissertation a couple of months ago. I remember starting out as a sceptic viz voting reform but ended up favouring the German system - half MPs constituencies as now, half party list.

I'll probably be voting no in the referendum - on the grounds that AV is rubbish and bringing it in could delay proper reform rather than encourage it - but I may yet change my mind and vote yes.

Why would introducing AV be more likely to delay 'proper' reform than encourage it?