Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

#YesToAV - Videos! watch

Announcements
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quadratic)
    So just been researching the ol' AV in prep for May. Came across these videos. Thoughts?

    http://www.youtube.com/user/CGPGrey#p/u/2/s7tWHJfhiyo
    http://www.youtube.com/user/CGPGrey#p/u/1/3Y3jE3B8HsE
    Very good videos, thank you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Komakino)
    I don't see how it's 'fundamentally' better, I can see it's slightly better, as it dampens the trend of tactical voting (although doesn't eradicate it), and it offers promise of ending the jobs for life culture (although whether it will turn out that way is less clear).
    One of the principle un-doings however, is that it isn't mandatory to vote for more than one candidate, thus potentially someone could win with less than 50% of the vote. There's little point of having a preferential system if people by and large won't use it, and there's some evidence to suggest many people won't bother to rank candidates.
    It doesn't necessarily dampen tactical voting. In Australia, the political parties give constituents a mock-up ballot card telling them how to vote to get their party elected. Eg 'for a Party A win, rank your candidates like this: 1 Party A, 2 Party B, 3 Party C, 4 Party D' or whatever.

    So it changes from an individual deciding to vote tactically do a political party telling people how to vote!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by angelmxxx)
    It doesn't necessarily dampen tactical voting. In Australia, the political parties give constituents a mock-up ballot card telling them how to vote to get their party elected. Eg 'for a Party A win, rank your candidates like this: 1 Party A, 2 Party B, 3 Party C, 4 Party D' or whatever.

    So it changes from an individual deciding to vote tactically do a political party telling people how to vote!
    That's not the same kind of tactical voting though is it. They get to select the party they want to win, rather than to vote for a party they aren't too fussed about but know will be the only chance of keeping a party they hate out. When talking about a dampening of tactical voting most people are talking about the negative sort.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Komakino)
    I don't see how it's 'fundamentally' better, I can see it's slightly better, as it dampens the trend of tactical voting (although doesn't eradicate it), and it offers promise of ending the jobs for life culture (although whether it will turn out that way is less clear).
    One of the principle un-doings however, is that it isn't mandatory to vote for more than one candidate, thus potentially someone could win with less than 50% of the vote. There's little point of having a preferential system if people by and large won't use it, and there's some evidence to suggest many people won't bother to rank candidates.
    I think it's fundamentally more democratic and therefore better, sorry if it seemed like I was stating a fact. My point was that if there was none of this scaremongering nonsense campaigning and we just voted on the facts, I think the public would vote yes.

    I think it's good that you don't have to rank a candidate, it's sort of an appeasement to "one person, one vote", and you don't have to prefer one party you hate over another. If everyone just voted for their first preference, that would just turn it into FPTP. If you see that as an undoing, well, then you're going round in circles and it doesn't make sense.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LethalBizzle)
    I think it's fundamentally more democratic and therefore better, sorry if it seemed like I was stating a fact. My point was that if there was none of this scaremongering nonsense campaigning and we just voted on the facts, I think the public would vote yes.

    I think it's good that you don't have to rank a candidate, it's sort of an appeasement to "one person, one vote", and you don't have to prefer one party you hate over another. If everyone just voted for their first preference, that would just turn it into FPTP. If you see that as an undoing, well, then you're going round in circles and it doesn't make sense.
    I see. Fair enough then. I personally think this is a better system slightly, and that the argument that it's less representational is not necessarily true. However, the risk of it being so is sufficient to fear it. It's less reliable. Whereas FPTP is reliably unrepresentational- you know if a party gets 30% they will have a significantly larger amount of seats than one with 28%. Alternatively if one gets 25% they will have a siginificantly larger amount than one who gets 23%. This is clearly unfair.
    However, AV has the potential to be less fair, by allowing a party which does not have the largest amount of first preference votes to win a seat. It could even potentially be the party that has the second least votes if enough people put it as a second preference. This is clearly absurd, if unlikely.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Not that unlikely - 6% of all elections are non-monotonic under av.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Komakino)
    I see. Fair enough then. I personally think this is a better system slightly, and that the argument that it's less representational is not necessarily true. However, the risk of it being so is sufficient to fear it. It's less reliable. Whereas FPTP is reliably unrepresentational- you know if a party gets 30% they will have a significantly larger amount of seats than one with 28%. Alternatively if one gets 25% they will have a siginificantly larger amount than one who gets 23%. This is clearly unfair.
    However, AV has the potential to be less fair, by allowing a party which does not have the largest amount of first preference votes to win a seat. It could even potentially be the party that has the second least votes if enough people put it as a second preference. This is clearly absurd, if unlikely.
    Why is it absurd? The AV system is like running multiple elections just without the cost and hassle. At each new election you go, "Not enough people wanted party D, so now there's only party A, B & C" and everyone votes again. Then in the next election you go, "Not enough people wanted party C, so now there's only party A & B. Consequently you get the person elected that is the best compromise between all the people who are eligible to vote. In other words, the fairest conclusion!!

    And also im fed up of all these "What If" scenarios. Yes potentially the second to last person could win, but in reality they never will. It's like saying BNP could win all their seats in the next election. It's possible, but is it going to happen - NO!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quadratic)
    Why is it absurd? The AV system is like running multiple elections just without the cost and hassle. At each new election you go, "Not enough people wanted party D, so now there's only party A, B & C" and everyone votes again. Then in the next election you go, "Not enough people wanted party C, so now there's only party A & B. Consequently you get the person elected that is the best compromise between all the people who are eligible to vote. In other words, the fairest conclusion!!

    And also im fed up of all these "What If" scenarios. Yes potentially the second to last person could win, but in reality they never will. It's like saying BNP could win all their seats in the next election. It's possible, but is it going to happen - NO!
    You misread that post entirely. The what if scenario is the part that was absurd. That scenario is certainly more unfair than the FPTP general state of affairs.
    That scenario may be very unlikely, but it's less unlikely that a party that didn't get the highest number of first votes would win. That's what happened in the Tory party's own leadership election, if it was FPTP David Davis would be the leader.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 17, 2011
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.