Friday, 15 April 2011

Hilarious AV versus FPTP debate yesterday on Channel 4 News

Spotter's badge: Neil Craig.

My latest blogpost: Hilarious AV versus FPTP debate yesterday on Channel 4 NewsTweet this! Posted by Mark Wadsworth at 11:25

Labels: ,

5 comments:

chefdave said...

I was going to vote no but I'm having second thoughts now after watching Chris's excellent performance.

He's a true master debater.

15 April 2011 at 12:52
Mark Wadsworth said...

CD, again, the irony is, Kris was a runner, where the result is decided on FPTP.

Boxing is different - if there is no KO (= getting more than 50% of first pref votes) then they have 'rounds' and a subjective panel of judges gives scores for each boxer for each round and they are totted up at the end.

So if anything, a sprinter should like FPTP and a boxer should prefer AV.

15 April 2011 at 13:40
Iain said...

Mark, that's correct for an individual race but take a competition like the 400m hurdles in the Olympic Games. There will be a number of rounds(heats)to eliminate the weaker competitors before you get to the Final. A bit like AV in some respects.

16 April 2011 at 12:56
Mark Wadsworth said...

Iain, that is true, but unless sprinters' form changes a lot during the competition, they could do the whole thing with a single race with dozens of sprinters on a very wide running track with dozens of lanes.

I think the system of heats is a) to build up the excitement and b) because a normal running track is only eight or ten lanes wide.

It seems unlikely to me that sprinter A is faster than B when they are running against slower C, but in the final when A and B have the run-off, that B is suddenly faster than A.

CONVERSELY, I can easily imagine that in two-player competitions (tennis, boxing, chess) that player A can beat B, but while B can beat C, player C can exploit a weakness in A's defence so C can beat A. It's then a bit trickier working out who is 'best' and these world rankings are all to some extent subjective.

16 April 2011 at 13:08
Julian said...

FPTP is wrongly named - and it is misleading to compare it with a sprint or horse race. In these, the "post" is fixed - whereas in elections the post is moveable - and heavily influenced by the number of candidates. The more candidates, the nearer the "post".

Take selections for MPs... Many constituency party members had a short list of 6 candidates to choose from. Under FPTP, with 6 similar applicants, support from less than 20% could have secured selection.

Yet AV was used - to ensure that in a final run-off the future MP got over 50%.

Why do some spokesmen of the same parties oppose AV?

19 April 2011 at 14:05

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)