Tuesday 19 April 2011

Putting the 'sub' into 'Standard'

From the Evening Standard:

AV, if adopted, would mean the end of the first-past-the-post system that has served this country well so far (1). First-past-the-post does have shortcomings: it allows votes to pile up in many seats without directly influencing the result, and it makes it harder for smaller parties to win (2). But first-past-the-post is clear and simple: anyone can understand it; there is no doubt about the winner.(3)

AV is far more complicated. (4) Voters may name candidates in order of preference. In constituencies where one candidate gets a majority of first-preference votes, the other preferences are ignored and the result is much the same as under the existing system. (5) Where they garner fewer than half of first preferences, then second, third and other preference votes are taken into account too. As Churchill said, AV thus means elections can "be determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates". (6)

This can and will produce perverse results. In a close-run contest, it is quite possible that the candidate who comes second or even third on first-preference votes can end up winning, having mopped up second and third preferences.(7) AV thereby encourages the most Byzantine tactical voting (8) and political fixing. (9)


1) Says who? We've no idea how things would have turned out if we'd had AV all along.

2) Exactly. Those are the arguments for AV in a nutshell, there's not much more to it than that. The notions that MPs will work harder or be less corrupt are entirely secondary and not proven either way.

3) In that case you might as well argue for electing MPs by toss of a coin: cheap, simple, clear. There will be no doubt who is the winner under AV either, so what?

4) No it's not. People loyal to one party and one party only are free to vote for that party only; but most people are capable of casting a "conscience vote" and one or two "compromise votes". Or does the ES take all its readers for morons?

5) Exactly. I doubt it will change the results much.

6) So if the pro-FPTP crowd (mainly Conservatives) think that AV is such an awful idea, why didn't they give us a choice between FPTP and something better than AV, like AV+ or whatever? It's almost as if they have rigged it to ensure we stay with FPTP. And would that be the same Churchill who said this:

The present system has clearly broken down. The results produced are not fair to any party, nor to any section of the community. In many cases they do not secure majority representation, nor do they secure an intelligent representation of minorities. All they secure is fluke representation, freak representation, capricious representation."?

7) So what? Under FPTP it is no doubt the case that a lot of MPs are elected on the basis of people's "compromise votes" and not their "conscience votes", is that not 'perverse'?

8) This is complete shite. Under AV there will be much less "tactical voting", certainly with regards to the first preference, and to the extent that MPs only made it past the post on the basis of second and third "tactical" votes, well maybe they won't be so bloody uppity in future.

9) All politics is 'fixing', all parties are in fact coalitions with as many different views on as many different issues as it has members. So what?

Spotter's badge: Sibley's B'stard Child.

14 comments:

chefdave said...

We should stick with the one person one vote system enshrined in FPTP.

The beauty of FPTP is that it's brutally honest, and that allows us to identify the real politcal problems that exist. AV is a weak attempt to paper over the cracks by introducing the concept of faux-majorities.

It's a cheap fix, one that the electorate should reject so we can address the more pressing issues.

Old BE said...

If there was one system which was quite obviously better than all the rest then everyone would have moved to it by now.

Anonymous said...

"AV thereby encourages the most Byzantine tactical voting"

I confess I have received the "this is another small step on the road to hell" leaflet from the No to AV campaign. As it didn't expand upon exactly how I, in this constituency, might effectively vote tactically in a very very clever way under AV I put it in the bin.

From what I can gather to indulge in "byzantine tactical voting" under an AV system ALL (huh!) I would need to know was

(1)how every other voter in the constituency intended to or better yet had voted, (2)including all their second, third, fourth etc preferences and then (3) have a suitable spreadsheet set up into which I would put that data and lo - some swift number-crunching exercises and then I would know how to make MY "tactical vote" to bring about the outcome I desired - with the same conditions applying to every other voter. So, not so, as some people say, simples.

Now what I do know is that this constituency and bar a short period in the early 1960's when one of them went for a candidate of a different party, those around it "traditionally" also "traditionally" all elect a Tory and that sometimes - once every 20 years or so - such as in 1997 when another party had a landslide victory that "odd constituency" almost came close to not electing a Tory again (but still didn't come close to electing someone from that party which experienced the landslide) but in 2010 it reverted to type and more in that it didn't just elect a Tory again, it did so with an increased majority comprised mostly of votes that had moved from the party that in 1997 had got close to matching the Tory vote - but that is about it on the "info available front" when it comes to "clever tactical voting" - So I can't see how "clever tactical voting" will be any easier under AV - anyone care to cover that deficiency in the No to AV" leaflet? Many thanks.

Phil Ruse said...

How do you know there will be less tactical voting? If the BNP were to stand in my town, for example, I'd make damn sure I voted for every other candidate regardless of preference.

AV is a brilliant mechanism for voting against someone. For example if I have candidates A,B,C,D and I vote ABC, can you tell me whether I have a preference for A over B and B over C, or whether in fact I have just expressed a preference against D? You can't. All we know for certain is that it is a vote against D - the rest is an assumption.

Mark Wadsworth said...

CD, I have some sympathy for your view, but on the facts, I prefer AV to FPTP, however slightly*. Nonetheless, if we end up with FPTP and anybody could be bothered to set up a Georgist party, then the other parties can all squabble over the majority Home-Owner-Ist and Faux Lib votes, and the Georgist party can mop up the votes of the other thirty per cent and romp home. That's two or three big "ifs"...

BE, there is no perfect system, but there are almost as many systems as there are countries or consitutions or layers of government. And there are vested interest in each country as well, so even if we agreed that MMC's with one-man-one-vote are the way forward, there will be people against it (mainly Labour, I would imagine, because of a mathematical quirk in the way their voters are distributed).

Anon, splendid explanation :-)

Mark Wadsworth said...

Phil, if you are determined to show your contempt for the BNP, then by all means rank the other candidates - it's your free choice whether you actually consciously rank them or do it at random.

As a committed anarcho-democrat who has always lived in safe seats and whose vote never counted for anything, I'd be sorely tempted to vote UKIP first (as I am a member of said party) and then rank all the others in reverse order of how likely they are to win, and the most likely candidate is left blank. If that means voting UKIP-Independent-Raving Monster-Green-Labout-Lib Dem-BNP and leaving Tory blank, then so be it. It'll give the tellers something to think about!

Anonymous said...

"why didn't they give us a choice between FPTP and something better than AV, like AV+ or whatever?"

If the Tories were so 'hot' for electoral reform, why didn't they give us the option of open primaries to select a party candidate for MP and a mechanism for MP recall?

Bayard said...

"Or does the ES take all its readers for morons?"

Yes

"It's a cheap fix, one that the electorate should reject so we can address the more pressing issues."

If we reject this, it will be seen as a vote for the status quo and we won't get a chance to address the more pressing issues. It's been 35 years since the last referendum, remember.

"and anybody could be bothered to set up a Georgist party".

Mark, the nation awaits...

Woodsy42 said...

Sadly, whatever the system of voting, you will still get a politician!

Frederick McLean said...

There may be people who will find AV too difficult to understand, in that case should they be allowed to vote at all or add to the gene pool?

Most voters will not have one person they want in and hate every other candidate, many will have a candidate they want but others they would prefer to get before others that they dislike. AV is certainly not as far along the road of PR as some people want, but in my opinion it represents the likes/dislikes of the voter better than FPTP. The argument that it might let in a party such as the BNP is a comment on the subjects made taboo by the major parties, not a reason for voting against AV.

And the first paragraph was light hearted, not (entirely) serious!

Bruce said...

What have people got against tactical voting anyway? People use the term like it is an insult. At least tactical voters are engaging their brains.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Anon, I have no idea, but AFAICS it's up to each party to decide how to decide on stuff.

B, I'm sometimes sorely tempted.

W42, indeed. It is amazing how quickly idealism turns to self-interest.

FMcL, B, excellent points. I suppose the question everybody should ask themselves is "Do I trust myself to name my second and third pref's if I so wish?" to which the answer must be a resounding "yes".

View from the Solent said...

This is as good an analysis as I have yet seen. Only slightly mathy, but lengthy..
Gowers

Mark Wadsworth said...

VFTS, ta for that. It's an awesome post and warmly recommended to everybody.