ChatterBank5 mins ago
AV - How can it be fairer...
When you can come anywhere but last and still win?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
With first past the post, You always get a MP who the majority didn't vote for.
That is why the athletics race analogy does not work. If it was a race and the leat popular candidate won, then that wouldn't really matter. But it is not a race, It is about how to fairly represent the views of a geographical area.
Because a candidate gets 34% under the present system, they can ignore the 66% who wanted something else. The majority of votes do not count. How can a system be fair if the majority of votes do not count?
That is why the athletics race analogy does not work. If it was a race and the leat popular candidate won, then that wouldn't really matter. But it is not a race, It is about how to fairly represent the views of a geographical area.
Because a candidate gets 34% under the present system, they can ignore the 66% who wanted something else. The majority of votes do not count. How can a system be fair if the majority of votes do not count?
It’s not correct to say that they do not count, Gromit. That’s just the same as saying that a goal scored by the losing team in a football match does not count.
Whenever there are more than two participants in an election there is every chance that the winner will be elected by the minority of those who voted. I think I’ve said this many times but I’ll say it again. Voters in UK Parliamentary elections do not elect governments, they elect MPs to represent their interests at Westminster and those MPs choose a government.
The “losers’ charter” that is AV simply means that those whom most people dislike the least stand a better chance of election than those whom fewer people like the most. It is unfair in that everybody who votes for candidates finishing third and below may be afforded a second vote of equal weight to their first – a privilege not afforded to those voting for the candidate finishing first in the first count.
It is a shambles of a system and is not used widely anywhere else apart from in Australia and voters there, I understand, do not like it.
Whenever there are more than two participants in an election there is every chance that the winner will be elected by the minority of those who voted. I think I’ve said this many times but I’ll say it again. Voters in UK Parliamentary elections do not elect governments, they elect MPs to represent their interests at Westminster and those MPs choose a government.
The “losers’ charter” that is AV simply means that those whom most people dislike the least stand a better chance of election than those whom fewer people like the most. It is unfair in that everybody who votes for candidates finishing third and below may be afforded a second vote of equal weight to their first – a privilege not afforded to those voting for the candidate finishing first in the first count.
It is a shambles of a system and is not used widely anywhere else apart from in Australia and voters there, I understand, do not like it.
For NJ
"It’s not correct to say that they do not count, Gromit. That’s just the same as saying that a goal scored by the losing team in a football match does not count."
In what way do these(present system) votes count? I am not aware of a 'Vote Difference' table being compiled to resolve tied results or anything else at the end of the election.
"I’ll say it again. Voters in UK Parliamentary elections do not elect governments, they elect MPs to represent their interests at Westminster and those MPs choose a government."
True, but given that we allow political parties this is effectively the same thing.
"The “losers’ charter” that is AV simply means that those whom most people dislike the least stand a better chance of election than those whom fewer people like the most.
In what way is the more unfair than the present system? It seems to me that if 50 people think candidate A is 'OK' and 10 people think candidate B is 'great' then A is the better choice.
"It’s not correct to say that they do not count, Gromit. That’s just the same as saying that a goal scored by the losing team in a football match does not count."
In what way do these(present system) votes count? I am not aware of a 'Vote Difference' table being compiled to resolve tied results or anything else at the end of the election.
"I’ll say it again. Voters in UK Parliamentary elections do not elect governments, they elect MPs to represent their interests at Westminster and those MPs choose a government."
True, but given that we allow political parties this is effectively the same thing.
"The “losers’ charter” that is AV simply means that those whom most people dislike the least stand a better chance of election than those whom fewer people like the most.
In what way is the more unfair than the present system? It seems to me that if 50 people think candidate A is 'OK' and 10 people think candidate B is 'great' then A is the better choice.
Lets say an area is anti EU, but the electorate cannot decide if the Conservatives or UKiP should get their vote. Their vote might split 50-50, 33% for the conservatives, and 33% for UKiP. Problem is that lets in Pro EU Labour with 34%. So even though nearly two thirds of people voted against the EU, they end up with a pro EU candidate.
As a columnist in one of today's papers says-
'I think I may be coming round to the argument in favour of Alternative Voting. I've worked out that under AV, even if my team Spurs finishes 5th this season- and because most most people hate Man U,Man City & Chelsea - we could still qualify for the Champions League as everyone's second preference.'
'I think I may be coming round to the argument in favour of Alternative Voting. I've worked out that under AV, even if my team Spurs finishes 5th this season- and because most most people hate Man U,Man City & Chelsea - we could still qualify for the Champions League as everyone's second preference.'
How likely is it that someone in 5th place would then go on to win? Just because that could happen in theory doesn't mean it will. With the current system, we DO get winners who didn't win the majority of the vote, on a regular basis. How is THAT fairer?
Also, it's unrealistic to say that MPs are 'representatives'. How can one person "represent" 30,000 or more people, for example? It's truer to say MPs are delegates.
Also, it's unrealistic to say that MPs are 'representatives'. How can one person "represent" 30,000 or more people, for example? It's truer to say MPs are delegates.
If we weren't so apathetic and everyone voted perhaps we would get a better idea of what the majority wants. As it is only about a third of the electorate vote and then the rest grumble about the Government.they have elected. Men and women in the past fought to obtain the right to vote and men and women in the present are too lazy to use that right.
[Two part answer]
They count, scotman, in the same way that the losing team’s goals count in soccer. They indicate the score and determine the outcome (i.e. one side gets fewer than the other).
There is no satisfactory way to guarantee that the wishes of the majority of voters are reflected in any election where there are more than two candidates. If any changes are to be “fair” (the favourite phrase of the current administration) then a second ballot should be held with only the top two participants from the first ballot being eligible. That way everybody gets another vote, including those who voted for the winner first time round, those who voted for all the losers and those who did not vote at all. AV provides a full power second vote only for those who voted for the losers and that is most certainly not fair.
No Joolee, somebody finishing fifth in the first ballot is probably nor likely to go on to win (and hence the football analogies are somewhat specious). But somebody who finished second or third most certainly is likely to go on to win because a chunk of the electorate (who did place the winner as their first choice and are probably less likely to make him their second choice)is effectively being afforded two votes.
They count, scotman, in the same way that the losing team’s goals count in soccer. They indicate the score and determine the outcome (i.e. one side gets fewer than the other).
There is no satisfactory way to guarantee that the wishes of the majority of voters are reflected in any election where there are more than two candidates. If any changes are to be “fair” (the favourite phrase of the current administration) then a second ballot should be held with only the top two participants from the first ballot being eligible. That way everybody gets another vote, including those who voted for the winner first time round, those who voted for all the losers and those who did not vote at all. AV provides a full power second vote only for those who voted for the losers and that is most certainly not fair.
No Joolee, somebody finishing fifth in the first ballot is probably nor likely to go on to win (and hence the football analogies are somewhat specious). But somebody who finished second or third most certainly is likely to go on to win because a chunk of the electorate (who did place the winner as their first choice and are probably less likely to make him their second choice)is effectively being afforded two votes.
[Part Two]
If AV was such a wonderful idea it would be used in many other countries particularly those who are somewhat more politically enlightened than the UK. The fact that it is not speaks volumes. It is an unsatisfactory system which sets out to do something that is, in practice, impossible. The main problem with the voting system in the UK is that it was designed for one thing (electing a constituency representative at Westminster) and is now used, as scotman rightly points out, to elect a government. Because of the party system voters act as if they are electing a government when in fact they are electing an MP. Politicians feel the need to address this but are fearful of removing the link between voters and their “own” MP. But they do not have the courage to canvass the electorate’s views on a full proportional system. Unless this fundamental issue is addressed all the wishy-washy half-bred solutions are bound to cause more problems than they profess to cure.
If AV was such a wonderful idea it would be used in many other countries particularly those who are somewhat more politically enlightened than the UK. The fact that it is not speaks volumes. It is an unsatisfactory system which sets out to do something that is, in practice, impossible. The main problem with the voting system in the UK is that it was designed for one thing (electing a constituency representative at Westminster) and is now used, as scotman rightly points out, to elect a government. Because of the party system voters act as if they are electing a government when in fact they are electing an MP. Politicians feel the need to address this but are fearful of removing the link between voters and their “own” MP. But they do not have the courage to canvass the electorate’s views on a full proportional system. Unless this fundamental issue is addressed all the wishy-washy half-bred solutions are bound to cause more problems than they profess to cure.
I still don't think it's likely 2nd or 3rd placed candidates could win unfairly; if people are so stupid as to place at 2nd or 3rd preference candidates they don't wish to vote for at all, then it might happen. But i suspect the majority of voters would just go for their preferred one and no-one else. I do agree that people vote as if electing a government rather than a constituency MP.
I don't see how it is fairer or even that anything could be. it's just more complex, with the possibility of benefiting middle of the road candidates. Until we have a secure system which allows us to vote on issues, and leave the uncontroversial stuff to the career politicians, then we just have to put up with a lack of true democracy with the sop of electing elites to decide supposedly on our behalf what they want between them.
