Bollitics: The AV Referendum

[Jon]

very simply, and in a nutshell, the BNP are highly unlikely to got 50% of the vote in any constituency, or even close to it.

AV requires this, unless after the final count nobody has actually got 50% of the vote. Then the highest votes wins.

FPTP, due to ints many flaws, could see a candidate become an MP with as little as say 25% of the vote (or less), taking things to an extreme. That is nigh on impossible under AV, I think.

[mjmooney]

can someone give me an hypothetical example (like the Hall Green example earlier) how the AV system DOESN'T favour extremist parties like the BNP?

as that is currently my biggest reason to be wary of AV, and i can't work out why people say it doesn't favour the BNP.

Not based on any actual evidence (i.e. purely my unscientific guesswork), but I'd say it doesn't.

I would suggest that most BNP voters would vote Conservative as second choice. Assuming the BNP come last, their second-choice votes would certainly then help the Tories, but not the BNP themselves.

The only benefit the BNP could gain is if supporters of the "big" parties allocate them some of their second-choice votes. My gut feeling is that very few would do so - not even most Tory voters.

It strikes me that the proposed AV system is merely saying to minority party voters (of whatever persuasion): "We're still ignoring your silly little vote, but we want you to tell us which of the PROPER parties you're voting for, really".

Effectively, it's allocating the BNP & UKIP votes to the Tories and the Green votes to either Labour or LibDem.

Unless people try and second-guess this, and vote tactically - which is fraught a strategy enough under the current system, but a complete can of worms under AV.

Too many variables.

[blandy]

...But it's true that part of my thinking is: "Anything the Tories DON'T want must be OK", which leads me back to the "Yes" vote.

Mine too

Throw in the BNP and it trebles the reasoning, at least

[leviramsey]

It's a massive error to assume that there's a major link between who you vote for in FPTP and who you'd mark as first preference in AV.

It's sheer idiocy to say that AV will help or hurt small parties. It is quite possible for AV to help the party that finished fourth in FPTP, hurt the party that finished fifth, and help the party that finished sixth.

The only way that one can argue that AV does not produce non-trivial differences in outcome is to assert that people vote their first preference in FPTP. Bicks, have you ever voted with the following reasoning in a FPTP election:

* "I'll vote for X, simply to keep the BNP out"

* "I'll vote for Y, simply to keep the Tories out"

If the answer to either one of those is "yes", then you're either not thinking things through or being less than honest in your posting in this thread.

Consider the Brighton Pavilion district:

FPTP vote was

Green - 16328

Labour - 14986

Tory - 12275

LibDem - 7159

UKIP - 948

Socialist - 148

Zombies - 61

Independent - 19

The bulk of voters for the independent, Zombie, Socialist, UKIP, LibDem, and Green candidates can probably be safely assumed to correspond to their first preferences: nobody would vote tactically for those candidates because those are parties that are normally viewed as having little hope in FPTP and thus are wasted votes. However, I rather suspect that there are a decent number of Labour voters in this election who would prefer the Socialist, LibDem (pre-coalition, remember), or Green but couldn't bear to see a Tory win so they voted Labour. Likewise, a decent number of Tory voters would prefer UKIP.

Of the 14986 Labour FPTP voters, let's say that 60% put Labour first, 8% Socialist, 16% Green, 16% LibDem. For the Tory FPTPers, let's say that 65% are true blue, 35% prefer UKIP. Then the first preference is

Green - 16328 plus 2398 Labour FPTP = 18726

LibDem - 7159 plus 2398 Labour FPTP = 9557

Labour - 8992 = 8992

Tory - 7979 = 7979

UKIP - 948 plus 4296 Tory FPTP = 5244

Socialist - 148 plus 1199 Labour FPTP = 1347

Zombies - 61 = 61

Independent - 19 = 19

(51925 votes => 50% point @ 25962)

With no knowledge on why someone may have voted independent or Zombie, I'll throw those votes or (or assume that the second choices were distributed in roughly the same ratio as the first choice votes, which is effectively the same thing), the voting then simplifies to:

Green - 16328 plus 2398 Labour FPTP = 18726

LibDem - 7159 plus 2398 Labour FPTP = 9557

Labour - 8992 = 8992

Tory - 7979 = 7979

UKIP - 948 plus 4296 Tory FPTP = 5244

Socialist - 148 plus 1199 Labour FPTP = 1347

(51845 votes => 50% point @ 25923)

Socialists then get eliminated. It's an open question, considering the circumstances of that party's founding, where their votes would transfer. Obviously, the 1199 who voted Labour FPTP could be assumed to put Labour as second preference, but the 148 "true believers" might not be willing to vote for Slightly Less New Labour... figure that it's 50/50 Green/Labour for them, especially since I don't think that the "reopen the mines" stance of the Socialists (which is presumably opposed by the Greens) carries much currency in Brighton. As New Labour was to some extent an attempt to co-opt the LibDems, I don't see Socialists going LibDem.

Green - 18726 first choice plus 74 Socialist 1P = 18800

Labour - 8992 first choice plus 1273 Socialist 1P = 10265

LibDem - 9557 first choice = 9557

Tory - 7979 first choice = 7979

UKIP - 5244 first choice = 5244

(51845 votes => 50% point 25923)

UKIP are then eliminated. As with Labour and the Socialists, the 4296 Tory FPTP votes can be assumed to be Tory 2nd preference. Given that UKIP is nearly a single-issue party, they're not going to give 2nd preference to Labour or the LibDems. As the Greens are arguably more Eurosceptic than the Tories, the Greens could pick up a small number of UKIP 2nd preferences (maybe 5% of UKIP FPTP votes).

Green - 18726 first choice plus 74 Socialist 1P plus 47 UKIP 1P = 18847

Tory - 7979 first choice plus 5197 UKIP 1P = 13176

Labour - 8992 first choice plus 1273 Socialist 1P = 10265

LibDem - 9557 first choice = 9557

(51845 votes => 50% point 25923)

Now for the LibDems. Given that they may be the least overall coherent party of the bunch it's exceptionally difficult to call where they go for 2nd choices. I suspect that some number of LibDem 1Ps would be of the truly woolly yogurt knitter variety who go Green and larger, approximately equal, numbers would go Tory and Labour... call it 20/40/40 for this purpose.

Green - 18726 first choice plus 74 Socialist 1P plus 47 UKIP 1P plus 1911 LibDem 1P = 20758

Tory - 7979 first choice plus 5197 UKIP 1P plus 3823 LibDem 1P = 16999

Labour - 8992 first choice plus 1273 Socialist 1P plus 3823 LibDem 1P = 14088

(51845 votes => 50% point 25923)

Now the Labour first choices (since we're going on the assumption that there are no third preferences) come into play. How many Labour voters do you expect to vote Tory as a second preference? Let's be really generous and say that a third of the Labour true believers go Tory....

Green - 18726 first choice plus 74 Socialist 1P plus 47 UKIP 1P plus 1911 LibDem 1P plus 5995 Labour 1P = 26753

Tory - 7979 first choice plus 5197 UKIP 1P plus 3823 LibDem 1P plus 2997 Labour 1P = 19996

(46749 votes => 50% point 23375)

Greens get elected (as they did, but this refutes the notion that they get hurt... and even if we give the 47 UKIP 1Ps to the Tories it doesn't come close to changing things)

Are there small parties that get hurt by AV? Parties that people have a tendency to vote with a view to keep out of power are hurt. The reason is that in FPTP if you're in an electorate that is FPTP-winnable for BNP you have to make a cost-benefit decision of whether you vote positively for a party or whether you vote to keep the BNP out. Choosing the former in FPTP precludes from choosing the latter and vice versa: some number of diehard Labour voters, for instance, decide in that situation that the Tory has a better chance of finishing ahead of the BNP and hold their noses while voting Tory ("[slightly] lesser of two evils").

Consider the case of an election where the BNP won under an FPTP system: Great Bridge ward, Sandwell in 2006.

BNP - 1278

Labour - 1096

LibDem - 461

What percentage of Labour or LibDem FPTP votes would put BNP as a 1P? Close to if not exactly zero. It doesn't particularly matter if Labour or the LibDems finish third in the first preferences if 99% of the Labour voters put LibDem second and 99% of the LibDem voters put Labour second. The worst case scenario from a keeping out the BNP perspective is if, say, the LibDems have 778 and Labour has 779, which sends 8 LibDem 1Ps to the BNP and 770 to Labour.

It then stands

Labour - 1549

BNP - 1286

In short, it helps smaller parties if they have people saying "I'd vote for them but they have no chance and I can't have the Tories/Labour winning so I'll vote for Labour/Tory". It hurts smaller parties if they have people who would prefer any of several different parties saying "Holy **** shit, if they win, I'm leaving the country."

[LondonLax]

In short, it helps smaller parties if they have people saying "I'd vote for them but they have no chance and I can't have the Tories/Labour winning so I'll vote for Labour/Tory". It hurts smaller parties if they have people who would prefer any of several different parties saying "Holy **** shit, if they win, I'm leaving the country."

That is pretty much it in a nutshell and explains why parties like The Greens and Libdems are in favour but the BNP are against.

[meregreen]

can someone give me an hypothetical example (like the Hall Green example earlier) how the AV system DOESN'T favour extremist parties like the BNP?

as that is currently my biggest reason to be wary of AV, and i can't work out why people say it doesn't favour the BNP.

If thats the case then why are the BNP against AV and in favour of FPTP ?

[mjmooney]

Classic Levi post up there; he's back, alright.

Loved the sneaky link to "Time of the Season", too.

[ender4]

Thank you Levi - thats exactly the sort of example i was looking for.

you have convinced me.

[NulliSecundus]

Levi you are a legend :notworthy:

[snowychap]

What percentage of Labour or LibDem FPTP votes would put BNP as a 1P? Close to if not exactly zero.

I'm not so sure about that.

I thought reports about voting behaviour, in those areas where the BNP have succeeded in getting substantial numbers to vote for them, suggested that ex-labour voters were just as likely as ex-tory voters to vote for them.

[Rodders]

mm, i would have thought there would have been quite a few ex labour voters going with BNP on the "they took our jobs" line. ( can't help but read that line with the south park pisstake in mind )

[LondonLax]

What percentage of Labour or LibDem FPTP votes would put BNP as a 1P? Close to if not exactly zero.

I'm not so sure about that.

I thought reports about voting behaviour, in those areas where the BNP have succeeded in getting substantial numbers to vote for them, suggested that ex-labour voters were just as likely as ex-tory voters to vote for them.

No he is speaking about that case specifically where there was a strong BNP candidate vs two other candidates and not about voter preferences in a more general sense.

There is not really any logical reason for a voter who voted for Labour or Libdem in that election to switch their vote to BNP and then give labour or Libdem as second preference under an AV system.

[snowychap]

No he is speaking about that case specifically where there was a strong BNP candidate vs two other candidates and not about voter preferences in a more general sense.

There is not really any logical reason for a voter who voted for Labour or Libdem in that election to switch their vote to BNP and then give labour or Libdem as second preference under an AV system.

Consider the case of an election where the BNP won under an FPTP system: Great Bridge ward, Sandwell in 2006.

BNP - 1278

Labour - 1096

LibDem - 461

What percentage of Labour or LibDem FPTP votes would put BNP as a 1P? Close to if not exactly zero. It doesn't particularly matter if Labour or the LibDems finish third in the first preferences if 99% of the Labour voters put LibDem second and 99% of the LibDem voters put Labour second. The worst case scenario from a keeping out the BNP perspective is if, say, the LibDems have 778 and Labour has 779, which sends 8 LibDem 1Ps to the BNP and 770 to Labour.

It then stands

Labour - 1549

BNP - 1286

In his scenario, he is positing that virtually zero of the Labour/Lib Dem voters would put BNP down as second preference, isn't he? And, thus, that, if either were knocked out, very few if any of those votes would then go to the BNP.

I think that assumption is, perhaps, not borne out by what has happened in terms of those who have voted for the BNP in recent times.

It may well be that, in the election which he has selected, all of those who were tempted to vote for the BNP already did and that, of those who remained in the Labour and Lib Dem vote, none would countenance assigning any kind of preference to the BNP but I do think that the assumption isn't perhaps correct.

I think it's difficult enough to second guess the electorate's decision making processes in FPTP; doing it for second preferences and beyond in an AV system is, I would say, even more so.

[LondonLax]

Yeah, it is impossible to second guess what people would have done.

I think the general point is that in this case the non extreamest vote was split allowing an extreamist group in. That is less likely under AV as the non extreamists can join forces with their second preferences.

[Jon]

Yeah, it is impossible to second guess what people would have done.

I think the general point is that in this case the non extreamest vote was split allowing an extreamist group in. That is less likely under AV as the non extreamists can join forces with their second preferences.

That you Dem?

[snowychap]

I think the general point is that in this case the non extreamest vote was split allowing an extreamist group in. That is less likely under AV as the non extreamists can join forces with their second preferences.

I'm not sure that the analysis in the first place is correct. It may be but it's arguable, isn't it?

As with the second guessing preferences, I don't know that it's particularly easy to coordinate an opposition to a party with people's first prefs and I can't see why it would be necessarily easier with preferences beyond that.

[drat01]

The no campaign are saying

Democracy is one person one vote

on their TV ad.

Hmm so how come that Cameron is so much in favour of FPTP which effectively eliminates the fairness in areas which are typically and will always be one particular party? - Not the H word Dave?

[Davkaus]

The no campaign are saying

Democracy is one person one vote

on their TV ad.

Hmm so how come that Cameron is so much in favour of FPTP which effectively eliminates the fairness in areas which are typically and will always be one particular party? - Not the H word Dave?

It may well not be fair, but not for the reason that people get a second chance or more than one vote. Some votes certainly are worth less, but if you think that this is hypocrisy, I'd question whether you know the meaning of the word.

Out of interest, do you advocate eliminating constituencies and pooling all votes into one national vote? Because that's the only way I can see to avoid the problem that you describe.

[drat01]

I know the meaning of the world very well thanks. Cameron and the rest of the Tory hierarchy (and others for balance) are pushing for a vote of No based on the "tag line" of "Democracy is one person one vote". The mere fact that this implies that all votes are equal is hypocrisy.

hypocrisy [hɪˈpɒkrəsɪ]

n pl -sies

1. the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc., contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour, esp the pretence of virtue and piety

Do I advocate eliminating constituencies is a good question, and off topic one that Cameron seems happy to tinker with, re-writing the rules so that his party gets more MP's - what is the word for that?. I suspect that you are asking do I think that PR is the way forward? Well I have long been a believer in the fact that my vote should hold just as much importance as a Lord, or as a unemployed Glasgow shop worker, or as a ex-soldier or as a newly qualified student. If that is PR then so be it. The current system of FPTP is wrong in so many ways.

[Davkaus]

I agree with you entirely about FPTP. I do disagree with you regarding the hypocrisy, though.

I'm no fan of Cameron, and I agree that under FPTP, there's a real problem of some people's votes just not counting. I'm in a Labour safe seat, and regardless of who I'd vote for, there's just no point in me actually going to vote. However, there's still a distinction between this state of affairs, and AV, in which in some circumstances, voters may as well be told "tough luck, try again, have another vote". Is it enough of a reason to reject the entire voting system? Not in my opinion, but I can certainly see why Cameron thinks it.