Alternative vote: comments from Aussies, please!

[Geoff]

As you may know by now, we're having a referendum next month on whether to move to AV, from "first past the post".

One widely publicised point, mostly from those against it, is that only Australia, PNG & Fiji use it.

So: is it as much of a disaster as the noes would have it, or is it as fair as the yesses make out?

[Lozzer]

Britain is one of the only countries to use FPSP other than a few 'democratic' African states, e.g Zimbabwe

[PsychoSerenity]

Hmm I've been looking into this and from what I can tell it can give fairer results in some circumstances and less fair results in others. It's certainly nothing like STV which is what most people were campaigning for last year. What really annoys me is that they go to all the expense of having a referendum but only give us the choice between the old system and one that's not much better. They really don't like democracy, do they?

For me I think the main advantages of AV are that smaller parties have more chance (I suspect the Greens well do very well out of it, possibly becoming many peoples second choice), and the fact that it is a bit more unpredictable shakes up MPs who think they're set up for life. I think it's only a very small step in the right direction, but it's worth voting for.

[HomerJay]

it's a bunch of shit no-one wants. the aussies don't understand it cos they have compulsory voting and you have to rate all the candidates, not just your favourites, so the aussie experience is less useful.

it takes the seat off the most popular and gives it to the least hated.

[AnInconvenientScotsman]

it's a bunch of shit no-one wants. the aussies don't understand it cos they have compulsory voting and you have to rate all the candidates, not just your favourites, so the aussie experience is less useful.

it takes the seat off the most popular and gives it to the least hated.

In the first instance, IIRC, you can spoil your ballot in Australia. You just have to turn up. Secondly, you assume that the people not voting for the candidate who wins on a plurality (in FPTP) still don't mind having that candidate as their MP. Try telling that to Labour voters with a Tory MP (and vice-versa).

One of the best comparisons I've heard, is of FPTP to a vending machine that keeps your money should the drink you choose first be sold out. Regardless, there's no issue with understanding: when you vote FPTP not only do you have to mentally rate the candidates in order of preference, you then need to weigh the odds of you preferred candidate getting in against those of a candidate you don't like winning, before figuring out whether you would be better voting for the candidate most likely to beat the candidates you don't like (should they and your preferred candidate be separate people) or your preferred candidate - not to mention safe seats. With AV you just need to mentally rank the candidates, then write it down (or just vote for your favourite candidate if you want, you don't HAVE to rank them of course).

I am yet to see a good argument for keeping FPTP.

[HomerJay]

it's a bunch of shit no-one wants. the aussies don't understand it cos they have compulsory voting and you have to rate all the candidates, not just your favourites, so the aussie experience is less useful.

it takes the seat off the most popular and gives it to the least hated.

In the first instance, IIRC, you can spoil your ballot in Australia. You just have to turn up. Secondly, you assume that the people not voting for the candidate who wins on a plurality (in FPTP) still don't mind having that candidate as their MP. Try telling that to Labour voters with a Tory MP (and vice-versa).

There certainly seems to be a problem with spoilt ballots in oz, I guess the research needs to be done on how much is deliberate. I am not assuming that people don't want the candidate, I just don't care - it's not relevant. If concensus is the aim why place the 50% threshold? Just aim for concensus every time.

One of the best comparisons I've heard, is of FPTP to a vending machine that keeps your money should the drink you choose first be sold out. Regardless, there's no issue with understanding: when you vote FPTP not only do you have to mentally rate the candidates in order of preference, you then need to weigh the odds of you preferred candidate getting in against those of a candidate you don't like winning, before figuring out whether you would be better voting for the candidate most likely to beat the candidates you don't like (should they and your preferred candidate be separate people) or your preferred candidate - not to mention safe seats. With AV you just need to mentally rank the candidates, then write it down (or just vote for your favourite candidate if you want, you don't HAVE to rank them of course).

I am yet to see a good argument for keeping FPTP.

AV doesn't replace tactical voting.

Any criticism of FPTP is not per se an argument in favour of AV.

[AnInconvenientScotsman]

it's a bunch of shit no-one wants. the aussies don't understand it cos they have compulsory voting and you have to rate all the candidates, not just your favourites, so the aussie experience is less useful.

it takes the seat off the most popular and gives it to the least hated.

In the first instance, IIRC, you can spoil your ballot in Australia. You just have to turn up. Secondly, you assume that the people not voting for the candidate who wins on a plurality (in FPTP) still don't mind having that candidate as their MP. Try telling that to Labour voters with a Tory MP (and vice-versa).

There certainly seems to be a problem with spoilt ballots in oz, I guess the research needs to be done on how much is deliberate. I am not assuming that people don't want the candidate, I just don't care - it's not relevant. If concensus is the aim why place the 50% threshold? Just aim for concensus every time.

A pure consensus is nigh on impossible to achieve in a potential voting pool of over 70,000 people, but AV does allow a closer approximation than FPTP.

One of the best comparisons I've heard, is of FPTP to a vending machine that keeps your money should the drink you choose first be sold out. Regardless, there's no issue with understanding: when you vote FPTP not only do you have to mentally rate the candidates in order of preference, you then need to weigh the odds of you preferred candidate getting in against those of a candidate you don't like winning, before figuring out whether you would be better voting for the candidate most likely to beat the candidates you don't like (should they and your preferred candidate be separate people) or your preferred candidate - not to mention safe seats. With AV you just need to mentally rank the candidates, then write it down (or just vote for your favourite candidate if you want, you don't HAVE to rank them of course).

I am yet to see a good argument for keeping FPTP.

AV doesn't replace tactical voting.

Any criticism of FPTP is not per se an argument in favour of AV.

I never said it was, but the choice remains between FPTP and AV and I have no intention of voting to keep the world's most disproportional voting system.

[Hermit]

The main attraction of optional preferential voting is that you don't throw your vote away when you vote for a candidate or party that has no chance of winning. The people in the US who voted for Ralph Nader a few years ago could be argued to have contributed to G.W.Bush's victory, even though they most likely would have preferred Al Gore to win if Nader didn't.

In Australia you can vote for a Greens candidate who has no chance of winning a seat. That would be your first choice, but since s/he didn't get enough votes to win, your vote gets reallocated to your second preference, which in this case would go to the Labor Party hopeful rather than the conservative cunt or the reactionary loony. You just number the voting card according to your preferences: "If my first choice, A, doesn't make it, I want my vote transferred to D. If he doesn't get over the line either, I want my vote to be allocated to F" and so on. I think preferential voting is way better than fist past the post.

[Feck]

it's a bunch of shit no-one wants. the aussies don't understand it cos they have compulsory voting and you have to rate all the candidates, not just your favourites, so the aussie experience is less useful.

it takes the seat off the most popular and gives it to the least hated.

well considering in my ward the vote is split almost equally between Labour and SNP I can see in the future (or in other wards ) where a third party can steal the vote even though the vast majority definitely hate everything they stand for I think a system of electoral reform is needed .

[Hermit]

it's a bunch of shit no-one wants. the aussies don't understand it cos they have compulsory voting and you have to rate all the candidates, not just your favourites, so the aussie experience is less useful.

it takes the seat off the most popular and gives it to the least hated.

well considering in my ward the vote is split almost equally between Labour and SNP I can see in the future (or in other wards ) where a third party can steal the vote even though the vast majority definitely hate everything they stand for I think a system of electoral reform is needed .

Preferential voting actually stops the most hated candidate from winning. Makes sense to me.

[irretating]

As seraph has pointed out, it really helps the voter to vote for who they really want to win, and not to worry that their vote has been 'wasted' by voting for someone that realistically won't win the seat. It allows me to vote Green, because I know that they won't give their preferences to the candidate that I really, really don't want to win.

I think FPTP would force me to vote differently, and that is not a good thing.

[Hermit]

As seraph has pointed out, it really helps the voter to vote for who they really want to win, and not to worry that their vote has been 'wasted' by voting for someone that realistically won't win the seat. It allows me to vote Green, because I know that they won't give their preferences to the candidate that I really, really don't want to win.

I think FPTP would force me to vote differently, and that is not a good thing.

It's worth noting that the voter actually determines who his/her preferences flow on to. Of course there's nothing wrong to follow a party's "How to vote" cards that they try to give you on your way to the voting booth, in which case you merely agree with their recommendation. Alternatively, you could vote "above the line", (which apparently most voters do) with the same effect.

[JimC]

There is a version of preferential voting where there is a certain region large enough to elect say, 5 or 6 members. Parties can stand multiple candidates for the region. If the region is dominated by, let's say Labour, then 4 or 5 members from that party are elected, with one or 2 from other parties. In other regions, you might get 2 from each major party, and one or 2 from minor parties. It is designed to make sure that, on average, parties get pretty well the proportion of members that reflects their vote, and would ensure that minor parties get at least a few members elected.

I guess the downside is that there is not one specific local member, which may put a certain distance between local people and their parliamentary representatives.

[PsychoSerenity]

There is a version of preferential voting where there is a certain region large enough to elect say, 5 or 6 members. Parties can stand multiple candidates for the region. If the region is dominated by, let's say Labour, then 4 or 5 members from that party are elected, with one or 2 from other parties. In other regions, you might get 2 from each major party, and one or 2 from minor parties. It is designed to make sure that, on average, parties get pretty well the proportion of members that reflects their vote, and would ensure that minor parties get at least a few members elected.

I guess the downside is that there is not one specific local member, which may put a certain distance between local people and their parliamentary representatives.

That sounds like the single transferable vote system to me, which is what the Electoral Reform Society and I think a lot of the Lib-Dem supporters wanted to get a referendum on - before Clegg sold out to Cameron with the half measure that is AV.

As you say it would be a lot more proportional - and as for the downside you point out - I'd say it's balanced out by the fact that if you want to get in touch with a local MP, you can most likely get in touch with the one you voted for - rather than being stuck with an MP that may have opposite values to half the constituency.

Perhaps if we get AV this time, we will have a chance to get STV next time.

[Pappa]

We use STV in Wales. It is a good system for fairly representing the voters IMO.