Alternative Vote

[Saracen]

Yes, this is exactly the problem, the question was too simple on a rather complicated potential change.

Answering "No" is not an endorsement of FPTP and its not necessarily a rejection of AV, just as "Yes" was not necessarily an endorsement of AV.

They would have done better to ask more questions.

- Do you think we should remain with the current system?
- Do you think we should change to AV?
- Do you think we should change another system, other than FPTP and AV?
- Do you think politicians will screw it up regardless of what option is chosen?

Well, ok, maybe not the last one.

The last one I took as rhetorical .... and a given.

However, the cynic in me says some parties to the campaign had every reason to actively want it screwed up.

....

Answering "No" is not an endorsement of FPTP and its not necessarily a rejection of AV, just as "Yes" was not necessarily an endorsement of AV.

I think you might be splitting hairs a bit, there, on the middle point. The vote certainly can't be assumed to be an endorsement of FPTP, though I've no doubt that it was exactly that for some voters. I know for a certainty that it was not an endorsement for all though, because it wasn't from me.

I guess part of the problem is that, as always, we know what people voted, but not why, and it's presumptuous to assume everyone voted as they did for the same reason. So, I guess you have a point - a lot of voters may have voted "no" as an anti-Clegg or anti-LD protest. Or not. We just don't know.

I'd like to think that on a referendum on a significant constitutional change, all people would vote on the actual issue, not use it as a protest to kick Clegg et al., but I'm not naive enough to actually believe that.

[Saracen]

It's interesting to note that our little poll here got the percentages pretty much right.

It's just a shame we got them associated with the wrong answers.

Maybe our members didn't understand the question?

[PetrolHead]

Maybe our members didn't understand the question?

Or maybe hexites understood the questions better than Joe Bloggs did?

[mikerr]

The real result was 42% turnout = most not bothered

[billythewiz]

When the result was announced on BBC news the announcer said (something like) "The British people have voted overwhelmingly against a change to our voting system".

Of course that isn't how/why some people voted, but it is how it will be interpreted.

In 1910 a Royal Commission on electoral reform recommended AV. In 1930 a Labour Bill also proposed it. In 1998 the Jenkins Commission also recommended a system that was 80% AV. In 2011 we had a referendum as one of the concessions from a hung parliament/coalition negotiation.

I predict that the next time we get another chance wont be for 50 years. Some of us may even be still alive for it.

I'd like to thank Saracen for the interesting debate. At the very least he caused me to read the Jenkins Report

Alas it doesn't contain a comparison of AV or FPTP with each other or other systems. Fortunately Wikipedia does, so if anyone is still interested, there's a comparison here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...voting_systems
"Instant Runoff Voting" is the American name for AV. They actually use it in quite a few places. California and The Oscars being two high profile examples.

One final comment, none* of the modern democracies have chosen FPTP. In fact, post apartheid South Africa didn't even consider it as an option.
*Actually, there is one. Zimbabwe (i.e. Mugabe) chose FPTP.

[Lucio]

Alas it doesn't contain a comparison of AV or FPTP with each other or other systems. Fortunately Wikipedia does, so if anyone is still interested, there's a comparison here

Definitely an interesting comparison, but I would cast some doubt on some of the statistics presented. For example, Voter Participation, the author is comparing a country where voting is optional with a country where voting is mandatory and presenting the different statistics to be representative of the differents in voter turnout under each system. Even with the priviso that states the difference, it's a bloody stupid statistic to include.

There's also some inconsitencies further down, in regards to the tactical voting, the section at the top states none of the systems allow tactical voting, and yet further down there's FPTP getting labelled as such (which, to be fair, I agree with the conclusions of the detail).

All in all, an interesting Wiki page, but there's definite inaccuracies in the statistics being presented, so hardly a compelling arguement.

[billythewiz]

I agree that the Voter Participation section is misleading. Wikipedia is open. Why don't you change or remove that section ? If you don't want to be confrontational, why not add your opinion to the discussion section.

I also agree that the Tactical Voting section is misleading, but it is correct. NONE of the systems pass the "Tactical Voting Criteria", i.e. all of them allow tactical voting.

The discussion section also contains a comment about reliable sources and the fact that most of the statistics are taken from reputable authorities (like The London School of Economics).

So I refute your suggestion that there are inaccuracies in the statistics. Even the Voter Participation stats are correct and accurate.

[chaplin]

yes. I cannot vote in this poll apparently.

[Saracen]

yes. I cannot vote in this poll apparently.

Nobody can now. It's closed (says that in small type under the poll). When you create a poll, an option exists to have it close automatically after a specified time. I guess the poll creator did that. Or a mod closed it after the referendum closed.

The thread is still open, but the poll is not.