THe merits (or not) of FPTP

[timrollpickering]

Jun 4, 2018 23:49:38 GMT greenchristian said:

The fact that it's both complex to do and complicated to explain means that it's going to be extremely rare in practice. And tactical voting needs to be done on a decent scale to have any actual effect.

That's because that one focuses on Liberal voters trying to get the more beatable opponent. However it's simpler to explain people who prefer the Greens to Labor preferencing Labor over the Greens regardless because Labor are more likely to beat the Liberals in a final two.

[islington]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but my point about tactical voting was a secondary consideration and maybe I should have left it out because it's obscured my main point, which is that the eventual outcome of an AV election can easily be determined not by who gets most votes on first preference but by a factor that to my mind ought to be unimportant, namely the order in which other candidates happen to fall second and third.

Thus, under FPTP, if there is a clear winner, that's all that really matters and the fact that the second- and third-placed candidates may have been separated by only a handful of votes is of no more than passing interest.

But under AV, this minor factor may achieve decisive significance if, as will often be the case, there is a marked difference in the way these candidates' voters break on second preference. Even if we accept that no one has made a tactically-inspired effort to manipulate the order, it still seems strange that the placement of second and third, such a minor consideration under FPTP, can be decisive under AV.

And there's noting outlandish or far-fetched about the example I gave to illustrate the point. There are already plenty of seats where the Tories have a solid lead but Lab and LibDems contend for second. And there might be even more under AV, since the Labour vote will not get squeezed as it tends to under FPTP. It would be an odd outcome indeed if Labour supporters in such a seat, who under FPTP have a sporting chance of ejecting the Tory MP if they hold their noses and vote for the Lib Dem, were to vote Labour under AV in such numbers as to force the LibDem into third and hand the seat to the Tory.

[Chris from Brum]

Jun 7, 2018 8:57:45 GMT islington said:

And there's noting outlandish or far-fetched about the example I gave to illustrate the point. There are already plenty of seats where the Tories have a solid lead but Lab and LibDems contend for second. And there might be even more under AV, since the Labour vote will not get squeezed as it tends to under FPTP. It would be an odd outcome indeed if Labour supporters in such a seat, who under FPTP have a sporting chance of ejecting the Tory MP if they hold their noses and vote for the Lib Dem, were to vote Labour under AV in such numbers as to force the LibDem into third and hand the seat to the Tory.

This assumes that all the Tory votes stay put, and that none of them are "keep Labour out" votes that might have gone elsewhere under a preference system.  That, if you don't mind me saying, is a very big assumption.

[timrollpickering]

Jun 7, 2018 9:04:04 GMT Chris from Brum said:

Jun 7, 2018 8:57:45 GMT islington said:

And there's noting outlandish or far-fetched about the example I gave to illustrate the point. There are already plenty of seats where the Tories have a solid lead but Lab and LibDems contend for second. And there might be even more under AV, since the Labour vote will not get squeezed as it tends to under FPTP. It would be an odd outcome indeed if Labour supporters in such a seat, who under FPTP have a sporting chance of ejecting the Tory MP if they hold their noses and vote for the Lib Dem, were to vote Labour under AV in such numbers as to force the LibDem into third and hand the seat to the Tory.

This assumes that all the Tory votes stay put, and that none of them are "keep Labour out" votes that might have gone elsewhere under a preference system.  That, if you don't mind me saying, is a very big assumption.

The vote bases for the two major parties are quite different from that for the Liberal Democrats (hence the latter's near evaporation).

[Chris from Brum]

Jun 7, 2018 10:15:29 GMT timrollpickering said:

Jun 7, 2018 9:04:04 GMT Chris from Brum said:

This assumes that all the Tory votes stay put, and that none of them are "keep Labour out" votes that might have gone elsewhere under a preference system.  That, if you don't mind me saying, is a very big assumption.

The vote bases for the two major parties are quite different from that for the Liberal Democrats (hence the latter's near evaporation).

Not as different as you might think.  Labour's vote has in the past shrunk below 30%, and the Tories have been nearly as poor on occasions.  And that's just on a national basis.  In individual constituences variance have been even greater.  But remove the incentive to "keep themmuns out" and all bets are off anyway.

[islington]

Something that's surprised me, if I may say so, is the amount of love that AV seems to be getting on here.

I can see the argument for proportional (or near-proportional) systems like STV. I don't agree with it, because I think it's based on a misunderstanding of what elections are for, but nevertheless I can understand why these systems have their strong advocates.

But AV? It doesn't seem to offer any obvious compelling advantage over FPTP, indeed on the contrary it potentially generates strange and counter-intuitive outcomes, and it makes no pretence of being proportional.

So why the love? What's the appeal?

[Chris from Brum]

Jun 7, 2018 10:42:21 GMT islington said:

Something that's surprised me, if I may say so, is the amount of love that AV seems to be getting on here.

I can see the argument for proportional (or near-proportional) systems like STV. I don't agree with it, because I think it's based on a misunderstanding of what elections are for, but nevertheless I can understand why these systems have their strong advocates.

But AV? It doesn't seem to offer any obvious compelling advantage over FPTP, indeed on the contrary it potentially generates strange and counter-intuitive outcomes, and it makes no pretence of being proportional.

So why the love? What's the appeal?

Only that it's a fairy step in the right direction, and that it aims to ameliorate the worst aspect of FPTP, i.e. MPs being elected with very low demonstrated support, sometimes less than 1/3 of the vote (note - not the electorate.  If you don't vote, you don't count).  AV would show that the elected member has *some* support from a majority of voters*, even if it's qualified support.  With FPTP, it's pure guesswork as to how those not voting for the winner would have split in any runoff scenario.

Calling it "love" for AV is a bit strong.  I'm in the STV with 4-6 members per seat camp.

*Those who express sufficient preferences, anyway.  Once again, if you stop expressing preferences, I suggest that you put yourself into the "don't much care" bucket.

[timrollpickering]

Jun 7, 2018 10:54:33 GMT Chris from Brum said:

*Those who express sufficient preferences, anyway.  Once again, if you stop expressing preferences, I suggest that you put yourself into the "don't much care" bucket.

Albert Langer would disagree with you. His campaign (to cast a valid incomplete list of preferences under a compulsory preference system *) was based around the belief that many people cared deeply but didn't want to be forced to choose between Tweedledee and Tweedledum, and withholding support was best.

(* Basically a provision designed to rescue votes from accidental errors got abused and the provisions were eventually repealed.)

[carlton43]

The more I read this thread and follow the poverty of argument for AV and PR the more certain I am in my determination to preserve FPTP and to restore it to all elections at every level in the UK.

In a race the best athlete on the day breasts the tape first and wins. We don't tolerate some poxy panel looking at the other athletes and asking who the spectators would have preferred to have won and then after a series of 'calculations' declaring that the third person to pass through the tape has actually won 'after all'! Because that would be deeply silly in a race wouldn't it? Yes. and in all else. the Winner wins.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Which would be a very good argument, if elections were at all like running races in athletics.

As they aren't it's a total irrelevance.

[Sibboleth]

But an election isn't - in that sense - a race. Elections don't exist for our entertainment, but to choose policymakers and representatives.

[timrollpickering]

I think the Liberal Democrats undermined that argument when they made "it's a two horse race" one of their stock cries.

[carlton43]

But it is a race and often referred to as such. It is about getting ahead to the tape by gaining at least one more vote than any one else. There is an end off it. All else is sore loser syndrome from that party of sore losers the Liberals who clearly demonstrate election after election that they can only actually win in a very few constituencies and therefore spend a lifetime fantasizing about any possible means of overcoming that quite simple inability to be popular enough to win nearly anywhere.

Then they compound their cheek in a pretence that PR is fairer which is a monumental travesty of truth and reason. They can't cut it so want bent rules to make their unpopular candidates and unpopular policies capable of winning 'by other means'! In effect they want their bland candidates to 'win' by being merely the least unpopular of the candidates, those that no one cares enough about to actually reject!

PR would ensure a HOC of not only third-raters (we often have that anyway) but the third choice third-raters that no one at all actually wanted as a positive choice. Now does that make any sense? No of course it doesn't. Let's not discuss it any more.

[Chris from Brum]

Jun 7, 2018 11:45:00 GMT timrollpickering said:

I think the Liberal Democrats undermined that argument when they made "it's a two horse race" one of their stock cries.

We may not like the current rules, but they're the ones in place, so we play by them.  For now.

[therealriga]

If keeping the current electoral system, the one change I would make would be to do away with multi-member wards elected under FPTP at local level. Rather than have 20 wards with 3 councillors, just have 60 single-member wards elected every four years. The only argument I can see for multi-member wards is that it allows election by thirds, but I don't see that as particularly important. If having more regular elections is a concern, you could simply reduce the councillors terms to two years, though I wouldn't support that.

[Deleted]

Jun 7, 2018 10:42:21 GMT islington said:

Something that's surprised me, if I may say so, is the amount of love that AV seems to be getting on here.

I can see the argument for proportional (or near-proportional) systems like STV. I don't agree with it, because I think it's based on a misunderstanding of what elections are for, but nevertheless I can understand why these systems have their strong advocates.

But AV? It doesn't seem to offer any obvious compelling advantage over FPTP, indeed on the contrary it potentially generates strange and counter-intuitive outcomes, and it makes no pretence of being proportional.

So why the love? What's the appeal?

This.

[J.G.Harston]

Jun 10, 2018 9:47:56 GMT therealriga said:

If keeping the current electoral system, the one change I would make would be to do away with multi-member wards elected under FPTP at local level. Rather than have 20 wards with 3 councillors, just have 60 single-member wards elected every four years. The only argument I can see for multi-member wards is that it allows election by thirds, but I don't see that as particularly important. If having more regular elections is a concern, you could simply reduce the councillors terms to two years, though I wouldn't support that.

Multi-member wards mean that you have ward colleages to aupport each other and spread the load - and, can give the electorate the choice of having multi-party representation.
Elections by thirds means that you're not struggling to find 80/90/100+ candidates.

[Deleted]

Jun 10, 2018 10:58:01 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Jun 10, 2018 9:47:56 GMT therealriga said:

If keeping the current electoral system, the one change I would make would be to do away with multi-member wards elected under FPTP at local level. Rather than have 20 wards with 3 councillors, just have 60 single-member wards elected every four years. The only argument I can see for multi-member wards is that it allows election by thirds, but I don't see that as particularly important. If having more regular elections is a concern, you could simply reduce the councillors terms to two years, though I wouldn't support that.

Multi-member wards mean that you have ward colleages to aupport each other and spread the load - and, can give the electorate the choice of having multi-party representation.
Elections by thirds means that you're not struggling to find 80/90/100+ candidates.

Indeed - in my own ward in W&M traditionally the smaller parties would put up one candidate. Having my ward divided into three would just make it impossible for them to put up a serious fight and could only arbitrarily fight certain wards.

[greenrichard]

Jun 2, 2018 14:37:48 GMT islington said:

"When electoral systems are discussed, there's a lot of discussion about the merits of single-party government as opposed to coalitions. "

Electoral systems shouldn't be judged on whether or not we like the results. They should be judged on things like fairness and do they represent the will of the people.

[islington]

Greenrichard - You have hit the nail absolutely on the head. If that's all you think elections are for, then the case for STV, or some other proportional system, is unanswerable.

But I think elections are about much more than that - not just about registering an opinion, but exercising a choice about how and by whom the country should be governed.

It's because I want this choice to be a meaningful one that I favour a system - FPTP - that gives politicians a huge incentive to do their coalition-building before the election, so that the voters can pass judgment on what they've come up with; rather than after it, when the voters no longer have any influence on the process.