Wednesday 23 March 2011

FPTP is shit, even by the admission of supporters of FPTP

Deniro, in the comments:

The counting system used in AV does not work. It incorrectly gives special significance* to the second choice votes of voters who vote for lower ranking first vote candidates.

The second choice votes of voters who vote for higher ranking first choice candidates are just as significant in ascertaining which candidate has a majority endorsement. Therefore it declares a winner incorrectly. The AV count system simply does not work.


Doesn't that apply in spades to FPTP? To paraphrase:

The counting system used in FPTP does not work. It incorrectly gives special significance to the second choice of voters who did not dare vote for their preferred candidate.

The second choice votes of voters who vote tactically are just as significant in ascertaining which candidate has a majority endorsement as those who genuinely prefer that candidate. Therefore it declares a winner incorrectly. The FPTP count system simply does not work.


* It does not give special significance to second pref! That is a myth!

Imagine somebody's popping to the corner shop and they ask you if you want anything. You tell him "I'd like a bottle of coke, but if they're sold out, bring me an orange juice." He comes back with an orange juice because coke was sold out. Has your second prefence been 'special significance'?

17 comments:

View from the Solent said...

I’ve yet to see an argument that explains how AV is not logically the same as the system used in countries such as France.
If no candidate gets +50% then the lowest scoring candidate(s) drop(s) out and there’s another vote 1 week later. Repeat until +50% is achieved.

OK there will be some churn but, since most people vote tribally, I reckon it would make little difference to doing effectively the same thing in one hit with AV.

Mark Wadsworth said...

VFTS, good point. AV is a bit like the French presidential election system, except much cheaper and with no tactical voting.

chefdave said...

I admire your faith in this Mark but I'll be voting No when the time comes. AV isn't for the little people it's for the politicians, in an era where people can't be bothered to vote AV is perfect for the discerning politician that wants a mandate and a technical majoriy without the hassle involved in winning the Battle of Ideas. It's faux-legitimacy.

FPTP is perfect, it's just not being used correctly. If 20% of constituents vote Labour, 25% vote Tory and 55% choose to not vote then imo they should return no MP, that choice is as legitimate as anoy other, so why are we denied it? Belgium have gone for months without a government and it didn't descend into chaos.

AV moves away from this ideal and so it will not be getting my support.

Mark Wadsworth said...

CD: "AV isn't for the little people it's for the politicians.."

Nope. AV is for the benefit of smaller parties.

"In an era where people can't be bothered to vote, AV is perfect for the discerning politician that wants a mandate and a technical majoriy without the hassle involved in winning the Battle of Ideas. It's faux-legitimacy."

Allow me to paraphrase:

"In an era where people can't be bothered to vote, FPTP is perfect for the discerning politician that wants a mandate and a technical majoriy without the hassle involved in winning the Battle of Ideas. It's faux-legitimacy."

As to your idea of some constituencies not returning an MP, that's possibly even worse, as we'd end up with a hundred Labour MPs from safe Labour seats and a hundred Tory MPs from safe Tory seats taking it in turns to run the country in perpetuity, and even more people would not bother voting.

And what Battle Of Ideas? It's all lies from start to finish, whether that's the myth that "Britain is a crowded island" or that "VAT is a tax on consumption" or that "Drugs must be made illegal because they can harmful side effects".

James Higham said...

In the preferential voting system used in Australia [called AV over here], the tendency is to produce a two-party preferred result. It militates against a third party who can only exist in coalition with one of the big two.

FPTP produces minority governments.

PR is fair but unwieldy and favours a mono-cameral set-up.

chefdave said...

"Nope. AV is for the benefit of smaller parties."

That's PR, AV does no such thing, it merely gives the supporters of smaller parties the illusion that they've had their voices heard because their 2nd preferences have been counted. Well whoop de do. For me that means voting UKIP first, Tory second and ending up with a Tory MP, plus ça change.

It would also encourage all candidates from the larger parties to move to the centre ground to attract those lucrative 2nd preference votes. You think the lib-lab-con coalition are bad now just wait till we get AV! There won't be a fag paper between them.


"As to your idea of some constituencies not returning an MP, that's possibly even worse"

How so? To extend you example, FPTP (or AV) is like asking someone what drink they'd like from the shop, but with the caveat that they have to have and pay for a drink even if they're not thirsty. Is that acceptable practice in a so-called democracy? I don't think so. Between the rule of law, the quango state, hundreds of years' worth of tradition and the EU I'm sure we'd survive without a few windbag, expense pilfering MP's in the Commons for a few months while they reorganised their manifesto and gave us something worth voting for.

In short I don't see how AV solves any of the the big issues that are present today, and to cap it off it wasn't even in either parties' manifesto.

Bayard said...

AFAICS, AV is not much of an improvement to FPTP. Multi-member constituencies are the way forward. Simpler than PR, with most of the benefits, involves very little change, still one man one vote and is not new.

I think more people would vote if a) you could vote against a candidate if you didn't wish to vote for any of those presented (but you still only get one vote) and b) you have the option of voting for "None of the above" with the proviso that if "None of the above" gets a majority, the election for that constituency has to be re-run with different candidates.

Mark Wadsworth said...

JH, agreed, AV will have relatively little effect on who ends up being in government. The benefit is that more people can cast protest votes.

CD: "AV does no such thing, it merely gives the supporters of smaller parties the illusion that they've had their voices heard because their 2nd preferences have been counted."

Didn't you mean to say:

"AV does no such thing, it merely gives the supporters of smaller parties the illusion that they've had their voices heard because their FIRST preferences have been counted."??

Nobody's forced to use their second and third votes. If you want to vote for Small Party only and no other, then just use your first preference!

I've explained why FPTP with no MP for some constituencies would be worse, we'd end up with a hundred safe Labour MPs and a hundred safe Tory MPs taking it in turns to run the country in perpetuity. So they will do a lot of pork barrel spending in those two hundred constituencies to keep each other happy and the rest of the country will be completely ignored.

Mark Wadsworth said...

B, agreed, MMCs are probably the best; then full PR or FPTP-with-top-up-seats; then AV+; then AV; but worst is FPTP in its current form (or CD's system of having most consituencies without an MP). But that is a fruitless debate.

chefdave said...

"we'd end up with a hundred safe Labour MPs and a hundred safe Tory MPs taking it in turns to run the country in perpetuity."

Well just enact a simple rule change that meant any government needed a Commons majority before they took office.

The idea is to force political parties to go out and obtain real support, AV, PR and FPTP allows politicians to run the country even though their claims on legitimacy are tenuous at best.

Asking the public what they actually want isn't a "fruitless" debate, if that were true we may as well dispense with democracy altogether and have a appointed, unelected experts run the country, like they do in the EU.

Deniro said...

I was not making a polital point but a mathematical one . Mark left out my added comment . The crucial point is that when all votes are counted more than one or all of the candidates can receive majority endorsement. AV incorrectly declares a winner by incorrectly leaving out some second pref votes

eg

Eg
a 45 second c
b 35 second a
c 20 second b

b wins but a has more first votes than b and more second votes than b .
A similar set of votes can show the wrong mid placed candidate winning.


as I said An alternative use of first and lower preference votes could be to produce a total score for each candidate by summating them , weighted by preference, and maybe giving extra weight to first preference votes.

Mark Wadsworth said...

CD, politics is all about completely ignoring facts and logic, inventing a few lies (like "Britain is a crowded island", "Making drugs illegal minimises the harm they cause", "High house prices are good for us" etc), brainwashing the general public into believing them and then and only then asking the public what they want.

F- knows why politicians prefer basing their whole policies on lies. It would save a lot of bother if they relied on 'facts' and 'logic' but that's just how it works.

Den, that's the same contrived example as on the other thread to which I have already responded.

chefdave said...

MW; of course, which is why in an ideal world democracy would be used sparingly and as a last resort, not the default option.

The move to AV doesn't address my main concern though, namely the ability of parties to cruise to victory on a wave of core support and general apathy. In fact it helps this process along by offering a veneer of legitimacy even when the public consistently vote for "none of the above".

Compuslory voting would be preferable to AV, although hardly libertarian at least politicians would stop relying on 60% turnouts to mask their unpopularity. UKIP would benefit too as people looked for sensible alternatives to the dire lib-lab-con party.

Onus Probandy said...

* It does not give special significance to second pref! That is a myth!

Correct.

What the No2AV crowd keep saying is that you get multiple votes if you pick a minority candidate first; this is nonsense. AV is simply a fast way of running multiple elections with an ever decreasing pool of candidates.

If you vote "1. X" and I vote "1. Y; 2. X", then your two ballots were "X, X" -- you still got two votes, you just used them both for the same candidate.

Bayard said...

"as I said An alternative use of first and lower preference votes could be to produce a total score for each candidate by summating them , weighted by preference, and maybe giving extra weight to first preference votes."

This is almost as complicated as PR. Why have a complicated system (AV, AV+, PR) when you can have a simple system (MMCs) which does the job better?

Let's face it, if AV was going to change anything significantly, it wouldn't be on offer, but that's no reason to vote against it. A "No" vote on AV will be interpreted as "the people are against electoral reform" and that will be it, we won't get another chance for fifty years.

Tim Almond said...

chefdave,

I admire your faith in this Mark but I'll be voting No when the time comes. AV isn't for the little people it's for the politicians, in an era where people can't be bothered to vote AV is perfect for the discerning politician that wants a mandate and a technical majoriy without the hassle involved in winning the Battle of Ideas. It's faux-legitimacy.

No. No. NOOO!

FPTP favours the 2 main parties in a seat because it encourages people to vote for the worst of 2 worlds, to vote for a party that's most likely to unseat the current occupant. That's why you've got 2 parties focussed around floating voters. They don't give a toss about the hard left or hard right, they know they'll vote Labour or Conservative.

It's only when you get elections through another system (or by-elections where people will risk their vote) that you see people breaking Duverger's Law and picking who they really like.

The move to AV doesn't address my main concern though, namely the ability of parties to cruise to victory on a wave of core support and general apathy. In fact it helps this process along by offering a veneer of legitimacy even when the public consistently vote for "none of the above".

But the thing is that they won't be able to cruise to victory on a way of core support, because the core support can pick someone else first. A lot of people vote Conservative just because they don't want Labour, and see that voting UKIP means a "wasted vote". With AV, they can pick UKIP first, and if the numbers work in their favour, UKIP win.

Now, this is absolutely the last thing that Con/Lab parties want. They'll settle for the swing of the pendulum, because it eventually comes back to them. It means their parties remain in business barring some utter catastrophe.

Ask yourself this question: how many people voted for their expenses cheat MP because they were Conservative, and they just wanted to keep the LD/Lab candidate out? Now, if people could vote UKIP 1st, Conservative 2nd, how many people would have thought "OK, I want someone on the right, but not those troughing bastards, so I'll give my 1st preference to UKIP"?

Or in very rich seats, how many people would find the current soft-left Conservatism a bit too "big government", and would rather pick the Libertarian party?

The reason the 2 main parties are against AV is they see huge threats to their current power. They can't just treat the overwhelming majority (90+%) with contempt like they do now.

Robin Smith said...

Yes but AV is even shitter.

It allows people to NOT meet their obligations as citizens even more than before.

Its a cowards cop out system. HOI's will love it.

If people were to start voting with integrity, explicitly for the things that benefit ALL people (abolishing tax and collecting rent), rather than themselves(the status quo), they would get more of what they like.

Its no good saying no one stood on these things. They do. I did. But the cop out is always to say that was a wasted vote.