But the coffee is in the minority. More people wanted Beer than Coffee!
Alternative Vote
- Thread starter Joel`
- Start date
- Replies 157
- Views 9K
But the coffee is in the minority. More people wanted Beer than Coffee!
Each pub is different. People may not want a pub because they dislike its community/atmosphere etc. but then they are forced to drink when they didn't want to. So, while they may have got a beer they won't necessarily enjoy it.
it seems we are out-numberred Joel
It's the fundamental difference between the two systems. You didn't help yourself just saying "Coffee has more" though.
Just because I didn't want coffee doesn't mean I want a beer at The Queen's Head. This is my problem. If you're saying beer has an outright majority, then you are claiming only 2 parties exist - Beer and Coffee. In reality, each pub would be a party. Each pub (party) offers a different brand of beer, so while on the face of it more people wanted a beer. Less overall wanted a beer at each individual pub. Hence why that picture is just as bad propaganda as what GC has pointed out has been put out by the no campaign.
This is my problem with AV. To reference the picture again, if I vote for a beer at The Green Head and I get one at The Castle. That doesn't make me happy. To claim beer has overall more votes would be to claim that there are only two parties competing (Beer & Coffee). In this case, beer would win in FPTP system anyway. In this case the x-axis has been manipulated for propaganda purposes.
FPTP is a horrible system and I don't see why the UK uses it (it's one of the only countries in Europe that uses single-member districts that I'm aware of). It's inherently a terrible system. The district lines are drawn up completely arbitrarily, often times with political motivations aimed at keeping a minority party or group from being represented (this has always been a big part of American politics, we call it gerrymandering), and at least in the US this is a major obstacle to democracy. It doesn't properly represent the populaces' views because certain groups are under or over represented due to gerrymandering, so we see a party like the Liberal Dems not have nearly as much representation in Parliament as their support in the general populace should lead to.
What I like about AV is that it enables people to give a much more accurate representation of their views. In real life, usually there isn't just one candidate we like (or hate the least), there are usually a few. Rather than being able to express this, we are forced to strategically vote, which isn't good for democracy. With AV you get to express what your political viewpoints actually are: a set of preferences among the candidates. If you only have one preference, than go ahead, vote for that one candidate. But AV allows you to vote for who you truly want the most (as opposed to strategically voting for one that probably can win) while still being able to express your preference among the other candidates. In real life you might want candidate A, but you sure as **** prefer candidate C over candidate B. AV allows you to express that without having to strategically vote for candidate C who you don't want (and often times you can't strategically vote, since candidate A and candidate C might be very close in the race). It also ensures that the candidate gets a majority. Under the current system, very few MPs actually receive a majority vote. AV ensures that they get a majority. Not a majority of first choice votes, as you'll point out, but it IS a majority of some form, which will only give more legitimacy to the political process.
I'm sorry Joel and Calum but you're refusing to see the point behind the ad. It's actually a brilliant piece of propaganda. Don't think of it in terms of politics, think of it in terms of what would actually happen if you were with a group of 9 other friends and this question came up. Do you think people would actually want to drink the coffee? They wouldn't, because there is much more similarity between the other choices than there is between the coffee and any of them. There isn't that much of a difference the Green Man and the Castle, but the people made a choice between the two because they were asked to. They weren't allowed to make the choice between beer in general and coffee, the different choices of beer were split up. We're not assuming there are two parties, we are assuming that in this scenario, the choice with the most votes was far different from the other choices and was unpopular. No one would have voted for that choice if it was up against any of the other choices in an election between two. The problem is the votes were split among a few choices that were very similar. 70% of the people in the group are obviously very opposed to coffee, yet all of the sudden they have to go drink coffee. If they all ended up going to the Castle, 20% would be stoked, 50% would be OK with it (though they would obviously prefer this to coffee), and 30% would be opposed since they wanted coffee. This is how the decision would work in real life (although they might choose The Red Lion or the Queen's Head) and that's how it should work in politics.
The reality is that a plurality system of voting just doesn't work in real life. It's what we have in the US and it's a horrible way of representing the public. Besides the gerrymandering it leads to unpopular candidates winning because the more popular, mainstream opinion sometimes is split among a few candidates. Idaho is the perfect example. In the Republican primary for the 1st district in Idaho in 2006, the mainstream opinion was split between a few candidates in a 6 way race. The candidate with the plurality was Bill Sali, who was an absolute nutcase hated by Republicans even more than Democrats (because he made their party look bad). No one wanted this guy to represent us, but the 26% of the conservative population that is insanely conservative voted for him, while the 74% of the relatively mainstream conservatives thought he was a lunatic but each voted for their first preference among 5 mainstream candidates. They had no way of strategically voting because they weren't sure which candidate would get the most (and they wanted to vote for who they believed in), but they sure as **** didn't want Sali. Bill Sali was so bad that in the election he barely defeated the Democratic candidate (Idaho is arguably the most Republican state in the Union), and he lost the election to the Democrat in 2008, which was the first time in 16 years that a Democratic candidate won a congressional election in the state of Idaho.
There are just so many examples of FPTP being a terrible system and electing candidates that the mainstream populace does not want. I can't see a candidate as unpopular as Bill Sali winning under AV.
If you don't like the idea of voting more than once with different preferences, what do you think about the two-round system (runoff voting)? I would prefer that to FPTP. It would help ensure that you don't elect candidates who are very unpopular, and it ensures that the winner gets a majority.
For me, proportional representation is definitely the best and I don't see how a small country like the UK would actually use FPTP. I hate that we use it in the US (would be a dream come true if the House of Representatives used proportional representation), but it makes sense there at least somewhat since it's such a large country that wants to ensure that each area is represented in congress.
What I like about AV is that it enables people to give a much more accurate representation of their views. In real life, usually there isn't just one candidate we like (or hate the least), there are usually a few. Rather than being able to express this, we are forced to strategically vote, which isn't good for democracy. With AV you get to express what your political viewpoints actually are: a set of preferences among the candidates. If you only have one preference, than go ahead, vote for that one candidate. But AV allows you to vote for who you truly want the most (as opposed to strategically voting for one that probably can win) while still being able to express your preference among the other candidates. In real life you might want candidate A, but you sure as **** prefer candidate C over candidate B. AV allows you to express that without having to strategically vote for candidate C who you don't want (and often times you can't strategically vote, since candidate A and candidate C might be very close in the race). It also ensures that the candidate gets a majority. Under the current system, very few MPs actually receive a majority vote. AV ensures that they get a majority. Not a majority of first choice votes, as you'll point out, but it IS a majority of some form, which will only give more legitimacy to the political process.
I'm sorry Joel and Calum but you're refusing to see the point behind the ad. It's actually a brilliant piece of propaganda. Don't think of it in terms of politics, think of it in terms of what would actually happen if you were with a group of 9 other friends and this question came up. Do you think people would actually want to drink the coffee? They wouldn't, because there is much more similarity between the other choices than there is between the coffee and any of them. There isn't that much of a difference the Green Man and the Castle, but the people made a choice between the two because they were asked to. They weren't allowed to make the choice between beer in general and coffee, the different choices of beer were split up. We're not assuming there are two parties, we are assuming that in this scenario, the choice with the most votes was far different from the other choices and was unpopular. No one would have voted for that choice if it was up against any of the other choices in an election between two. The problem is the votes were split among a few choices that were very similar. 70% of the people in the group are obviously very opposed to coffee, yet all of the sudden they have to go drink coffee. If they all ended up going to the Castle, 20% would be stoked, 50% would be OK with it (though they would obviously prefer this to coffee), and 30% would be opposed since they wanted coffee. This is how the decision would work in real life (although they might choose The Red Lion or the Queen's Head) and that's how it should work in politics.
The reality is that a plurality system of voting just doesn't work in real life. It's what we have in the US and it's a horrible way of representing the public. Besides the gerrymandering it leads to unpopular candidates winning because the more popular, mainstream opinion sometimes is split among a few candidates. Idaho is the perfect example. In the Republican primary for the 1st district in Idaho in 2006, the mainstream opinion was split between a few candidates in a 6 way race. The candidate with the plurality was Bill Sali, who was an absolute nutcase hated by Republicans even more than Democrats (because he made their party look bad). No one wanted this guy to represent us, but the 26% of the conservative population that is insanely conservative voted for him, while the 74% of the relatively mainstream conservatives thought he was a lunatic but each voted for their first preference among 5 mainstream candidates. They had no way of strategically voting because they weren't sure which candidate would get the most (and they wanted to vote for who they believed in), but they sure as **** didn't want Sali. Bill Sali was so bad that in the election he barely defeated the Democratic candidate (Idaho is arguably the most Republican state in the Union), and he lost the election to the Democrat in 2008, which was the first time in 16 years that a Democratic candidate won a congressional election in the state of Idaho.
There are just so many examples of FPTP being a terrible system and electing candidates that the mainstream populace does not want. I can't see a candidate as unpopular as Bill Sali winning under AV.
If you don't like the idea of voting more than once with different preferences, what do you think about the two-round system (runoff voting)? I would prefer that to FPTP. It would help ensure that you don't elect candidates who are very unpopular, and it ensures that the winner gets a majority.
For me, proportional representation is definitely the best and I don't see how a small country like the UK would actually use FPTP. I hate that we use it in the US (would be a dream come true if the House of Representatives used proportional representation), but it makes sense there at least somewhat since it's such a large country that wants to ensure that each area is represented in congress.
AV is far better than FPTP, but by no means is it the best system. Ideally we'd have something closer to true proportional representation, but not quite fully there. If you want an example of what can happen with true proportional representation, look at Weimar Germany.
Also lol at people who fail to understand AV and the beer/coffee example.
Also lol at people who fail to understand AV and the beer/coffee example.
Have you forgotten what proportional representation can lead to? In no sense is that the best option. FPTP is IMO much better and currently works fine. It may not be perfect but its better than wasting hundreds of millions of pounds that can be spent on hospitals, schools, jobs etc on something that is no better than our current system.
I understand the example perfectly well, thank you. I was pointing out why the example is misleading, and one of my gripes with the system.
It's going to cost Hundreds of Millions of Pounds just to change the voting system? I call bullshit.
I'm saying that, each pub offers a completely different product, while it may still be beer. If we change it to "Lets have coffee or a coca-cola". If you give them a diet instead of regular. While you've given them coca-cola, you haven't necessarily given them the product they wanted. For all you know, if they'd wanted a diet coca-cola, they would have voted coffee. You see? You can't just ignore the possibility that the ones who wanted a beer at The Red Lion and get the Queen's Head, wouldn't have wanted coffee. This is my point. 2nd place isn't best, it isn't what the majority wanted. Because they came **** 2nd. Hence why I called it x-axis manipulation. You aren't voting for a beer and a coffee, otherwise we have a 2 party system and FPTP would have allowed beer to win. What we actually have is all of the different pubs and coffee shop as a party. I don't believe in having secondary and tertiary preferences. I have my view, and I stick to it. And I'll vote for the party that mostly closely represents my view. Do you go to a football match, watch your team lose and not care because your 2nd preference won the match? No, you're still unhappy. And I'd still be unhappy if my 2nd preference won, because I wanted my ****** 1st option.
The cost of saying yes to AV will be a cool £250m and more than half of that – £130m – will be spent on electronic vote counting machines. Numerous sources have reported this, Lib Dems claim that the electronic systems aren't necessary with AV but it's a pretty much a certainty that they will be needed to make it work.
EDIT: The referendum in itself is costing £80million.
Last edited:
so whats 120 million pounds being spent on
and Ireland has a AV too and we dont use electronic systems (despite buying them) as they are not necessary at all.
I'm not exactly sure what the other 120 million is going on. The additional costs of counting? The extra people needed to handle the extra rounds of counting? The cost of "voted education"?I'd need to do more research to find out.
Ireland doesn't use AV, only Australia, Papua New Guinea and Fiji use it.
Irish Scouse
Bob Kelso. ❥
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,986
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Well the cost is irrelevant, the people voting for it [surely must/hope] know about the cost. If they feel it's going to bring around better leadership and such then the cost is worth it in their eyes.
How is it irrelevant? You have a TV and see a new one in the shop. It's expensive but is a slight improvement on yours? Do you spend your money anyway since it's slightly better?
It's not irrelevant at all. We're in a time of austerity with cuts being made. Oh OK lets waste some more money on an un-needed electoral change so we can put more people out of work.
Hopefully the people do know about it but it's hard when one side's saying one thing and the other are saying differently. If you believed the Lib Dems it would cost about £5million which is simply un-true.
Irish Scouse
Bob Kelso. ❥
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,986
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Well, it's quite different considering the people voting for it obviously see it as better for the country. Perhaps upgrading to HD is a suitable metaphor
Well, it's quite different considering the people voting for it obviously see it as better for the country. Perhaps upgrading to HD is a suitable metaphor
True.
Analogy is the same though. It's still trading flawed system for flawed system, we just get to pay for privilege.