egafd.com

"Again, in the context of voting how is proportional different to preferential?"

Are you seriously telling me you dont know this stuff or are you just trying to waste my time?

Proportional Representation (PR) is the principle behind a number of electoral systems, all of which attempt to ensure that the outcome of the election reflects the proportion of support gained by each competing group.

PR contrasts to the Majoritarian principle, where whichever party or candidate obtains a plurality of votes within any given constituency wins that contest outright. Majoritarianism is the principle that underpins the First-Past-The-Post system that is used for elections to the House of Commons, along with other systems including alternative vote.

Example of a truly proportional system.
Party list systems have two main forms - open and closed. Each party provides a list of candidates. With the open system, voters put a cross by the name of a candidate; with the closed system they put a cross by the name of a party. Voters have only one vote and seats are allocated in proportion to the number of votes received.

Example of a majoritarian system.
The Alternative Vote (AV) is very much like First Past The Post. It is used to elect representatives for single-member constituencies, but rather than simply marking a solitary 'X' on the ballot paper, the voter has the chance to rank the candidates on offer by putting a '1' by their first preference, a '2' by their second preference and so on.

If a candidate receives a majority of first-preference votes (more people put them as number one than all the rest combined), then they are elected. If no candidate gains a majority on first preferences, then the second-preference votes of the candidate who finished last on the first count are redistributed. This process is repeated until someone gets over 50 per cent. AV is also known as Instant Run-off Voting (IRV), Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) and Preferential Voting.

Goodnight!
D

[quote]In a truly proportional system there is an observable connection between number of votes cast and number of seats obtained. In a preferential but not proportional system, you can order candidates in terms of preference but there is no connection between the number of preferences obtained and the number of seats won.[/quote]

'No connection'? Really? Like, at all? You sure? Do you have any evidence at all that there is no connection between preference votes and seats won? If you have no evidence can you at least explain why you think this so I can study your logic?

[quote]You have given me plenty of guesses some of which like it "helps" minority parties[/quote]

Absolutely wrong. A guess implies I've picked out any possible outcome out of thin air, with nor real line of logic (even if that logic be flawed). I've given my opinions and the reasoning behind those opinions. Are you purposely trying to give out the wrong impression purposely or was this a genuine mistake?

[quote]You have given me absolutely no evidence to support your guesses even though this is a system which is already used in Australia, Papua New Guinea and Fiji, apparently.[/quote]

And you've given me no evidence how AV is less proportional to FPTP. You've just said it 'may' be less proportional, which isn't helpful at all (see my spiderman with cock out scenario).

[quote]No surprise then, that your guesses have not convinced me either.[/quote]

There's only one guy guessing between us two, David. Do you need two guesses to come up with the right answer?

As enjoyable as I find your posts, I think I must draw my involvement in this one to an end.

If you want to continue a debate, perhaps you can drop a line to Randyandy?

Some highlights of your attempt to convince myself and Randandy that a move to AV is a sensible step:

http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=244760&t=244685

In the above post you state,

"There is an argument that if we'd had AV over the last 5-6 elections it wouldn't have made a difference in who got in power. I agree with this (even though it's hard to prove who someone's 2nd and 3rd choice votes would have been 20 years ago).

It would, however, have resulted in more seats for minority parties."

And elsewhere you state

"And what if AV is a disaster? Well, we can go back to FPTP."

http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=244827&t=244685

In the above thread you state

!I can only repeat what I've said about it helping minority parties"

And separately in response to me you state:

"Yes, on occasion it can be less proportional than FPTP"

http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=244885&t=244685

In the above thread, you deny stating that AV helps minority parties.

"I didn't use the term 'helps'. You did in your question. I don't know what you mean by 'not proportional in any way.'"

http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=244889&t=244685

I correct you in the above thread about your argument in favour of av helping minority parties.

Your response to me reminding you that one of your key arguments is AV helping minority parties, you state rather ungratefully:

"I cannot be expected to reread every post I've made before every reply. i.e. I can?t be expected to remember what my main argument is".

http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=245015&t=244685

Then in the above thread you state:

"It may turn out that AV really doesn't help smaller parties, despite the extra number of possible votes from 2nd and 3rd preferences, but like I said earlier up the thread, it's not like AV is irreversible. It wouldn't be the end of the world."

And we are supposed to be convinced by the powers of your arguments in favour of AV?

Do me a favour. You haven't convinced yourself never mind us.

Cheers
D

Since this issue of -- is AV more representative or proportional than FPTP is clearly bugging you and I am a helpful chap, you "might" find this "helps"

http://fullfact.org/blog/AV_referendum_ ... ative-2629

I draw your attention to the Constitution Society's conclusion

"There is nothing in the operation of the AV system which increases the correlation between each Party?s percentage of the national vote and the number of Parliamentary seats it secures.?

And that of the Jenkins Commission report which looked into various electoral systems in 1997.

?There is not the slightest reason to think that AV would reduce the stability of government; it might indeed lead to larger parliamentary majorities.?

The report goes on to cite research conducted on the 1997 general election, which shows that under AV the Labour party would have had an even bigger majority of MPs.

Cheers
D

Hahaha. If you have no retort, say so. Again, linking to every other post I've said on the subject is just an attempt at undermining me, not AV. And I can't for the life of me fathom what's contradictory or controversial in any of those quotes.

You haven't given me any good reason for sticking with FPTP over AV, despite my requests. It doesn't have to be hard facts (you seem to have none), pointing out your logic will suffice. Your whole argument seems to have evolved around scaremongering, ifs and buts, and whether I used the word 'helps'. Lol.

And I have no idea why you think that pointing out AV is a 'preferential' system and not a 'proportional' system has any weight. All voting systems are preferential. If you can point out a voting system that doesn't take into account voters' preferences then I'd like to hear about it. FPTP just gives you the option of choosing one preference rather than multiple preferences.

You haven't given me any idea on the difference between proportional and preferential results either. All you've done is point out the procedure of each voting system. A waste of a post. I want to know how your determining proportionality. Are you measuring seats won against voters' first preferences only or first, second and third preferences combined? One will give a different result to the other. One may be more relevant than the other depending on how much weight people place on their first, second and third preferences, for instance.

Let me explain: Both me and you are having supper. We both prefer cod and our second preference is haddock. I might not really care too much if I end up with haddock but you may care a little more. In fact, you try to avoid haddock unless that's all the chip shop have left and you're really hungry. How can we determine proportionality with any real meaning just comparing a result to the proportion of 1st preference votes? It wouldn't really tell you the whole story, would it? All we could take from an AV result would be the peoples' general preference.

You say I haven't convinced myself................you may actually be onto something, and that's your problem. You see, if I come across that way it might be because I've actually weighed up the pros and cons more than you have; that I've given it more thought, maybe? Like randyandy and number 6 (who just about admitted it) you don't want AV just because you're angry at the Lib Dems. That's a silly reason, as I pointed out further up the thread, because parties and policies change. The most courageous thing you could do here is just admit it.

Unlike you I have admitted AV isn't my first choice (naturally pointing out that I'll be voting for AV because I think it better than FPTP).

Unlike you I have admitted it may be less proportional at times, than FPTP (though point out that there's no evidence it would regularly be less proportional and that it may be on the odd 'freakish' occasion). I likened this to, say, drink driving. On the odd occasion you could get totally plastered, get in your car and drive 100 miles on a windy, country road without crashing the thing or killing anyone. Strictly, drink driving 'may' be safe. In general, though, it's considered unsafe.

Unlike you I've thought about what proportionality means in the context of an election.

Unlike you I'm solely concerned with the fairness compared to the system we have now.

I have Ed Milliband, Gordon Brown and Neil Kinnock on my side with Gordon Brown and John Smith having promised AV in the past (though I'm not too convinced about their motives at the time). Maybe the Labour party are so divided over AV because half want to punish Clegg (no2av) and the other half want to punish Cameron (yes2av). I think you're in the former camp.

"You haven't given me any idea on the difference between proportional and preferential results either."

Have you read the info I have given you below???????

http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=245031&t=244685

and here

http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=245135&t=244685

including the actual links to the Constitution Society report????


"Again, linking to every other post I've said on the subject is just an attempt at undermining me, not AV. And I can't for the life of me fathom what's contradictory or controversial in any of those quotes.
"

Eh cant find anything contradictory??? For heaven's sake, Sam, you appear in favour of AV. If you change your view through the thread from arguing av helps minority parties, to denying you said it helps minority parties and then stating maybe it doesnt help minority parties, how are those of us who are not in favour of AV going to be convinced?

"You haven't given me any idea on the difference between proportional and preferential results either. All you've done is point out the procedure of each voting system. A waste of a post. I want to know how your determining proportionality. Are you measuring seats won against voters' first preferences only or first, second and third preferences combined? One will give a different result to the other. One may be more relevant than the other depending on how much weight people place on their first, second and third preferences, for instance."

Read the reports in the links I have given you!!!!!

Stop wasting my time, Sam.

D

[quote]Have you read the info I have given you below???????

http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=245031&t=244685

and here

http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=245135&t=244685

including the actual links to the Constitution Society report????[/quote]

Yes. Because you've given me the same answers again it shows you've not read my post correctly. To calculate proportion something must be compared to something else. I asked you what is compared to what which gives a proportional value, and how that figure differs to a preferential value in that context?

Again, you can have a proportional value of seats to 1st preference votes, seats to 1st and 2nd preference votes combined, seats to 1st, 2nd and 3rd preference votes combined, etc. So what values would you measure to determine proportionality?

From that report: "There is nothing in the operation of the AV system which increases the correlation between each Party?s percentage of the national vote and the number of Parliamentary seats it secures.?

That's fine. But what the report also says is: "On the other hand, the three elections previous to Labour's 1997 landslide would have seen more representative results under AV."

This highlights your lack of objectivity. You quoted only what you wanted people to see. It gives us one election where AV would have been more disproportionate ('97) but gives us at least three other elections where AV would have been more proportionate. And the general consensus is that the last election would have been more proportionate. That's four out of the last seven elections assumed would be more proportionate that FPTP, one being less proportionate than FPTP and two unknown (most likely the because AV wouldn't have made much difference or they would have highlighted the '01 and '05 elections too).

And the article is just pro FPTP because it even has a little dig at full PR: "This is in comparison to full Proportional Representation (PR) systems of election which produce very representative results, but loose [sic] the constituency link that AV and FPTP maintain."

'Loose'? Really? Slightly biased as well as spelling mistakes, eh? It's changed my mind!

Even Cameron himself says he's against AV more out of 'gut instinct' rather than rational thought. Ha! All his best advisors couldn't come up with a decent argument so he leaves it to gut instinct.........like plucking out numbers for the lottery draw. Marvellous.

I'm with Tony Benn, Neil Kinnock, Ken Livingstone and Ed Milliband. You're with David Cameron, George Osbourne, 'Lord' Hurd, 'Lord' Howe, 'Baron' Sainsbury and 'Lord' Leach of Fairford. I suppose you'll get better tea and biscuits round Baron Sainsbury's than Tony Benn's gaff. It's almost like you're in coalition with the Tories! !shocked! !laugh!

Still, most people vote, like Cameron, from 'gut instinct', or at least emotionally, than with their heads. Most will vote 'no' to AV purely because they'll see it as a kick up the arse for Nick Clegg. Unless they're strident Tory boys, though, they're only kicking themselves up the arse.........or more like in the teeth. Shame really. Maybe your great grandkids in another 80 years or so will get another opportunity.

If I can draw you back to the point, Samuel, as painful as that might be to you.

We understand the drawbacks to the FPTP we have had it for yonks!

What supporters of AV in tomorrow's referendum like your good self need to explain are what are the specific advantages of the AV system which will convince the electorate to vote for instead of against AV.

I must admit I have completely failed to get you to come up with any credible explanation.

In reply to my question about your statement "AV helps minority parties" you replied "I have no evidence". When pressed hard about your logic you replied "Would you have more chance of winning the lottery buying 3 tickets or just one? " I have never bought a lottery ticket. Can you explain to me how you put your first, second, third preferences on the rollover ticket and how this helps me get a return on my lottery ticket?

A further attempt to explain the virtues of AV included the following logic "Yeah, get me chips, haddock and peas. - if they've no haddock I'll have cod." Under FPTP I'd have ended up with a fucking rissole or something.

Can you explain to me how buying chips, haddock and peas with an option of cod equates to the AV electoral system?

I have seen no evidence whatsoever supporting your claim that AV helps minority parties to win more seats.

I have given you links to Fullfact.org, an independent, not for profit, fact checking society, the independent Constitution Society report and the Jenkins Report chaired by Roy Jenkins, highlighting the problems with AV in the form being voted on tomorrow.

To support your own case, you have supplied no links, no evidence. Instead you have concentrated on analogies with buying haddock and peas and lottery tickets.

If you can't do better than this piss poor effort, Samuel how on earth do you expect forumites to take you seriously? I dont want to have to keep on reminding you what your key arguments are, when you forget them.

Can you please have another go with evidence and less than 10,000 words if possible?

Ta
David

I realise I have been banging on about you providing evidence in support of AV without giving you some examples of what I mean.

For example, if tomorrow we were voting on a party list proportional system as opposed to voting for a specific candidate(s), you could say to me "Well in this system if Party A gets 40% of the votes cast, the party gets 40% of the seats". And I would think, "yeah, there is a much, much better correlation between votes cast and which party gets a majority in that system than in FPTP. Good point!"

Or if you were to say that various studies have been carried out into numerous FPTP elections in the UK and they have all found that had AV been used, there would have definitely been a much closer (obviously not as close as a party list proportional system) correlation between votes cast and seats won than with FPTP that could also provide sensible evidence.

Now I do not want to see you getting sidetracked into a philosophical discussion on proportionality. I know how you like to go off at a tangent.

Okay. Clear now? No more analogies with buying haddock and chips then?

Ta
D

[quote]What supporters of AV in tomorrow's referendum like your good self need to explain are what are the specific advantages of the AV system which will convince the electorate to vote for instead of against AV.

I must admit I have completely failed to get you to come up with any credible explanation.[/quote]

I'm pretty sure I've typed plenty on what I think the advantages are. Whether you think they're credible or not isn't my problem. Since you're quite fond of summaries, -though they usually end up being very selective summaries and evolve into more questioning than summarizing- I'll summarize my thoughts on the advantages of AV for you, properly:

1. I think giving people more choice in voting, via multiple preferences, gives people more of a say in who wins a seat. It's that simple.

2. Because more people have a say, I think AV, in general, will be more proportional to the peoples' general preferences. For example, right now an MP (George Galloway for instance) can win a seat in parliament with just 18% of voters in his constituency voting for him. Under AV he'd need 50% via other voters' 2nd or 3rd choices. That means at least 50% of those voters had some say in his winning that seat rather than the 1st preference of less than a fifth of the voters under FPTP. He is then representing a larger proportion of voters' in parliament (50% is a larger proportion of 100% than 18%). Simple.

[quote]In reply to my question about your statement "AV helps minority parties" you replied "I have no evidence".[/quote]

I answered that because I took your 'evidence' to mean 'proof'. I'm pretty sure I already explained that and you didn't argue against it. The 'evidence' (not proof) is the logic that giving people multiple votes in order of preference gives them a 2nd, or 3rd chance of having a say who wins what. Since many many voters of the big two parties have a smaller party as a second preference (not many Tories would have Labour as a second choice, and vice versa) this gives smaller parties more of an opportunity to collect those 2nd and 3rd preference votes. I'd say that 'helps' them (at least theoretically). The 'proof' would only come after we've had a number of AV elections and compared the results to previous FPTP elections.

[quote]When pressed hard about your logic you replied "Would you have more chance of winning the lottery buying 3 tickets or just one? " I have never bought a lottery ticket. Can you explain to me how you put your first, second, third preferences on the rollover ticket and how this helps me get a return on my lottery ticket?[/quote]

More questions in a supposed 'summary'. You're last question has got to be frivolous or you've failed to comprehend the point behind the analogy. The basic logic says 'more tickets, more chance of winning - more votes (be they 2nd or 3rd preference votes), more chance of winning. The analogy isn't ideal but the logic holds for both. More chances of winning raises the possibility of winning...........doesn't it? If you don't think it does then, as with a non-preferential voting system, I'd like to hear about it.

[quote]A further attempt to explain the virtues of AV included the following logic "Yeah, get me chips, haddock and peas. - if they've no haddock I'll have cod." Under FPTP I'd have ended up with a fucking rissole or something.

Can you explain to me how buying chips, haddock and peas with an option of cod equates to the AV electoral system?[/quote]

Yet another question not from my last post. And another question in a supposed 'summary'. If you'd had a problem with my chipshop analogy you've had 3 posts between that one and your last to bring it up. Could it be you have no retort to anything in my last post, David? Regardless....... Again, the point I was trying to make is that it's natural for people to have preferences, and it's normal for people to be happier with their 2nd preference over something they never asked for. Again, very very simple and easy to understand..........for me, anyway.

[quote]I have seen no evidence whatsoever supporting your claim that AV helps minority parties to win more seats.[/quote]

Of course you haven't. You can't see the wood for the trees, as your selective quoting of articles shows. Be more objective and your eyes may be uncovered!

[quote]I have given you links to Fullfact.org, an independent, not for profit, fact checking society, the independent Constitution Society report and the Jenkins Report chaired by Roy Jenkins, highlighting the problems with AV in the form being voted on tomorrow.[/quote]

Which clearly says AV would have been less representative in one election but MORE representative in THREE previous elections. Reinforcing my opinion that while AV isn't the best option we could have, it's better than the one we currently have. Jeez........

[quote]To support your own case, you have supplied no links, no evidence. Instead you have concentrated on analogies with buying haddock and peas and lottery tickets.[/quote]

I've based it on logic. The analogies were to help explain that logic because I feared you were either incapable of following it or purposely ignoring it as you had no retort (apart from selectively quoting bias reports).

Instead of me doing all the legwork, explaining and re-explaining my opinions, why don't you take the time to put up your counter-logic that more choice might not equate to more chances of winning? Why don't you explain how people in general would be less satisfied with a second or third choice over one they never chose at all? Show YOUR working out to the teacher, as it were.

[quote]If you can't do better than this piss poor effort, Samuel how on earth do you expect forumites to take you seriously?[/quote]

Piss poor? All you've done, again, is argue the man, not the point! And when you did try and argue the point with articles you only quoted the bits that backed up your own argument. AT least I've been much more sincere in admitting the cons as much as pointing out the pros. How can anyone take you seriously when the main goal for you is to mislead any readers and ridicule your opponent?

[quote]Can you please have another go with evidence and less than 10,000 words if possible?[/quote]

Can you at least admit the pros? Next time you do a summary, can you do an actual summary? Can you ring Tony Benn and ask him why he's as stupid as me for supporting AV?

Ta,

Sam.