Upcoming AV referendum: does AV mean that the people who vote for the party which comes last get the casting vote?

[Greythorne]

That's what I understood from BBC Radio 4 over the weekend.

But does this mean that parties like EDL and NF and Monster Raving Loony Party - who might well cpme last in an election - lose their vote and all the people who voted for them get their second preference allocated? So, EDL voters will have the casting vote?

Or have I miossed something?

In each round, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and their voters' #2 choices are used instead. I think it is technically possible that if a fringe party is placed high enough up not to be eliminated in the first round they could bounce through by being enough people's second choice

And - reading your question again - yes, all the people who voted originally for eliminated parties will have their second place choice counted next time around. So if all the fringe-party voters had second choice Labour, say, they would then benefit the Labour candidate assuming there hadn't been an outright winner on the first round.

So, yes, that means that people who vote first choice EDL get the deciding vote?

Greythorne - it is one way of looking at it but a very negative one.

The people who vote for the party that comes last get their votes redistributed. If they don't express a second preference their ballot papers go in the bin. If they do, their votes are given to their second choice party - really it is as if the smallest party hadn't existed.

A better way of thinking of AV is as a cheap way of having a two round election which is what they do in France (and Iran) for presidential elections. If someone doesn't get 50% of the vote first time you have a run off election with the two top candidates.

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm selling it as although I think it is an improvement on FPTP I want to see Clegg dumped by the Lib Dems which might happen if NO wins.

GiddyPickle - I don't think there is room for tactical voting in AV although a lot of people are talking about it.

As long as you don't put a party you don't like ahead of a party you do your vote will count. You don't have to express preferences for parties you don't like - if there is only one party you can stomach put them first and leave the rest blank. If your fave comes last your ballot paper will go in the bin - just like the current system.

Yes.

If instead, the 3rd parties votes were re-allocated (or all the votes which didn't come 1 or 2) then it would actually be quite a good system. Basically, use first choices to knock out everyone except the top 2, and then see how many voted for each of them.

But AV isn't like that. It gives disproportionate power to voters of the BNP, Loonies, Greens and other fringe parties.

LFN - you are wrong (again). It lets people vote for fringe parties without throwing their vote away but there is no way a fringe party will end up with 50% of the votes even after redistribution. The end result will be no different than if the fringe parties hadn't stood. Nobody gets disproportionate power.

It does improve the chances of a third party in seats where there is a fairly even split between three parties. At the moment the third party always loses in these constituencies due to vote splitting even where they would win in a head to head against either of the others.

Of course I am still hoping NO wins and Clegg gets sacked by the LD and this coalition becomes something other than Tories by another name.

.

AV means that the party who most people support wins. So the majority of people get the casting vote. And it allows people to support more than one party, in order of preference.

Second votes only start being counted if no candidate has the majority (over 50%) of the votes.

Paul88 explains it well, his only mistake is thinking it has anything to do with Clegg. This is more important than any single person or party.

AV was the voting system both Tories and Labour prefered (Labour even had it in their manifesto) and that is why we are voting on a change to AV.

Paul88 Imagine the following simplified situation.

First round:

40% Party A
30% Party B
20% Party C
10% Party D

If Party C's voters all put party B as their second choice, and Party D's voters all put party A as their second choice, then (ignoring second preferences of those who put parties A and B as their first choice)

• 50% of people will have voted for party A with first or second preference
• 50% of people will have voted for party B with first or second preference

and yet party A will win on the back of party D's votes, ignoring party C's second preferences.

This is obviously a highly stylized examples but such anomalies abound throughout the world of AV - including in many very realistic scenarios.

Can't see anything wrong there, sorry. If Party D didn't exist Party A would have won. Yes parties B and C are splitting the anti party A vote but the party A and D supporters together need 50%+1 of the vote to win.

If A and D get 50% -1 of the vote, then C will be redistributed and if they have all put B second, B will win.

The end result is that the party that can attract more than 50% once clear losers have been eliminated wins.

Sounds like a good system to me - nice example LFN.

Come on though Giddy - ok you don't get your wish because you are outvoted.

But you can't argue that C should have won, or that D should have won. So you are allowed to be disappointed but you can't say it isn't a fair result.

And what if it had been slightly different - you still want C as your 1st choice, D as your second and you can't bear B. But this time 1st preferences are

34% A
36% B
20% C
10% D

All of the other C voters are like you and put D and A before B - in either order.

FPTP would mean B wins; AV means A winds.

You would be glad of AV then.

No, the fringe party voters don't get a 'casting vote', and here's why:

because you need to get over 50% to win

Once a candidate has more than 50%, then by definition, none of the other candidates could have beaten them, so it doesn't actually matter what order the second-preference votes are re-assigned. Presumably they start with smallest parties for ease of re-counting.

(Caveat: if not everyone expresses multiple preferences, then it may not be possible for one candidate to get >50%. In this case, all the votes except those for the winner and runner-up will have been re-assigned, so again, the 'casting vote' scenario doesn't occur)

Argghhh!! I can see how it works, but people are going to tie themselves in knots trying to vote tactically.

How about the onagar system where we all get big sticks and beat the MP from the party we hate the most. All those left standing get to form a government.

But thanks for this thread because I'm getting a better picture of how it could work now.

OK, GiddyPickle, I think I follow your logic.

But the outcome in your scenario is still pretty fair though, the Tories' 35% 1st choice plus 20% 2nd choice have beaten the LDs 10% 1st choice plus 40% second choice.

It gets more interesting* if you swap the LD and UKIP % votes, but keep the 2nd preferences the same; then Con wins with 52.5% (35 + 10 UKIP + 7.5 LD) although LD had "55%" (15 + 40 Lab)

It seems like the overall effect is essentially to weight first choice votes? And it seems to hold true if you jiggle the numbers around.

*Note: this definition of 'interesting' may not be the conventional one.

Giddy - you keep suggesting it is possible to "alter the outcome in their favour" by doing something other than "putting down their "real" first and second choices ".

It really isn't possible to do this - there is no such thing as tactical voting in AV. "Plumping" as you call it - just putting one choice - makes no difference if your choice comes first or second. But if your choice gets eliminated, it means you have no say in which other party wins. It cannot improve the chances of getting your preferred result.

In your example if UKIP voters didn't care who got in if UKIP didn't, and so didn't put a second preference, as you say Labour would have beaten the tories. Fair result based on what people said they wanted.

.

sorry
Giddy have read your posts with interest and though still I am deciding about May 5, can I just say that as someone born and raised in Australia and always very politically active and involved, I don't recognise your characterisations at all. I have never heard of 'plumping' in my life for a start

The Queensland vote is not some weird democratic failure caused by AV: the state has a history of right wing governments, MPs and voters, and whether we like it or not it is almost certainly the case that the vote there reflected the genuine political view of the voters.