Question of electoral reform

[Micawber]

Does anyone think using the Alternative Vote (AV) to elect a parliament is a good system?

 

If any Australians read this, it would be interesting to hear a perspective from people who actually use the system.

 

The background is, here in the UK, we're about to have the first nationwide referendum in decades. The question is do we continue to use First Past The Post (FPTP) or switch to AV. Those are the only two choices on the table.

 

FPTP is problematic when there are >2 parties in competition; the results are clearly not proportional. (Anyone who votes for a party other than the top two is under-represented.) However, back when I was a university student (some long while ago) I remember learning about various different electoral systems and the story we were told then was that AV would actually be less proportional in outcome than FPTP.

 

The commonly quoted example is that, under AV, in 1997 the ruling conservative party would have been almost wiped out by Tony Blair's labour (in the real world they were severely cut back, but with 30% of the vote still kept over 150 seats). There are clearly risks associated with giving a government carte blanche, with no effective opposition. However this analysis is all hypothetical: it makes assumptions about how people would have voted if the rules had been different, based on the way they voted under current rules.

 

The most convincing argument I've yet heard to vote for AV is that it might be a stepping stone for another, better system. If this move gets defeated, there may not be another chance to reform for another few decades. On the other hand, is it wise to introduce a system I don't really want, in the hope of replacing it in turn a bit later?

[Lilith]

changing the voting system on its own can only achieve so much. any political system that uses geographical electorates rather than population-wide proportional representation is going to favour major parties over minor parties: australia is no exception. the preferential voting system does mean that it's possible to vote for a third party without your vote being rendered meaningless, but 95% of the time your vote is going to end up being transferred over to one or the other of the major parties when all's said and done -- and senatorial voting is complicated enough that you may not even know who your vote is going to benefit unless you explicitly vote for 100 or more candidates in strict preference order

 

there are also certain fundamental theoretical problems with AV/IRV in particular. in unusual but plausible circumstances, casting a vote for a candidate can actually make that candidate less likely to win the election

[Skomer]

Don't get me started on this wretched referendum!

 

The Tories have completely shafted us by grudgingly allowing a vote on electoral reform, but only allowing a vote between the system that they want (FPTP) and the system that nobody wants (AV). One year ago, before the general election, AV was broadly slated during campaigning on electoral reform. The preferred system of most parties who'd like to see reform is the single transferable vote, but of course we can't have a referendum on that because it might actually get voted in. (Parties preferring STV: Greens, Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, SNP, some Labour.)

 

So we're stuck with a referendum where a 'no to AV' vote will in effect be counted as a 'no to electoral reform' vote, and a 'yes to AV' vote means we will get AV, not the reform that was previously campaigned for.

 

I hear people saying that a move to AV could pave the way to further reform, but as far as I know this hasn't ever happened anywhere else in the world. If we vote in AV, we'll have AV for the next generation at least.

[Khoth]

Either way, we'll be stuck with the voting system that gets chosen for ages. If No wins, the story will be "the people have spoken, and don't want electoral reform".

 

I think AV is still better than FPTP though, so let's go with that.

[Micawber]

Quote:

Either way, we'll be stuck with the voting system that gets chosen for ages.

What a depressing thought. On that basis, I really will have to vote no.

[Dantius]

Not being British, and being stuck in a country that still has the Electoral College, not to mention still on FPTP, I would say that, while AV is not optimal, it would still nonetheless be closer to what I view as on optimal arrangement (STV) than the current system, and furthermore, by saying "yes" to electoral reform, it's possible that the issue will still be kept on the radar, as opposed to simply being dismissed out of hand if the referendum fails.

[Alorael at Large]

It's worth considering that Arrow's impossibility theorem makes electoral reform ultimately impossible. You can't have a system in which the voters vote and good a good outcome reliably.

 

—Alorael, who of course acknowledges that you can do a lot better than the current U.S. system, which both weights votes differently based on geography and strictly enforces two-party politics with its FPTP system.

[nikki.]

Of the two, I think I'm going to vote to stick with FPTP. AV just seems overly confusing and unnecessary - a lot of people I've spoken to about it don't really get it (because they're not used to it, I suppose), and I don't much appreciate the thought that my vote will get transferred to another party.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Cats

It's worth considering that Arrow's impossibility theorem makes electoral reform ultimately impossible. You can't have a system in which the voters vote and good a good outcome reliably.

the independence of irrelevant alternatives criterion is unrealistically strict and there's not much harm to be done by dropping it. for one thing, the human brain itself doesn't adhere to it: the mere existence of alternative candidates can swing somebody's vote by affecting the criteria they use to judge who to vote for

time to bust out some decision theory. let's suppose you have to choose between one of two houses to live in. the first has rent of $400 a week and is 20 km from work. the second has rent of $500 a week but is only 10 km from work. let's say 50% of people will choose the first house and 50% will choose the second.

now, let's make you choose between three houses. in addition to the first two, there is a third house that has rent of $400 a week like the first house, but is 25 km from work. it turns out that simply adding this third house makes people evaluate the first house more favourably by comparison, and suddenly people split about 70-30 in favour of choosing the $400 house over the $500 house

thus, the addition of an irrelevant alternative that nobody would choose makes people evaluate the relevant alternatives differently, even if the voting system itself adheres to IIA.

[keira]

Personally, I think a transfer to the Oppresive Dictator voting system is the way to go. The ballot is very simple: 1) Vote for incumbent 2) Please kill me and torture my family.

 

After a small civil war to transfer to the new system, your nation will be up and running with an Oppresive Dictator in no time! The OD will cut through that red tape and/or rebel scum like it's not even there! Imagine how much more productive you'll be in your work camp!

[Dintiradan]

I'm aware of Arrow's impossibility theorem, and that AV isn't a perfect system. Doesn't stop FPTP from sucking more. Basically, I'm in favour of any system that gives more expressive power to the electorate. I want to be able to express my support for a fringe party, while still being able to help decide who wins between the leading candidates. And, to some degree, I'm curious to see how a generation of politicians elected under AV would differ from a generation elected under FPTP.

 

I've had the same experience as Nikki trying to explain what a preferential ballot is (my university's undergraduate students' union uses it for council elections). From the perspective of the voter, it's almost as simple as a single-choice ballot. It's when you start talking about how results are derived that people zone out and the fear, uncertainty, and doubt creep in. People dislike hearing the gory details of AV; I wonder how they'd react to something like the Schulze method.

 

(If it wasn't for algorithmic complexity, I'd be all for national elections being decided by the Schulze method, with one modification. Voters have to answer a series of skill testing questions, ensuring that they know how the method works. Only people familiar with graph theory should vote.)

 

Off-topic question for our resident Australian(s): What do you think about mandatory voting?

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

Off-topic question for our resident Australian(s): What do you think about mandatory voting?

intuition suggests that it ought to shift the major parties toward the centre, since it means they don't have to work so hard to ensure their own base bothers to vote for them. it's hard to say whether or not this happens in practice

[Khoth]

Originally Posted By: Impudent Strumpet!

Of the two, I think I'm going to vote to stick with FPTP. AV just seems overly confusing and unnecessary - a lot of people I've spoken to about it don't really get it (because they're not used to it, I suppose), and I don't much appreciate the thought that my vote will get transferred to another party.

What's so confusing about it? "Number the candidates in order of preference until you don't care any more" isn't terribly hard to do. For the counting, it's just repeated "Eliminate the least popular candidate, everyone who voted for them gets to choose someone else instead".

(It's worth noting that the No to AV campaign has described the system in the most confusing way they could get away with, so if people are getting their information from that, it might explain why they don't understand it)

I do appreciate the thought that my vote will get transferred to another party. Letting me say "I'd like A to win, but if that's not happening B would be my second choice, and C is terrible" is better than letting me say "I'd like A to win, but if that's not happening completely ignore the rest of my opinion", and better than "I'd like A to win, but because I don't think A will win, I'm going to have to lie and say I most want B to win, to keep C out".

[Alorael at Large]

For the US, it fixes the problem of the Republican party backing Green Party candidates because they aren't real threats but they do leach votes from the Democrats. It'd be nice to be able to vote for a third party without knowing that you're effectively giving power to your least favorite alternative.

 

—Alorael, who would alternately support giving all votes to Google to see what would happen. Or possibly Wikipolitics. Actually, a Wikiconstitution would be lots of fun.

[VCH]

Can't you just vote for a single candidate (in AV) and not bother with second or third choices?

 

That's what I do for municipal elections. That way I don't waste my vote on somebody I have no interest seeing elected.

 

I think a lot of people assume they must rank candidates.

 

 

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

Off-topic question for our resident Australian(s): What do you think about mandatory voting?

 

intuition suggests that it ought to shift the major parties toward the centre, since it means they don't have to work so hard to ensure their own base bothers to vote for them. it's hard to say whether or not this happens in practice

 

Some Canadian politicians are playing with the idea of rewarding people with chances to win trucks, beer, or money if they vote. But personally I think a fine will work better.

 

 

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: VCH

Can't you just vote for a single candidate (in AV) and not bother with second or third choices?

That's what I do for municipal elections. That way I don't waste my vote on somebody I have no interest seeing elected.

I think a lot of people assume they must rank candidates.

I'm not sure of the exact details of the UK proposal, but in most Australian elections it doesn't count as a valid vote unless you've numbered every candidate.

[Khoth]

In the UK you won't have to rank everyone. I'll most likely go for my actual first choice as number 1 and then the major party I hate least as number 2, and leave the rest blank. There's no real point in me expending effort working out how much I like all the random independent candidates I don't know or care about.

[Micawber]

Agree with Khoth there's no point wasting time attributing preferences to minority candidates who would be eliminated before your 1st & 2nd choices. That's assuming the system gets introduced at all (looking less likely).

 

Meanhile, this article in the New Yorker article on voting methods is interesting. The description of the Venetian voting system is amusing. Imagine trying to explain that lot to your gran. Certainly makes AV sound simple.

 

The article also mentions Arrow's theorem, which was discussed earlier, and concludes that approval voting is a way around it. Not sure how I would feel about approval voting; but it probably doesn't matter as it's never been seriously considered (barely even mentioned in Jenkins report).

[Kelandon]

The one piece of electoral reform in the US that I would like is fewer things on the ballot. I don't want to vote for judges or laws (initiative and referendum does no good and a lot of harm). I definitely don't want to vote for random offices that I've never even heard of. Let me vote for an executive and a couple of legislative representatives at the local, state, and national level and let them appoint everyone else, for god's sake. If I'm casting a double-digit number of votes on each of two ballots every two years, the system is inefficient and stupid, and I've been casting 20-40 votes on each ballot every two years.

[Lurking Eyebeast]

Originally Posted By: Thuryl

I'm not sure of the exact details of the UK proposal, but in most Australian elections it doesn't count as a valid vote unless you've numbered every candidate.

I'm sorry for going off topic, but I would just like to point out to those living outside Australia that that quote applies only the lower house (in which there are usually about 6 candidates per electorate).

The Upper house elections use the STV system, rather than IRV and that one can either pick a single group (party or random list of independents) above the line, or rank every single candidate (there are about 50 per state) below the line. There is no way to simply rank each party. The results take weeks to come in and people don't pay much attention to the Senate, as all of the good debates and newsworthy politicians are representatives.

I have an idea for the voting system, but I do not have time to give details. I will edit this post later with the details if my proposal.

EDIT: In my opinion, the Senate is unnecessary, although should technology allow it without risk of vote-tampering, I do believe it could be replaced with some form of direct democracy, although then, what is the point of having a lower house?

Until then, I believe that the house of representatives should be elected by a proportional system in which the entire country is a single electorate and voters may rank their parties in order of how much power they want them to have. It should be a list-based system, in which the people vote for a list of candidates released by the party (the method of selecting said candidates may vary from party to party, but with primaries, one runs the risk of sabotage from supporters of opposing parties).

The list will be ordered from most to least important, so if a party gets 123 seats, then the first 123 people on the list will get the seats. The #1 candidate of the party with the largest number of seats becomes PM, the 2nd candidate becomes deputy, the third becomes and the next few (in this case few == number of departments) are just plain ministers (there will be no set order of departments).

It would be good if there was a system in which people vote for the percentage of seats each party should get, thus giving people the freedom to vote in more ways such as "I want a hung parliament" or "I want A to be in government but I want C in opposition rather than B".

Unfortunately, this system would make it very difficult for independents and parties without enough candidates to fill parliament.

[Lilith]

yeah but if you vote above the line in the senate you're liable to inadvertently help elect someone from family first

[Micawber]

Any system where the upper house is actually elected would be an improvement here. In fact, as compared with the current arrangement, it was probably more democratic when it was hereditary.