Hello and Welcome,
One of the main arguments of the No2AV squad is that A.V. would give the supporters of eliminated candidates extra votes.
The standard retort to this by the Yes2AV club is "You do not get two votes, just two preferences!" Normally followed by some of the more moronic elements by something like "You just want to tell lies and keep the status quo ...nazi!" or something to that effect.
Now, I think it is very important to deal with this once and for all so I am going to run a mock election under both of these completely different systems.
The end result does not matter in this case at all, so hopefully I will get no shouts of "You can use facts to prove anything" like I have in the past. It doesn't matter how the preferences are set out and are done at random in this example to show it.
AV,
Voter A
He Wants Candidate Sam to win,
Would Put up with Candidate Jane,
Doesn't like Candidate Fred.
Voter B
He Wants Candidate Fred to win,
Would Put up with Candidate Jane,
Doesn't like Candidate Sam.
Voter C
He Wants Candidate Fred to win,
Would Put up with Candidate Sam,
Doesn't like Candidate Jane.
Voter D
He Wants Candidate Sam to win,
Would Put up with Candidate Jane,
Doesn't like Candidate Fred.
Voter E
He Wants Candidate Jane to win,
Would Put up with Candidate Fred,
Doesn't like Candidate Sam.
So Jane is eliminated with only one vote, Voter E's second preference now gets her vote.
Fred Now wins, with three votes to two votes.
Now lets try the other weird, completely different, not like in any way, stupid system of the eliminated candidate's voter getting another vote.
Voter A
He Wants Candidate Sam to win,
Would Put up with Candidate Jane,
Doesn't like Candidate Fred.
Voter B
He Wants Candidate Fred to win,
Would Put up with Candidate Jane,
Doesn't like Candidate Sam.
Voter C
He Wants Candidate Fred to win,
Would Put up with Candidate Sam,
Doesn't like Candidate Jane.
Voter D
He Wants Candidate Sam to win,
Would Put up with Candidate Jane,
Doesn't like Candidate Fred.
Voter E
He Wants Candidate Jane to win,
Would Put up with Candidate Fred,
Doesn't like Candidate Sam.
So Jane is eliminated with only one vote, Voter E's second vote now comes into play. As she prefers Fred, with her brand new vote she votes for Fred.
Fred is declared the winner by 3 votes to 2 votes.
Hmmm, wait a minute *gasps*. That is exactly the same result!
Whatever the Yes2AV club want to call it, getting another vote when your first choice is eliminated is the same as getting an extra preference.
There is no difference.
Did you see this?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/13996
QUOTE:
In his decision, Judge James Fleming wrote:
"Each voter has the same right at the time he casts his or her ballot. Each voter has his or her ballot counted once in any count that determines whether one candidate has a majority of the votes. Each voter has the same opportunity as the next voter in deciding whether or not to list numerical preferences for his or her candidate and has the same equality of opportunity as any other voter if his or her candidate is eliminated as the lowest vote-getter, and his or her second choice preference becomes the viable vote."
Later he continues:
“Under the 'MPV System'...no one person or voter has more than one effective vote for one office. No voter's vote can be counted more than once for the same candidate. In the final analysis, no voter is given greater weight in his or her vote over the vote of another voter, although to understand this does require a conceptual understanding of how the effect of a 'MPV System' is like that of a run-off election. The form of majority preferential voting employed in the City of Ann Arbor's election of its Mayor does not violate the one-man, one-vote mandate nor does it deprive anyone of equal protection rights under the Michigan or United States Constitutions.”
Yeah, an appeal to authority...a rather dogy one.
ReplyDeleteLet us not forget their first ammendment, in regards to church and state being different...and then their printing of "In God we trust" all over their money and having to say "Under God" in their pledge...and that many officials by law have to be Christian.
Or if you want to just look at Michigan, their laws that state it is ok to have concealed firearms on you and you don't even need a permit or to register them.
So SHOULD we really let the American's do our thinking for us...hmmmm.
Instead of relying on dodgy foreign judgements, can you think of any differences yourself?
Ah, a dis-appeal to authority... you could read what he said!
ReplyDeleteIn AV, all voters are given the opportunity to have their preference counted in each round. Unless they abstain by choosing not to fill in enough preferences, all voters have their votes counted the same number of times. If I vote for the winning candidate as first preference, my vote is counted once in each round. If I vote for the weakest candidate as first preference, my vote is counted once in each round (albeit not for the same candidate in each round).
I really don't understand what is so complicated about that!
Anthony, no 'dis-appeal' to authority. I am not claiming that everything they say is false. Just saying they have no authority to begin with.
ReplyDeleteThat argument is all semantics.
There is no difference whatsoever in result from someone getting more votes if the candidate their originally vote for is eliminated, is there?
DBirkin,
ReplyDeleteI think it is largely semantics. But either way, all voters are treated equally, and all voters get counted once in each round (unless they choose to abstain).
Anthony
That is the semantics part. Some people get one vote, some get two, some three or four.
ReplyDeleteNope, I'm still not following. Do you actually disagree with anything I said?
ReplyDeleteNobody ever gets more than one vote. The vote is TRANSFERRED, not duplicated.
ReplyDeleteOr if you really want to add up all the rounds as separate votes then you could argue that EVERYONE gets multiple votes, just that some got to the same candidate each time.
But no-one gets EXTRA votes on top of other people, except where a voter doesn't declare a preference between the candidates in the final rounds. These are what are known as exhausted ballots.
There are three things about exhausted ballots:
The first is that they're by definition in a very small minority. If all your candidates have been eliminated then you have voted exclusively for the least popular candidates.
Secondly as I mentioned above, it also means that you don't really care which of the candidates in the last round win. If you did you would have included one or more of them on your ballot so you're equally happy/unhappy with whoever ends up winning in the final round compared to their final round opponents.
Thirdly First Past the Post treats all non-winning ballots as exhausted. It's not that voters had a chance to declare preferences between the leading candidates and declined that chance. Oh no, First Past the Post just assumes that no-one has any other preferences and disenfranchises the voters by eliminating most of the candidates all at once. If your ballot is exhausted in AV you had a choice at least.
Ben, if we added all the votes together we'd get a different count to AV.
ReplyDeleteCan you be the first person I have asked to answer the question.
Is there any difference in result to the two systems I described in the article?
DB - are you planning on answering mine?
ReplyDeleteI agree that the only difference in an eliminated candidate's voters getting an extra vote and AV.
ReplyDeleteIf one system has the same outcome all the time as another system, that would suggest they are the same process with a different name...
Here is an analogy...
I tell you to minus 2011 from 1900 this is 111.
This is how many years since 1900.
Now if I ask you to add your two digit birth year to how old you will be in 2011...you will come to 111.
Although I can claim the system is different, and it sounds different, it is the same process. The only difference is one has a dash of slight of hand added.
I agree the only difference is semantics* sorry watching tv
ReplyDeleteOk here's an example to illustrate the difference.
ReplyDeleteThere are 6 Candidates. 3 of of them get eliminated before a winner is declared.
AV: In the last round anyone who voted for the final three Candidates in previous rounds has their vote counted in this round also. Added to the totals are votes transferred from eliminated candidates.
Your alternative:
In the last round only the transferred votes are counted. The votes from previous rounds for the final candidates are discounted entirely.
So let's say 20% of the voters put candidates first who ultimately were eliminated. They're divided among the 3 remaining candidates and a majority of them favour a particular candidate.
The remaining 80% are divided differently and a majority of them favour a different candidate.
In AV you'd add them together to reach an overall majority. Your proposed alternative would lead to winner being decided entirely by those who voted for the eliminated candidates. It would by no means necessarily lead to the same outcome.
Ben, your being vague and changing voting patterns for each example. Start by telling us the voters preferences and apply both systems fairly.
ReplyDeleteAgain, re-reading your response u are suggesting that first preferences are removed.
ReplyDeleteThat is not what I am saying.
Please re-read the original post.
In using your example the maths doesn't work either, because if 3 people have been eliminated..and only 3 are left this would mran that the final two candidates would have 2 + 1 votes respectively.
Which means that it would be impossible to eliminate three votes when the second highest candidate only has 1.
However I will fill in the other systems bit as if it were possible, i'll add ten to the remaining votes.
Candidate A has 12 votes
Candidate B has 11 votes.
Candidate C has 3 votes.
C are eliminated.
The 3 voters for C are now given an extra vote each. They vote for B.
Candidate A has 12 votes
Candidate B has 14 votes
Candidate C has 3 votes.
Win of 14 over 12...the same as AV would have done right?