Two days to go!

[andrewducker]

Via someone on Twitter. Damned if I can remember who.

Comments

[woodpijn.livejournal.com]

I've seen another graphic like that, except it's a flow chart, with one step for AV and several steps with branches for FPTP.

I've been debating the issue with my family. My grandad thinks AV is too complicated (and he's a reasonably intelligent man) and can't see the point of it. But he got the point that that's because he's a Tory voter in a safe Tory seat and so is never affected by the problems FPTP causes; and he seemed to like the beer and Smarties cartoons.

My mum didn't like the cartoons and said they made her more inclined to vote no. Although her comments on the beer cartoon make me think she may have misunderstood it, so I'll have a go at explaining.

She's happy with the multiple-round kind of AV where you get to re-cast your vote after each candidate is eliminated. I think they're basically the same as long as you're not going to change your mind between rounds. But she says that if her preferred candidate is still in the running, and hasn't been knocked out yet, then she can't accurately work out her order of preference for the remaining candidates - it's too difficult a hypothetical to think herself into, unless her favourite candidate has actually already been knocked out, and *then* she can figure out who her second favourite is.

I also tried the argument Sally and I came up with (http://atreic.livejournal.com/412881.html?thread=6647761#t6647761). Surprisingly, the step in the argument she disagreed with was the claim that a complete set of pairwise preferences and an ordered preference list are the same thing. But I think she means she doesn't care if they're mathematically equivalent; she doesn't feel they're psychologically equivalent, because she wouldn't be able to realistically come up with her preference list.

My initial reaction is "so you dislike AV because you would do it wrong?" but obviously I'm not going to actually say that to her. But sadly it is a relevant objection: if lots of people would do it wrong, for the same or other reasons, then it won't be a worksble system :(

[andrewducker]

I believe Australians manage it just fine :->

And yes, I'm sure some people do have problems with working out preferences without it being concrete - if they don't have a psychological choice to make right now then they can't tell how they feel about it, and they're making the choice emotionally.

(That's not supposed to be talking them down, of course - people can vote with whatever criteria they like)

[broin.livejournal.com]

I don't understand the problem - can you explain to me the fears people have with these hypotheticals?

What I'd do would be to pick a first candidate that either matched my views, had ambitions I liked, or was wearing a pretty hat. My second would match most of my views, or have a moderately attractive hat. The third would have to match some crucial views but otherwise not so much, and I wouldn't hate his or her hat. In Scotland, it would often but not always be Libs > SNP > Labor, say.

It might not help that I've always found tactical voting to be distasteful. I know it works, but it feels dishonest to me.

[andrewducker]

Some people just don't seem to be able to make a second choice unless they are presented with it as "here are how things are, who do you choose?"

It seems to be a lack of imagination, to be honest.

[broin.livejournal.com]

But don't people consider which candidate best fits their views and makes an informed choice? And thus a second choice becomes obvious?

... oh man, I kill me.

How many political parties have you voted for? All sorts of elections, right from when you were 18. Me... three? Labor in the 90s, then SNP and Liberals. And I think one independant.

[andrewducker]

Conservative (1992, I was young, don't hate me)->Labour(1997 to kick out the Conservatives, 2001 to make sure)->Lib-Dem(2005 and 2010).

Under AV I'd probably vote Lib->SNP->Lab.

For the Scottish elections my regional vote will go to the Lib-Dems, and I'm not sure about my local vote. I'm tempted to vote Lib-Dem, even though they won't win. But I'm also tempted to vote SNP, as they took the seat from Labour in the last election, and I'd rather they hold it than Labour get it back.

It's a new constituency though, so I'll probably vote Lib-Dem, because I want them to get as good a showing as possible, and I am just completely fed up with voting tactically.

[andrewducker]

And yes.

I've voted for parties that I didn't want to, so that someone worse wouldn't get in. And this is claimed as my support - as if they were my first choice. This feels entirely dishonest to me.

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

Are you saying that you would/should put no more thought into your voting under AV than "which party do I like best? Okay which do I like second best? etc"

Because if you would think like that about AV, but also think in the kind of terms as the above image about FPTP, that strikes me as very strange, and the thinking of someone who just doesn't like the current system but just wants an alternative, any alternative.

The order of your votes under AV is still important, and I honestly find it hard to believe that a] you just want your vote to be a statement of your own personal beliefs rather than a thoughtful attempt to influence who is in power and b] you don't believe the order of preference matters.

[andrewducker]

The order of preference doesn't matter nearly as much in AV - I've looked into how one would vote tactically under it and it's nigh impossible. Certainly not without also knowing that a bunch of others are also voting tactically. Voting tactically without knowing that others are doing likewise can leave you worse off, so it's actually a dangerous tactic.

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

This is absolute rubbish and I'm embarassed to see you posting it.

[andrewducker]

I don't really understand why. If A is Lib-Dem, B is Conservative, C is SNP and D is Labour then it would match my thought processes pretty much exactly.

[the-locster.livejournal.com]

A tad harsh. Please cite reasons.