First Past the Post: Even its Very Name is a Lie!

I woke up this morning thinking about the name First Past the Post and the image it actually conjours up. It sounds like a racing analogy, with a post being a fixed point at the end of a race course with all the runners (candidates) trying to be the first one to get there, until eventually one of them does. Hang on, that sounds like AV, doesn't it? A fixed point, say, a 50% +1 majority with iterations of elimination and redistribution of votes until ultimately one candidate reaches that post and is the first to do so.

The current system, the one actually known as FPTP doesn't do that at all. I think a better name for it would be something like "Early Front Runner", where the winner is actually a racer who gets off to a good start ,pulls ahead early on in the race, say at about the 30% mark, regardless of whether or not they're able to go the distance. At that point the race is over and awarded to them and then the racer doesn't even HAVE to finish the race.

And if you want an example of how wrong this is, look no further than the most famous race-orientated story ever, the Hare and the Tortoise. Under the current system, the Hare would have won, despite getting incredibly arrogant and lazy and falling asleep instead of even bothering to finish the job. The Tortoise, in this analogy represents a candidate who takes as many voters' views into consideration as possible and slowly but surely makes sure that his constituents are fairly represented rather than taking the quick and easy route to election victory.

The truth is that FPTP was designed for situations where there are only two candidates. It works perfectly when that is the case. There is a post, and it's the 50% that one or the other candidate passes to win the seat. What AV is is a modification of FPTP to ensure that there's still a 50% mark post to pass when there are more than two candidates.

Politics is VERY much about going the distance. It's not about getting your nose in front early on and then relaxing knowing that you're safely home and dry before you've even bothered to get near "the post". To use my favourite football malapropism, it's a marathon, not a snickers.

What about the BNP?

Already a massive fan of the excellent isupportav.co.uk today I read another great article on the BNP and how each side of the referendum is trying to associate them with the opposing side.

I've seen and heard many times an objection to PR and by extension to AV that it would allow the BNP a taste of power and that we're better off with a system that keeps out the minorities of extremists.

I've got a short answer, a medium answer and a long answer to this.

The short answer, not a very satisfying one, but an immediate killer to the argument, is that the BNP are against AV.

Via the aforementioned article, we have clear evidence of that. http://isupportav.co.uk/2010/11/the-bnp-are-campaigning-against-av/ . The article even gives a sound hypothesis as to why, something that has escaped me up 'til now. My own idea was that they were blinkered traditionalists not aware of what's good for them, but it seems I may have been some way off the mark.

The medium answer, which may be another contributing factor to why the BNP are against AV is that they actually do themselves more harm when they're in power. Take the Barking Council as an example. In desperation, not feeling that Labour or any of the other big parties could be trusted, voters turned to the BNP hoping for something a little bit different. The BNP had their platform, and they aired their views and suddenly no-one was in any doubt as to what they were really about. All BNP councillors were voted out at the first opportunity. So I don't see the BNP actually getting a seat as a massive problem.

The long answer (by which I mean the most important really), is that having a voting system to keep out any party, however objectionable they may be, or to give an advantage to any party, however good they may be, is undemocratic and wrong. The way to keep a party out is to ensure that people don't want to vote for them, not to make it so that voting for them is futile. Bearing in mind that it's possible the mechanics of FPTP suit the BNP better than AV this at first glance looks like a contradiction, but in truth I'm looking at the bigger picture here. I'm not looking at which system gives the BNP the best chance, or even which system gives the smallest parties as similar a chances as possible to the biggest ones. I'm looking at which system gives the VOTERS a chance to have their say regardless of which party they want to vote for.

A voting system is for voters, not parties, and looking at it from the point of view of any particular party, large or small, good or bad, is never going to lead you to a conclusion about which system is the most democratic, fairest or best for the UK. So I'm afraid if you're thinking "which voting system gives my party the best chance of winning?"or "which voting system will help keep out that party I really really don't like?" I'm afraid you're looking at things from the wrong angle. Party leaders come and go, policies change. New Labour is an excellent example of this. And of course not every Conservative Leader is Margaret Thatcher either. The same party isn't necessarily always going to be right for you. But being able to vote for what you want IS always going to be right for you. Who knows, one day, decades from now the BNP may be a breath of fresh air. Or far more likely, another minority party could come along who really IS what we've been looking for. Do you want to risk shutting them out now just because of a load of racists spoiling things for everyone else? I certainly don't.

You have to TRUST everyone to vote for what they want. Under a fair voting system if we end up with a government we don't like we only have ourselves to blame. We'll have got what we deserve. Until then we're governed by people whom only a minority of us have shown any support and we're certainly not getting what we asked for and probably not what we deserve either.

Don't just decide that the general public and most voters are stupid. Don't dumb down for them. Don't assume you know better than them and you have to hold their hands in the polling station and tell them how to vote. Several No2AV campaigners are doing just that with some of the ludicrous statements their coming out with, but we are better than that. Say Yes to Fairer Votes. Say Yes to AV.

AV tactics are too complicated to worry about. Rank based on your preferences and let democracy do the rest

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/?p=3825

I've just had my attention drawn to a very interesting article (linked above) about Tactical Voting and how it might work under AV. This blog entry is based on my response to it.

The article is a good one, in that it makes mathematical sense and is interesting to read. However the scenarios described are making a crucial assumption, that plenty of voters have a very good idea of what everyone else is going to do.

Even under FPTP where tactical voting is simply a matter of looking at the two most likely winners and choosing between them, denying your first choice any vote from you at all (which is what makes FPTP such a terrible system for more than two parties), some second guessing of how your fellow constituents are likely to vote is required.

But with the complexity of the AV situation there are far too many variables for most voters to consider and I think it would be too much for most voters, especially with AV being a new and unfamiliar system to most, to take the counter-intuitive action of putting the most disliked candidate first.

Most importantly, this situation can only really happen in a tight battle between 3 parties, and for this to be of use to aiding anyone to make a choice between FPTP and AV you have to take this type of scenario and examine it fully from the perspective of both systems.

With the uncertainty brought about by the complexities of AV and the variations from constituency to constituency, let's say there's approximately a 1/3 chance that putting your own party 1st instead of 2nd will lead to them losing when they might otherwise have won. But consider that under FPTP you don't even have that choice. You either put your party 1st, or not at all. If you put them 1st, in a tight 3-way marginal you're averaging a 1/3 chance of your party winning.

So to summarise that, 1/3 chance of losing under AV or 1/3 chance of winning under FPTP. It rather points to AV as a better option I think.

But if you really want to keep a party out under AV, then all you have to do is put them last. If everyone who wants to keep a party out puts that party last, then the remaining support for that party will either be 50% or it won't. If it is, then they've won fairly, and if it isn't then they won't win, and that's all there is to it.

OK, guilty as charged, that last paragraph is also built on an assumption. But my assumption is that most people will vote based on their preferences, which has to rank higher in likelihood than the assumption that plenty of voters will have an excellent idea of how everyone else is likely to vote.

I must admit it is fascinating to look at the voting mechanics and how you can tweak situations to show various surprising outcomes. But the reality is that everyone votes without the information required about everyone else's vote. I think the sensible option really is to stop umming and ahhing about what other people might do and just go with your preferences. Most people will do that anyway. It's really too much to expect voters to stop and think about the various permutations, even if they did have an idea somehow of how everyone else would be ranking everyone.

And at least AV lets you do that if you want to. FPTP often gives you a miserable choice between a tactical vote and a wasted vote. For people to have to deny their preferred candidate their vote just to be able to feel that they're using their vote wisely is undemocratic and has no place in our politics.

Tactical voting in FPTP is so prevalent because it's one of the simplest concepts to grasp even for the least politically minded of voters. The more complicated the tactics are in a voting system the fewer people will vote tactically. It's easy enough for a party to tell the would-be voters of another party to vote for them instead because of the way FPTP tactics work. At a push a party could hand out "how to vote" cards, outlining how to assign all the preferences from 2nd onwards under AV, not that they'd be that likely to succeed. However, even with the best research and the finest mathematicians in the land combined with world class marketing strategists and on-the-ground campaigners, I couldn't see any party successfully persuading just the right proportion of their voters to put the opposing party first and their own party second, if any at all.

And even if they could, if all parties were doing that then they'd cancel each other out with second guessing, third guessing, fourth guessing, and beyond. It would turn into a complete lottery with politicians and voters alike saying "Forget it, just go with your preferences, it's too complicated for tactical voting to leave us anything other than a random outcome".

And this I believe is a real strength for AV. Instead of being afraid of complex tactics leading to unpredictable results, I see it as complex tactics discouraging voters from straying from their true preferences leading to more democratic results. With AV you can keep it simple, put your first choice first, put the most disliked candidate last, rank everyone else in between based on your preference and let democracy do the rest.

FPTP Cartoon

I saw yesterday someone (I'm afraid I don't know who) made a funny little cartoon demostrating how the AV ballot works. It looked a pretty fair assessment to me although somehow the No2AV campaign were presenting it as if it showed the faults of AV. But then they seem to know how AV works and still think it's a worse system than FPTP so I suppose that's consistent with how they think.

But I couldn't resist to turn it around and throw it back at them, so I doctored it a bit and I'm proud to see my little fix doing the rounds on twitter now.

http://yfrog.com/1fty4fj

Why WOULD anyone vote No to AV?

Myself, I can only think of 3 reasons why someone might choose to vote No to AV. And none of them are particularly good ones.

1) You think FPTP is better than AV. This is the logical reason to vote no, but I'd like you to have a read of this page which explains very well why AV is an improvement. The comments sections will iron out any further confusions as well. And if you have time browse around the rest of this excellent site. http://isupportav.co.uk/av-is-better/

2) You really want PR and you think voting for AV first is selling everyone short. In that case please read my own article on Why Those in Favour of PR Should Vote Yes to AV http://brdonnelly.blogspot.com/2010/11/why-those-in-favour-of-pr-should-say.html

3) You stand to lose from fairer votes because you vote for a particular party that does well in your constituency. This is very sad. It's an undemocratic view and denying other people the right to a fair vote just because "you're all right jack" is plain wrong. You're worried about minority parties or the BNP? Well the way to keep them out is to make sure no-one WANTS to vote for them, not to make sure that no-one CAN vote for them, and the way to do that is to give them better options. It's been said that the BNP are against AV anyway. Above all, a voting system is for the VOTERS and not for parties. 

So deciding the merits of a voting system based on which parties benefit the most from it is wrong. And don't forget that while your party may do well in your own constituency, the would be voters of your preferred party in other constituencies find themselves voting for another party instead because they feel it's the only way their vote isn't wasted. So even within your own party, whichever party that may be, your I'm All Right Jack Attitude is giving off a pretty bad odour.

But for those of you who don't want to be bogged down in voting mechanics

With AV MPs have to work harder. It's that simple.

They have to work harder to win support from beyond their core minority of voters, that might keep their seats safe under FPTP.

Why Those in Favour of PR Should Say YES to AV.

There are many out there who like me, would ideally like to see the UK adopt an electoral system based on proportional representation, as have many European countries, such as Germany, Switzerland and Sweden, perhaps using a voting system such as the Single Transferable Vote. That’s great. Alas, we have a problem. Many of these people believe that we have been short-changed by being offered AV instead, which isn’t proportional and is merely a slight improvement on the current system. Because of this some people feel insulted by
the offer of the Alternative Vote and feel the best way to respond is by saying, “No thank you, come back with a real offer of change! We won’t sell out so easily!”

Unfortunately this is exactly the way the No campaign wants us to think. By No campaign, of course I mean the people who want to keep First Past the Post, and not change at all. These are the people who stand to lose from fairer votes and would be even less happy with a proportional system than they would with the Alternative Vote that is currently on offer. They are pretending to be sympathetic towards those who want a more significant change and saying that they will support electoral reform if we help them defeat the Alternative Vote proposal. They want you to think that changing to AV will leave us stuck with AV with no way out, no way forward or back. Of course they want you to think that, because they know as well as I do, that persuading you
to Vote No to AV on the 5^th of May for any reason at all will serve their purpose of keeping First Past the Post.

The fact is that if you vote No to AV, for any reason at all, your vote will be indistinguishable from the No votes of those who simply want to keep First Past the Post. Each and every No vote will be interpreted as such. This is down to the wording of the referendum question, which merely asks which you prefer out of AV and “the current system of FPTP”. Your No vote, along with all of the others, from fans of PR and fans of FPTP alike will be
taken to mean that you prefer FPTP, nothing more, nothing less. Ask yourself: If the current system were AV, would you vote to change to FPTP? A no to AV vote in May 2011 would be the exact equivalent of doing just that. You won’t be able to specify why you’re voting No on your ballot. Thus the response to an overall No vote in May will be “The people have declared that they are happy with the current system and have elected to keep First Past the Post.” It will certainly not be “Oh dear, do you not like the Alternative Vote? Well perhaps you would like another referendum on something else instead.” A No to AV vote would kill off any opportunity for changing the voting system for a very long time indeed, and it would be especially soul destroying to those who have been working themselves to the bone to get us just this far.

The Alternative Vote referendum was offered by the Conservatives to the Liberal Democrats in exchange for the formation of the coalition that has allowed David Cameron to form the current government. It is seen by many on both sides as a compromise between no reform on the one hand; and on the other, the reform that many
members of all parties (including a large number of Liberal Democrats, many Labour supporters and even some Conservatives – let’s not forget that there are also conservative voters in many constituencies across the country who are cheated of a fair vote by the current system) have been campaigning for, for a very long time, culminating in Take Back Parlimament’s well publicised demonstrations in May 2010.

But I have a feeling that there is more to the offer of AV than a mere compromise. I believe it was a shrewd tactical move on the part of those Conservatives who are now supporting the No to AV campaign. As members of the No Campaign are so fond of reminding us, AV is not PR. Since it’s also not wanted by those in favour of the status quo, they’re trying to impose on us the idea that “nobody wants it”. Well played them. But we, the general public, are cleverer than that. We must not buy this nonsense. They are trying to hide their real agenda, that they simply want to hang onto First Past the Post, with its minority safe seats, wasted votes, tactical votes and split votes. They are trying to make us lose sight of the fact that the Alternative Vote improves on all of those things.

AV isn’t perfect, and it certainly isn’t proportional, but it does improve hugely on many of the flawed elements of the current system, and of those elements on which AV doesn’t improve, none are made any worse. A quick examination of the voting mechanics of both systems can demonstrate that, as is done excellently on the isupportav site here: http://isupportav.co.uk/av-is-better/. You may have noticed that the No to AV arguments are not based on voting mechanics at all. They make grand claims, but they don’t support them with facts. Instead they simply try to scare people with bogus statistics and warnings of blind alleys and disproportionate results. I would like to finish this blog entry by arguing that the truth is in fact the opposite of those warnings.

It should be enough for any voter interested in fair votes that AV is an improvement on FPTP. After all, AV is what’s on offer and as much as some of us might want to see another system such as AV+ or STV instead, that
debate will have to wait because for now the choice is only between FPTP and AV. Even so I would now like to point out that for those of you who do want further change, your best option for this referendum is still AV. Not just because AV is a lesser of two evils and if we have to be stuck with one or the other it might as well be AV rather than FPTP, as true as that may be, but because by voting for AV, you are rejecting not only FPTP but “The
Current System of FPTP” and thus you are demonstrating that the people do want change.

A Yes to AV vote on the 5^th May 2011 will show that the people want change. That can’t be spun as easily as a No vote. A No vote can be spun as a vote in favour of First Past the Post, and of keeping the Current system, but a yes vote, while it can be spun as a vote in favour of AV, the spin will not be able to cover up the fact that AV is all that is on offer. Furthermore, once FPTP has been replaced, the establishment won't have a status quo to cling onto and the way will be made for reasonable debate centred around the best interests of the voters between AV and a ranger of Proportional Systems.

Those in favour of PR will be able to say “look, the people already demonstrated that they don’t like change, by rejecting FPTP, and we intend to show that the people want further change by campaigning for PR!” If PR is your
goal, then take what’s on offer, and then we’ll be in a far better position to ask for more. The alternative is to say no, which would not only endorse the current system, but deal a massive blow to a large number of people who have been stirred up to campaign for reform. Most people simply wouldn't have the will to go through it all again after losing. They'd be more likely to say "what's the point?" and that would be that.

So if you’re simply not happy with the unfairness of First Past the Post, then vote Yes to AV. If you feel that AV is not enough and you want further change, you still need to vote Yes to AV to put yourself in a better position to achieve that change. The only reason to Vote No to AV would be that you feel that First Past the Post is the best system we could possibly have, and I’ve yet to see a real demonstration of that particular idea from anyone. A No vote for any other reason would be the worst thing you could possibly do for British Politics.