This came about in my previous blog post, a commentary on a no2av article by @Dyslexic_Trojan from Twitter. However that's a long read, and I feel this analogy stands out well enough to deserve its own entry, on a par with my Hare and Tortoise analogy from a few months back.
So many times I've seen Pro First Past the Post people perpetuate the falsehood (call it a lie, call it a popular misconception, it could be either depending on the person who utters it) that AV means some people get more votes than others. I've come across an analogy that should clearly debunk it once and for all, in the terms that everyone should be able to understand. Buying a drink in a pub.
Everyone gets one vote. One voter, one ballot paper. Multiple preferences are declared, but the vote only ends up with one candidate. If you voted for a popular candidate your vote ends up with that candidate. If you voted for an unpopular candidate, by the final round, your vote will end up with a different one, (quite possibly the same popular candidate), but it's one vote.
Each vote is counted each round and everyone's vote gets counted the same number of times as everyone else's. It's simply not true to say that some people get more votes than others.
When you go to buy a drink and your favourite beer is off, so you end up buying a different one, you still only come away with the one pint. The difference between AV and FPTP is under AV you get a pint and you get to choose between the ones that are available. Under FPTP You instead get told "sorry that beer's off, now I have to serve the next gentleman and you have to join the back of the queue" (i.e. that's your vote used up, try again next election).
In democracy, everyone should get one vote that is worth as much as everyone else's. Everyone who queues up at the bar should walk away with a pint.
In democracy, everyone should get one vote that is worth as much as everyone else's. Everyone who queues up at the bar should walk away with a pint.
Please note, the pint in this analogy does not represent the winning candidate, it represents a vote that goes to one of the candidates in the final round before a winner is declared.
You walk away with a pint, and only one. It's not your favourite but it's one you quite like. Your vote has counted at each stage, and while you may not win, at least you've had a say in the final outcome right up to the last round.
Only if you really have no preference at all and would prefer to walk away do you end up without a say in the final round. And even then, that is no less than what that the majority of voters must make do with under First Past the Post.
Ha, brilliant analogy, it's always good to have easy to understand ways to explain these kind o things.
ReplyDeleteThe multiple votes falsehood really annoys me, and seems to be a real favourite of the No camp. Surely they know its just not true.
Out of interest, I've seen photos of supporters holding the purple Yes! speech bubble, like in your background, where can you get hold of those purple signs?
Cheers, keep up with the great posts.
http://scrubbedupstudent.blogspot.com
Those signs are in fact leaflets. Each phonebank has a few of them. Depending on where you live, pop into your nearest one (I can help you find out where that is if you need), and I'm sure they'll let you have one in exchange for a bit of phonebanking.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it an assumed right that your vote should be counting for one of the last two parties?
ReplyDeleteYou have multiple choices, meaning you have more votes, the fact that you asked for a beer they didn't have doesn't wipe the fact you asked for it.
It is an assumed right that a voter should be able to have his/her full say on who should represent the constituency in parliament. People have positive AND negative views. It simply comes down to each round the voters being told "In the last round we didn't reach a majority. Now with one candidate fewer, who do you most prefer?" Having one candidate fewer won't affect the preferences of anyone except those who voted for the eliminated candidate, so most votes stay with the same candidate. Everyone else in order to have their say on the realistic options is invited to transfer their vote elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteThey don't get extra votes. EVERYONE gets one vote. It's just considered in each round.
Again, doesn't matter how you say it, the end result is no different from the eliminated candidates supporters being given an extra vote.
ReplyDeleteIf the result is exactly the same as a system you know is wrong, why isn't this setting off alarm bells?
The result isn't the same at all. Are you really trying to suggest that it would be the same outcome if all the votes from previous rounds were discounted and the result decided by transferred votes alone? AV doesn't work like that and the results are different. Remember AV isn't determined by the sheer number of votes, but by the proportion. A winner must have over 50% of the votes cast in the final round and that includes all the votes carried over from previous rounds.
ReplyDelete