FPTP: First Past the Post. Vote for one candidate, winner is by straight majority amongst candidates. (Even if they only get 30% of the vote.)
AV; Alternative Vote. Rank preferred candidates by number. If your first choice is losing, your second choice vote counts instead, etc.
The idea behind AV is to get a better picture of who people want representing them than a single vote can capture. It makes elections far less of a two-horse race. In American terms, you could for example vote "1. Nader 2. Gore" without "throwing away" your vote against Bush.
If it was 35% Gore/Nader and 25% Nader/Gore, Gore would win: he has more first-choice candidates.
In an exact tie, Bush might still win depending on how their particular implementation is set up to handle ties. In some places, a tie between the two lowest candidates means you eliminate two at once. An exact tie is very unlikely in a case where you've got several million people voting, however.
With those two you'd just stick the two of them together with some wood glue to create Green-Democratic Party Presidential Candidate Ralphál Gorénâdér, who'd become the second entirely wooden president after Reagan.
Seriously though, the first case doesn't work, because basically they'd have their secondary votes redistribute among Gore and Nader, who, being unable to get a majority, would then see their secondary votes would redistributed to Gore and Nader, leading to the entire electoral system getting caught in a giant logical loop FOREVER. The good news is that Bush never gets to be president and so 9/11 is avoided, which means that AV would have saved over 9000 american lives without even successfully electing a president. Which is a claim that FPTP cannot make.
In the second case Gore would win with 60% of the vote.
Then there would be a recount. If it was still a tie, then the Electoral Comissioner would cast the deciding vote. This would probably then be challenged in the High Court as being "against the constitution-Australia is a democracy" by the looser. Then there would probably be a by-election. What happens in FPTP if there is an exact tie?
Also, upon re-reading the rules, it's ok if you leave one box empty (it is assumed to be your last preference) so in the first example only those voting for Bush would've discounted (two empty boxes). This doesn't change the outcome.
In reality of course, we are dealing with electorates of >10,000 people and this doesn't happen because of Large Numbers, and having How To Vote cards, minor parties, etc.
Basically there's an argument that AV/preferential voting loses its "You need to get at least 50% of the vote to win" benefit if you don't make people mark every preference, as it's only 50% of preferences in the final round you need to win.
On the other hand, there's also an argument that a) if people don't care between two different candidates, they shouldn't have to number them, b) having to put a preference for every single candidate (and not being able to put a whole bunch of them equal last, or have a "Re-Open Nominations" box) significantly increases the number of spoiled ballots, and c) you'll still likely get 50%, or much closer to it than you would otherwise.
Under compulsory preference voting/full preference voting, you must number all the boxes. Under optional preference voting, which is what is on offer in the UK, and what the image at the top relates to, you can mark as many or as few boxes as you want, right down to just putting an 'X' in one box, which counts as a 1.
Beyond all the good description already mentioned below, it may also be worth mentioning that AV is known as IRV or Instant Runoff Voting in the US, and is used in some places for Mayoral elections, and possibly also for Primaries – places where there isn't the Republican/Democrat thing enforcing a two party system.
In Australia it's "preferential voting". We've been using it for years in just about everything, and it's fairly popular here (except perhaps with the two major parties).
We even have a proportional-preferential system for the Senate, which is a bit complicated in implementation but makes sense to me.
Fair enough. What I more meant is there are certain places where it is "Republican vs Democrat". It could be two different parties (though the system makes any such switchover pretty damn hard), but in those places, it's pretty much a one versus one battle.
In other places, like mayoral elections and primaries, it's not one on one, thus IRV/AV/PV can have a useful effect.
"The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
The Twelfth Amendment spells out the system for presidential elections quite plainly, and does not allow for the possibiliy of more than two comparably viable candidates. You can't have Bush, Gore, and a third guy, because nobody would be able to get a majority. Third party candidates can exist only when they are not credible contenders - look at the mess that was the 1824 election if you want to see additional candidates make everything fall apart, and recognize that a resolution was only possible in that case because of the particular nature of Jackson's candidacy. The Presidency is, mandated by the Constitution, a two-man race, and that means two parties. And with only two parties able to materially complete in the Presidential arena, that in practice means only two material parties period.
So, this alternate method ... who'd win, with this layout? Or is this one of those things where you rank the candidates, so everyone would have a first and second and third and fourth and fifth choice.
So it's impossible to say who'd win giving this only gives first preferences, as that's what FPTP/Simple Majority/Plurality Voting does.
One of the biggest arguments against simple plurality in favour of anything else is the existence and threat of spoiler candidates--eg the Republican donors also giving money to candidates from "the left" like it's been alleged they did to Nader in 2000 and 2004.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-27 08:50 pm (UTC)AV; Alternative Vote. Rank preferred candidates by number. If your first choice is losing, your second choice vote counts instead, etc.
The idea behind AV is to get a better picture of who people want representing them than a single vote can capture. It makes elections far less of a two-horse race. In American terms, you could for example vote "1. Nader 2. Gore" without "throwing away" your vote against Bush.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-27 09:04 pm (UTC)30% of people vote "1. Nader 2. Gore".
30% of people vote "1. Gore 2. Nader".
40% of people vote "1. Bush 2. Nobody".
Who wins? If the exact tie is not something the system is set up to handle, does it change if it was 35% Gore/Nader and 25% Nader/Gore?
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-27 09:15 pm (UTC)In an exact tie, Bush might still win depending on how their particular implementation is set up to handle ties. In some places, a tie between the two lowest candidates means you eliminate two at once. An exact tie is very unlikely in a case where you've got several million people voting, however.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-27 09:58 pm (UTC)Seriously though, the first case doesn't work, because basically they'd have their secondary votes redistribute among Gore and Nader, who, being unable to get a majority, would then see their secondary votes would redistributed to Gore and Nader, leading to the entire electoral system getting caught in a giant logical loop FOREVER. The good news is that Bush never gets to be president and so 9/11 is avoided, which means that AV would have saved over 9000 american lives without even successfully electing a president. Which is a claim that FPTP cannot make.
In the second case Gore would win with 60% of the vote.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-27 11:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-27 11:16 pm (UTC)Still, assume that there are exactly 10 voters, and that said voters are:
2 - Bush, Gore, Nader
2 - Bush, Nader, Gore
3 - Nader, Gore, Bush
3 - Gore, Nader, Bush.
And you're in the same boat of "OMG THE TWO AT THE BACK HAVE AN EXACT TIE!"
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-27 11:51 pm (UTC)Also, upon re-reading the rules, it's ok if you leave one box empty (it is assumed to be your last preference) so in the first example only those voting for Bush would've discounted (two empty boxes). This doesn't change the outcome.
In reality of course, we are dealing with electorates of >10,000 people and this doesn't happen because of Large Numbers, and having How To Vote cards, minor parties, etc.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-28 12:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-28 09:19 am (UTC)On the other hand, there's also an argument that a) if people don't care between two different candidates, they shouldn't have to number them, b) having to put a preference for every single candidate (and not being able to put a whole bunch of them equal last, or have a "Re-Open Nominations" box) significantly increases the number of spoiled ballots, and c) you'll still likely get 50%, or much closer to it than you would otherwise.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-28 09:14 am (UTC)Under compulsory preference voting/full preference voting, you must number all the boxes. Under optional preference voting, which is what is on offer in the UK, and what the image at the top relates to, you can mark as many or as few boxes as you want, right down to just putting an 'X' in one box, which counts as a 1.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-27 09:49 pm (UTC)... oh wait ;)
Beyond all the good description already mentioned below, it may also be worth mentioning that AV is known as IRV or Instant Runoff Voting in the US, and is used in some places for Mayoral elections, and possibly also for Primaries – places where there isn't the Republican/Democrat thing enforcing a two party system.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-27 10:45 pm (UTC)We even have a proportional-preferential system for the Senate, which is a bit complicated in implementation but makes sense to me.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-27 11:04 pm (UTC)We do use FPTP for referendums :) (only 2 choices, Y or N)
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-28 07:00 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-28 09:22 am (UTC)In other places, like mayoral elections and primaries, it's not one on one, thus IRV/AV/PV can have a useful effect.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-29 02:56 am (UTC)I'll wait here while you try to find a way to pull your foot out of your mouth.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-29 03:22 am (UTC)The Twelfth Amendment spells out the system for presidential elections quite plainly, and does not allow for the possibiliy of more than two comparably viable candidates. You can't have Bush, Gore, and a third guy, because nobody would be able to get a majority. Third party candidates can exist only when they are not credible contenders - look at the mess that was the 1824 election if you want to see additional candidates make everything fall apart, and recognize that a resolution was only possible in that case because of the particular nature of Jackson's candidacy. The Presidency is, mandated by the Constitution, a two-man race, and that means two parties. And with only two parties able to materially complete in the Presidential arena, that in practice means only two material parties period.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-27 08:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-27 09:01 pm (UTC)So it's impossible to say who'd win giving this only gives first preferences, as that's what FPTP/Simple Majority/Plurality Voting does.
One of the biggest arguments against simple plurality in favour of anything else is the existence and threat of spoiler candidates--eg the Republican donors also giving money to candidates from "the left" like it's been alleged they did to Nader in 2000 and 2004.
This pretty well demonstrates it.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-27 09:51 pm (UTC)But we *do* know that 70% of people wanted beer, and only disagreed on where to get the beer from.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-28 09:37 am (UTC)You poor, poor barbarians :)
Date: 2011-04-27 09:29 pm (UTC)Re: You poor, poor barbarians :)
Date: 2011-04-29 11:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-27 10:02 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-27 10:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-27 11:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-28 12:00 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-28 12:17 am (UTC)piss waterBud. If only there was some non status quo coffee to choose.(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-28 07:44 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-28 02:47 pm (UTC)try explaining any of *that* after seven beers and three coffees :D
(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-29 07:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-04-29 11:35 am (UTC)TWK Original?
Date: 2011-05-03 03:38 am (UTC)Re: TWK Original?
Date: 2011-05-03 03:42 am (UTC)So: I have NO IDEA who made it originally. I have no rights to it and cannot tell you what you may or may not do with it.
Re: TWK Original?
Date: 2011-05-03 01:32 pm (UTC)