News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Thoughtcrime by ZeroGravitas on Monday May 18, 2015 @10:45AM (#9564717)
The AV system we voted on wasn't actually PR, any kind of PR got veto'd by the conservatives, and the Lib-Dems were perhaps foolish to try to continue with such a meagre reform, as it now gets used as an excuse to not implement PR in future as "the country voted against it" (except of course they didn't, as it wasn't one of the two options they were allowed to vote for).
Re:Thoughtcrime by EliRivers on Monday May 18, 2015 @11:41AM (#9565048)
The AV system we voted on wasn't actually PR

Yes, that's why I said I wept as people left the polling station having thought that's what they were voting about. That's my point. Lots of people didn't know. They thought that's what they were voting on.

My particular hatred was for the people who chanted "One man, one vote", like only being able to express yourself in favour of one candidate was some kind of superior state of being, rather than the kind of democracy you have to introduce to a society coming out of a millenium of dictatorship to get them used to the idea before they can move on to a grown-up political system.

Re:Thoughtcrime by rmc on Monday May 18, 2015 @01:48PM (#9565818)
> The AV system we voted on wasn't actually PR

Yes it is. It's what Ireland uses (that and multi-seat constituancies) and it is called PR. (Technically PR-STV).

"PR" covers a lot of voting schemes.

Re:Thoughtcrime by learnstats2 on Monday May 18, 2015 @05:11PM (#9566891)
Alternative Vote is a single member constituency version of STV, that is therefore not proportional in any way.

It is perhaps the only form of democracy that's typically less proportional than FPTP.

I support electoral reform wholeheartedly and I voted for AV only reluctantly.

Re:Thoughtcrime by ZeroGravitas on Monday May 18, 2015 @02:01PM (#9565906)
It does cover multiple schemes, but not the one the UK voted to not introduce.

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/alternative-vote

"AV is not proportional representation and in certain electoral conditions, such as landslides, can produce a more disproportional result than First Past the Post (FPTP)"

Re:Thoughtcrime by JupiterMoon on Monday May 18, 2015 @10:56AM (#9564782)
I find it very sad this referendum was basically what the Lib Dems traded tuition fees for.
Re:Thoughtcrime by rmc on Monday May 18, 2015 @01:49PM (#9565826)
Yeah they clearly bet the farm on it, lost it, and got hammered in the election. But had it passed, the Lib Dems could have been reaping the rewards for decades, since they'd almost certainly gain more seats.
Re:Thoughtcrime by EliRivers on Monday May 18, 2015 @11:47AM (#9565092)
More sad, surely, that the UK population (and I speak as one) are stupid and easily led. We are. We really are. I despise us.
Re:Thoughtcrime by JupiterMoon on Monday May 18, 2015 @12:10PM (#9565206)
I'm not sure that we are that stupid. I think that many people agreed with me that AV was a needlessly confusing system that the LibDems wanted only because it would boost their electoral chances in a country where there were at the time two left of centre parties and one right of centre one.

(I am a supporter of single transferable vote and I didn't see it on my referedum voting sheet only FPTP [rubbish] and AV [?more/less? rubbish but still rubbish].)

Re:Thoughtcrime by po8crg on Tuesday May 19, 2015 @06:25AM (#9569014)
We didn't want AV. It was the least-worst system we could talk the Tories into voting for a referendum on. We wanted STV.

We also thought that AV would probably increase the number of pro-PR MPs and therefore increase the chances of getting actual PR later.

Re:Thoughtcrime by JupiterMoon on Tuesday May 19, 2015 @07:11AM (#9569152)
> We also thought that AV would probably increase the number of pro-PR MPs and therefore increase the chances of getting actual PR later.

Ahh I didn't think of it like this. I thought that AV would allow the Tories and Labour to say that we'd had electoral reform and that would be it for another 100 years... I'm hoping that the pressure will build against FPTP now - especially after the farce of an election we just had.

I do hope that we don't go full PR or even region based PR for the commons though (maybe for the Lords if it ever gets reformed?). Political parties already have enough power in deciding who gets to run. I don't want them controlling the list order as well. I want voters to control the list order with their ballots.

Re:Thoughtcrime by rmc on Monday May 18, 2015 @01:50PM (#9565830)
> (I am a supporter of single transferable vote and I didn't see it on my referedum voting sheet only FPTP [rubbish] and AV [?more/less? rubbish but still rubbish].)

Really? Because AV is what Ireland uses and called it PR-STV.

Re:Thoughtcrime by po8crg on Tuesday May 19, 2015 @06:27AM (#9569017)
>Really? Because AV is what Ireland uses and called it PR-STV.

This is not correct. PR-STV requires multi-member constituencies (as they have in Ireland). AV is single-member constituencies and isn't PR.

Re:Thoughtcrime by rmc on Tuesday May 19, 2015 @08:16AM (#9569460)
For elections to President of Ireland, there is only one 'seat' available. And it is elected under PR-STV. The PR-STV system works fine with only one seat. You select the quota the same way, you do transfers the same way. Ireland uses PR-STV for single-member constituancies just fine.
Re:Thoughtcrime by ZeroGravitas on Tuesday May 19, 2015 @12:23PM (#9571228)
This is, at the end of the day, mostly semantics but you can't have proportional representation, in a vote that only elects one person. It's not possible for someone to be 40% blue party and 60% red party, because there's only one of them. So, in Ireland votes for the president, and for by-elections to replace a single member use AV.

STV and AV (and a bunch of variants of each) are closely related, but they do have differences, and repeatedly claiming that one is the other, when they're not, isn't that helpful to the conversation.

Re:Thoughtcrime by dragonwriter on Tuesday May 19, 2015 @12:30PM (#9571283)
> This is, at the end of the day, mostly semantics but you can't have proportional representation, in a vote that only elects one person.

Proportional representation is really a matter of degree rather than a binary categorization -- a system doesn't magically become proportional when you apply it to a two-member constituency that would be not-proportional when applied to a single-member constituency.

OTOH, the maximum degree of proportionality you can achieve in an electoral system increases with the number of seats that are elected by the same set of ballots.

STV is an election method defined for any arbitrary number of seats, IRV/AV is exactly STV applied to a single-seat election.