Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: The silver lining (?) in British Rejection of IRV

Expand Messages
  • cbenhamau
    Warren, This poll, if true, means very little. If the majority of Australians are really clamouring for FPP, why are there NO public calls for it?? Most
    Message 1 of 21 , May 9, 2011
      Warren,

      This poll, if true, means very little. If the majority of Australians
      are really clamouring for FPP, why are there NO public calls for it??

      Most Australians know next to nothing about the voting system and care less. The question asked in the survey:

      "Currently, elections for the Federal House of Representatives, or lower house, use a preferential voting system. This is where voters indicate an order of preferences for all candidates, and these preferences are taken into account when deciding which candidate wins. (PAUSE).
      An alternative system would be "first past the post", where voters only vote for one candidate and the candidate with the most votes wins. Would you personally prefer…?"

      In the Australian context this is just an idle question about a dead issue. It is biased because it offers a choice between something murky,mysterious and unexplained and something fully explained and clear and simple (and in the Australian setting,"fresh").The question gives no clue as to how or why voters' "preferences are taken into account".

      In referendums Australians have historically tended to support the status quo. But I am sure that Antony Green is right in saying that getting rid of the silly *compulsion* to rank all the candiates would be popular.

      Chris Benham







      --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, "WarrenS" <wds@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > > I don't think so. According to Australian election analyst Antony Green...
      >
      > --The data from a poll, has to be considered as trumping the mere opinion of anybody, even an expert.
      >
      > The poll is here:
      > http://www.rangevoting.org/AustraliaNewsPollVoteStudy.pdf
      >
      > (I've actually heard from a lot of experts telling me how ridiculous this or the other thing is, and ignoring the fact they contradict other "experts" or the data. A lot of so-called experts actually have agendas...)
      >
    • WarrenS
      ... --first of all, it IS true. There is no if. ... --I did not say they were clamoring. I merely claimed the poll shows Australians would choose FPTP
      Message 2 of 21 , May 9, 2011
        > Warren,
        > This poll, if true, means very little.

        --first of all, it IS true. There is no "if."

        > If the majority of Australians
        > are really clamouring for FPP, why are there NO public calls for it??

        --I did not say they were "clamoring." I merely claimed the poll shows Australians would
        choose FPTP over IRV given that forced 2-way choice (with compulsory choice).
        This poll appears to be statistically significant, i.e. a high-confidence finding, and
        it appears to have been conducted using valid methods (i.e. neutral and good question-wording, randomized order choices, etc).

        > Most Australians know next to nothing about the voting system and care less.

        --well... holy crap. Can I quote you on that?

        >The question asked in the survey:
        > "Currently, elections for the Federal House of Representatives, or lower house, use a preferential voting system. This is where voters indicate an order of preferences for all candidates, and these preferences are taken into account when deciding which candidate wins. (PAUSE).
        > An alternative system would be "first past the post", where voters only vote for one candidate and the candidate with the most votes wins. Would you personally prefer…?"
        >
        > In the Australian context this is just an idle question about a dead issue. It is biased because it offers a choice between something murky,mysterious and unexplained and something fully explained and clear and simple (and in the Australian setting,"fresh").The question gives no clue as to how or why voters' "preferences are taken into account".

        --sorry, that last paragraph strikes me as garbage. These are Australian adults, something like 99% of whom have IRV and FPTP voted before (since compulsory) and they've been taught in school as children how these systems work and fed propaganda about how this is different from the rest of the world's voting and better. The wording merely reminded them. It was not "murky" and "mysterious," it merely reminded them of something they've known their whole lives.
        One might criticize the BRITISH vote as being murky (to them) since the British had never voted in an IRV election before, but criticizing the Australian poll on those grounds is really reaching. Are you seriously contending if the pollster had offerred a blow by blow description of the full IRV process, it would have made a major difference in IRV's favor?? Well, I would tend to suspect the exact opposite.

        > In referendums Australians have historically tended to support the status quo.

        --Indeed, there is such a pro-status-quo bias in every country.
        But since that bias was overcome in this case, that makes my claim even STRONGER!

        >But I am sure that Antony Green is right in saying that getting rid of the silly *compulsion* to rank all the candiates would be popular.
        > Chris Benham

        --that same poll also addressed (in a different question) the question of compulsory voting, avoiding the need to rely on Antony Green. Indeed, the poll asked a number of questions...
      • Chris Telesca
        ... There are many people who prefer something but they do not clamor for it. After all, it s not like anyone in the UK was really clamoring for AV or for a
        Message 3 of 21 , May 9, 2011
          On 5/9/11 3:34 PM, WarrenS wrote:
          >
          >
          > > Warren,
          > > This poll, if true, means very little.
          >
          > --first of all, it IS true. There is no "if."
          >
          > > If the majority of Australians
          > > are really clamouring for FPP, why are there NO public calls for it??
          >
          >
          > --I did not say they were "clamoring." I merely claimed the poll shows
          > Australians would
          > choose FPTP over IRV given that forced 2-way choice (with compulsory
          > choice).
          > This poll appears to be statistically significant, i.e. a
          > high-confidence finding, and
          > it appears to have been conducted using valid methods (i.e. neutral
          > and good question-wording, randomized order choices, etc).
          >

          There are many people who prefer something but they do not clamor for it.

          After all, it's not like anyone in the UK was really clamoring for AV or
          for a referendum?

          >
          > > Most Australians know next to nothing about the voting system and
          > care less.
          >
          > --well... holy crap. Can I quote you on that?
          >

          Most people may not care for something but they also don't know how to
          really change the system to one they might prefer better
          >
          >
          > >The question asked in the survey:
          > > "Currently, elections for the Federal House of Representatives, or
          > lower house, use a preferential voting system. This is where voters
          > indicate an order of preferences for all candidates, and these
          > preferences are taken into account when deciding which candidate wins.
          > (PAUSE).
          > > An alternative system would be "first past the post", where voters
          > only vote for one candidate and the candidate with the most votes
          > wins. Would you personally prefer…?"
          > >
          > > In the Australian context this is just an idle question about a dead
          > issue. It is biased because it offers a choice between something
          > murky,mysterious and unexplained and something fully explained and
          > clear and simple (and in the Australian setting,"fresh").The question
          > gives no clue as to how or why voters' "preferences are taken into
          > account".
          >
          > --sorry, that last paragraph strikes me as garbage. These are
          > Australian adults, something like 99% of whom have IRV and FPTP voted
          > before (since compulsory) and they've been taught in school as
          > children how these systems work and fed propaganda about how this is
          > different from the rest of the world's voting and better. The wording
          > merely reminded them. It was not "murky" and "mysterious," it merely
          > reminded them of something they've known their whole lives.
          > One might criticize the BRITISH vote as being murky (to them) since
          > the British had never voted in an IRV election before, but criticizing
          > the Australian poll on those grounds is really reaching. Are you
          > seriously contending if the pollster had offerred a blow by blow
          > description of the full IRV process, it would have made a major
          > difference in IRV's favor?? Well, I would tend to suspect the exact
          > opposite.
          >

          I know a few Aussies and they hate having to show up to vote or pay the
          consequences. They also don't understand IRV, and they only vote for the
          one or two candidates they know. They fill out the rest of the ballot
          with random votes (donkey voting) because they know that a partially
          filled out ballot won't be fully counted. For them, as long as they HAVE
          to show up and cast a vote, they might as well make sure the vote for
          their top pick is counted.

          >
          > > In referendums Australians have historically tended to support the
          > status quo.
          >
          > --Indeed, there is such a pro-status-quo bias in every country.
          > But since that bias was overcome in this case, that makes my claim
          > even STRONGER!
          >
          > >But I am sure that Antony Green is right in saying that getting rid
          > of the silly *compulsion* to rank all the candiates would be popular.
          > > Chris Benham
          >
          > --that same poll also addressed (in a different question) the question
          > of compulsory voting, avoiding the need to rely on Antony Green.
          > Indeed, the poll asked a number of questions...
          >

          Chris Telesca
        • Markus Schulze
          Hallo, the current opinion polls in France show (1) that Sarkozy would pairwise beat every other candidate, but (2) that he will possibly not get into the
          Message 4 of 21 , May 9, 2011
            Hallo,

            the current opinion polls in France show (1) that
            Sarkozy would pairwise beat every other candidate,
            but (2) that he will possibly not get into the second
            round (Marine Le Pen 24%, Dominique Strauss-Kahn 23%,
            Nicolas Sarkozy 21%). Maybe we could convince him to
            promote Condorcet methods. :-)

            Markus Schulze
          • Juho Laatu
            Yes, it would be perfect time to discuss the problems and benefits of various methods now. And Condorcet was French, so people might give him some extra points
            Message 5 of 21 , May 9, 2011
              Yes, it would be perfect time to discuss the problems and benefits of various methods now. And Condorcet was French, so people might give him some extra points because of that. Let the revolution (re)start in France. Better luck to Mr. Condorcet this time (in the previous revolution he ended up dead). :-)

              Juho


              On 9.5.2011, at 23.05, Markus Schulze wrote:

              > Hallo,
              >
              > the current opinion polls in France show (1) that
              > Sarkozy would pairwise beat every other candidate,
              > but (2) that he will possibly not get into the second
              > round (Marine Le Pen 24%, Dominique Strauss-Kahn 23%,
              > Nicolas Sarkozy 21%). Maybe we could convince him to
              > promote Condorcet methods. :-)
              >
              > Markus Schulze
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
            • Dale Sheldon-Hess
              ... But so was Borda, and their fights over the issue are LEGENDARY; the argument wasn t finished then, and it won t be finished now, based simply on
              Message 6 of 21 , May 9, 2011
                On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Juho Laatu <juho4880@...> wrote:
                >
                > Yes, it would be perfect time to discuss the problems and benefits of various methods now. And Condorcet was French, so people might give him some extra points because of that.

                But so was Borda, and their fights over the issue are LEGENDARY; the
                argument wasn't finished then, and it won't be finished now, based
                simply on nationality.

                Eventually, the republic settled on a bastardization of a system
                developed by Laplace, a student of Condorcet, which is still in use
                today. (Laplace called for repeated ballots, until a single candidate
                received over half the vote; no eliminations, no rankings, just
                repeated plurality ballots until the voters decided to compromise of
                their own volition. This (somewhat bewilderingly) became France's
                system of top-two runoff.)

                (As best as I can recall the story as I read it in "Number's Rule"
                (George Szpiro, 2010.))

                --
                Dale Sheldon-Hess
              • WarrenS
                ... --Laplace was a student of Condorcet ?? I gather they were on good terms, but I must say, if Laplace was C s student, then it should have been the other
                Message 7 of 21 , May 9, 2011
                  > Eventually, the republic settled on a bastardization of a system
                  > developed by Laplace, a student of Condorcet, which is still in use
                  > today.

                  --Laplace was a student of Condorcet ??

                  I gather they were on good terms, but I must say, if Laplace was C's student, then
                  it should have been the other way around :)
                • Dale Sheldon-Hess
                  Okay, student is a strong word for the relationship; but it was Condorcet s efforts that got Laplace into the Academy. -- Dale ... [Non-text portions of this
                  Message 8 of 21 , May 9, 2011
                    Okay, "student" is a strong word for the relationship; but it was
                    Condorcet's efforts that got Laplace into the Academy.

                    --
                    Dale

                    On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:55 PM, WarrenS <wds@...> wrote:

                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > > Eventually, the republic settled on a bastardization of a system
                    > > developed by Laplace, a student of Condorcet, which is still in use
                    > > today.
                    >
                    > --Laplace was a student of Condorcet ??
                    >
                    > I gather they were on good terms, but I must say, if Laplace was C's
                    > student, then
                    > it should have been the other way around :)
                    >
                    >
                    >


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.