
British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today - MikeTaylor
http://reprog.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/stop-voting-for-lizards-start-voting-for-people/
======
gjm11
Recommended online reading:

Some high-quality discussion of this from Tim Gowers (mathematician, Fields
Medal winner, very smart chap): [http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/is-av-
better-than-fpt...](http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/is-av-better-than-
fptp/) [http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/av-vs-fptp-a-
suppleme...](http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/av-vs-fptp-a-
supplementary-post/) [http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/av-vs-fptp-the-
shorte...](http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/av-vs-fptp-the-shorter-
version/) (if you're only going to read one -- and I wouldn't blame you,
because they're very long -- read the last one).

Some nice graphics illustrating some pathologies with AV:
<http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/> (note: <http://zesty.ca/> is full of interesting
things).

Anti-AV material by an advocate of range voting (note: he dislikes plurality
voting, aka first-past-the-post, even more):
<http://rangevoting.org/IrvPathologySurvey.html>

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Lots of assumtions I didn't quite grasp. What is the distribution of voters?
Some uniform space? The voters are rarely distributed that way. So I don't
know what I learn from those graphics.

~~~
sp332
_Each point in the image corresponds to an election with the center of opinion
located at that point. For every point, we simulate an entire election by
scattering 200000 voters in a normal distribution around that point and
collecting ballots from all of the voters; then we colour the point to
indicate the winner._

~~~
JoeAltmaier
So, still confused. How is the voter ballot simulated? From a point on a
normal distribution? How does that translate to their vote? Especially with
some of the esoteric schemes - is their any attempt to distribute the voters'
comprehension of the candidate position? Or is that folded into the voter
position in the distribution? What is the width of the distribution?

~~~
sp332
Each point in the 2D space represents a person's position on two issues, one
for each axis. The only independent inputs are the candidates' positions.
Different voting methods have different ballots, but the idea is pretty much
the same: the voters rank the candidates by proximity. So the voter would say
"My first choice is the candidate closest to me, my second favorite is the
next-closest, and the last one is my least favorite." So the various
algorithms take those votes and choose a winner for the election.

------
corin_
(I voted "Yes" at 8am.)

If I didn't have any views on which system is better, I would have been
pursuaded to vote Yes by the "Vote No" adverts, such as
<http://i.imgur.com/yCyLv.jpg>

Admitedly, the campaign for "Vote Yes" has frankly been terrible as well, but
in a way that makes you think they don't have a clue about marketing, rather
than a way that makes you want to strangle whoever came up with the adverts.

~~~
rossriley
I think the yes campaign must go down as one of the worst I've ever seen. The
big budget media campaign was based around the 'Make Your MP Work Harder'
campaign.

That's such a vague idea to base a campaign around, especially in light of the
attack tactics the No campaign were using.

~~~
afterburner
This is typical of Yes campaigns for vote reform in Canada as well (at the
provincial level). They tend to be poorly funded, and afraid to tackle it head
on out of fear of scaring people away (might be true). And the No campaigns
tend to be pure fearmongering and misdirection, but well funded. There are
sometimes allegations that the Yes campaigns are sabotaged by No supporters
working for the Yes campaign (rumour level allegation).

------
iuguy
I can't stand the Yes campaign. I really, really can't. The smug superiority
of it all, the assumption that if you vote no you must be mentally ill and the
inability to even debate. To be fair I've had a lot of exposure to people
involved in the Yes campaign. I'm not someone who likes being patronised by a
hive mind and that's exactly how the Yes campaign comes across.

On the logic of the campaign, giving the options available one should vote
Yes, weighing everything up. However it will make no difference to me as my
constituency is a safe tory seat, even with all the simulations.

Bear in mind that Nick Clegg opposed AV in the run up to the elections and was
pushing for PR and you begin to see what this is. This isn't genuine electoral
reform, this is tinkering around the edges. Whatever you vote for this is all
you get. You're not pushing further towards a fairer system, you're choosing
between two options laid out for you by people who've run the numbers and
decided for you. Regardless of the outcome, all the politicians will say,
"Well it's settled, the people have spoken", pat each other on the back and go
back to their day jobs.

We haven't had a referendum since 1975. We won't get another one on voting for
a long time. I'll vote Yes, but only because I know I won't see another chance
to change things in my lifetime.

~~~
MikeTaylor
iuguy, a few things. Most important I really don't believe that "it will make
no difference to me as my constituency is a safe tory seat, even with all the
simulations." Even if it doesn't change who actually wins, implementing AV can
send a clear message to your incumbent by (for example) showing that 25% of
the constituents actually want the Green candidate to win (rather than just
the 5% who actually voted for her under FPTP, knowing their vote would be
wasted). That seems important to me -- it changes the slope of the playing
field.

For the same reason, I am not skeptical enough to accept that "this isn't
genuine electoral reform, this is tinkering around the edges". AV would make a
HUGE difference to me, for the simple reason that it would relieve me of the
responsibility to lie when I vote (i.e. claiming that I want the winner to be
someone who is actually my second or third choice).

And for those who actually want PR: we are MUCH more likely to get it in our
lifetimes if AV wins this referendum than if it loses; in the latter case, the
incumbents really will all say "so that's all right then -- everyone likes how
we do it now". Which is so very not true that it makes my guts hurt just to
type it.

So even if you think AV is only a small step (and for the record I think it's
a big one), please vote for it. It is (among other things) a stepping stone to
a more comprehensive referendum on voting systems, similar to the one they had
in New Zealand -- see [http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/2011/05/05/the-uk-gets-to-
decid...](http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/2011/05/05/the-uk-gets-to-decide-how-
to-vote-and-how-we-did-it-in-nz/)

------
josephShmoe
AV, or IRV (Instant Runoff Voting), is arguably the worst form of preferential
voting in existence. Take this example of IRV totals for four candidates
ordered by preference:

30% a; b; c; d

35% c; b; d; a

20% d; b; a; c

15% b; d; c; a

Given the voting breakdown, most people would agree that candidate b should
win, because no candidate got a majority of first preference votes and b got a
sweeping majority of second preference votes. However, under IRV, b is
eliminated immediately, because b received the fewest first preference votes.

tr;dr: IRV is terrible, and has a history of being adopted in states and
cities in the US only to be abolished not long after, because of the bad
electoral outcomes it produces. If you're going to pick a preferential voting
system, it ought to be one that at the very least preserves the Condorcet
winner; IRV is not that system.

~~~
danparsonson
Unfortunately we haven't been offered a suggestion box, just a choice between
AV and FPTP - personally, AV seems like an improvement on FPTP, even if it's
not the best possible system overall.

~~~
henrikschroder
Why are those the only choices?

Why not switch to proportional representation instead, using D'Hondt or Saint-
Laguë? Or is there such strong support for the current single-winner system in
the UK that noone wants to change the base idea?

~~~
estel
Neither of the main political parties (Labour, Conservatives) want to support
STV because it will greatly diminish their power in Parliament, therefore
there will be no possibility of it being on the agenda either in this
Parliament or at any other time in the next twenty years.

As it stands, the "No" campaign merely for AV has, for a number of reasons,
managed to convince more than enough people that this is a hatefully
undemocratic change to our electoral system - regardless of how tiny an effect
it will have on anything - that I can't see STV having a chance for many
decades yet.

~~~
afterburner
"It's undemocratic", the rallying cry of anti-progressives in these sorts of
situations. The Conservative Party of Canada was calling coalitions
undemocratic. (But suspending parliament when coalitions against them are
being discussed... apparently not undemocratic.) Conservative supporters were
calling voting strategically (voting for whoever had the likeliest chance of
lowering the odds of a Conservative majority) "undemocratic".

------
Pahalial
All shortcomings of AV aside, as a Canadian who just watched a majority get in
thanks to a combined 6,021 votes in some dozen marginal ridings, let me just
say that I'm jealous of this referendum and I wish you the best.

------
nl
Speaking as an Australian (we have preferential voting): Almost _anything_ is
better than first past the post.

~~~
tezza
I am dual Oz / British. I grew up under AV in NSW, with Senate being full PR.

I voted NO because FPTP seems good enough. I don't miss Australia's monster
ballot papers. Most of the theoretical advantages of AV , PR dont happen in
practice.

I was in Wentworth an unshakeably Liberal seat, whatever your preference. down
the road was Maroubra, unshakeable for Labor.

Who can forget the nightmare concessions all the time that Brian Harradine
from TAS used to get because he had Balance of Power in the Senate under PR??

~~~
nl
Yes, there will always be safe seats - I think any system where Wentworth
_wasn't_ liberal would be suspect.

Your vote is still important in the Senate (as Harradine showed). I'm from
South Australia, and we have a independent senator and it's worked out much
better than just having senators from the major parties. It means they end up
representing the state instead of just voting on party lines.

Yeah, some of the concessions are annoying (especially with Harradine), but in
a way that is more democratic than the normal vote-down-party-lines system.

------
udp
I still don't understand why the referendum is on AV and not PR. Most votes
get _thrown away_ because of this silly county-based system. If you live in a
county which is heavily weighted towards a particular party, you _do not have
a meaningful vote_.

~~~
MikeTaylor
udp, some people prefer PR over AV (for the record, I prefer AV because it
keeps the one-representative-per-constituency link), but since PR is not on
the table, voting for AV is the way to go. (Or voting to keep British politics
the way it is, of course.)

~~~
ugh
Just for the record, it is possible to force one-or-more-representatives-per-
constituency on PR.

Germany, for example, has a (pretty complicated) voting system that insures
that every constituency has one representative (that's half of the parliament,
the other half has, technically speaking, no constituency but they are
obviously still from somewhere).

Everyone gets two votes, one for a representative from the constituency
(whoever gets the most votes wins and will definitely be in parliament), and,
more importantly, a second vote which determines the proportions of the
parties in parliament. (Seats that parties cannot fill with directly elected
representatives are filled from the party list.)

That second vote decides about the government (proportionally!), the first
makes sure that every constituency has someone in parliament they can write
letters.

This voting system is called mixed member proportional representation and here
is the link to its Wikipedia article:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_member_proportional_repre...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_member_proportional_representation)

~~~
MikeTaylor
The German system sounds good. But the UK Conservative Party's argument
against simple AV has been "it's too complicated for people to understand".
Trying to get people to vote for something that genuinely IS a bit complicated
would be a complete non-starter at this point.

Anyway, right now it's AV or Continue As You Were. That's the choice we Brits
have to make TODAY, and I do hope that any of you reading this will make sure
that you do vote.

~~~
nfg
The Tory stance seems ridiculous to me (as an outsider) considering that the
UK's devolved assembly elections use PR-STV or other similarly "complicated"
systems. FWIW we use PR-STV in Ireland and are currently going through a
debate about conceivably switching to a "list" system, or possibly a hybrid
list system tempered as they do in Germany.

~~~
MikeTaylor
It IS ridiculous. But people have been TOLD that AV is too complicated for
their simple little minds, and too many of them seem to have accepted this
statement uncritically. It breaks my heart.

~~~
seabee
Unless it's something they care about (and not everyone cares about voting
reform!), being told "Don't worry about it, it's too hard to explain" is often
met with "Oh, okay."

The trick is to get people to care about it so they become curious and reject
the assertions of "it's too hard". The Yes campaign attempted this initially
but did a poor job, in this case it turns out much easier to explain the thing
than to pose half-truth arguments why people should care!

~~~
hugh3
Ultimately I suspect everyone knows that "it's too complicated" is a fake
argument. The _real_ reason that Tories don't want PR is that it will spell an
end to proper Tory governments. Meanwhile, the real reason that Labour doesn't
want PR is that it will spell an end to proper Labour governments. The only
folks who are _really_ keen on PR are the Lib Dems, whose power it would
massively increase.

And ultimately, the population follows the parties -- unless you are a LibDem
supporter you probably don't especially want to see the LibDems holding the
balance of power in every parliament for the next fifty years.

------
JonnieCache
The local office of the Yes campaign is just across the corridor from us.
Bigup.

Vote, people. Doesn't matter who/what it's for. Spoil your ballot if you have
to. Just make your voice heard.

~~~
mseebach
No. To paraphrase Dijkstra, voting is to democracy as telescopes are to
astronomy.

It DOES matter who/what you vote for. And if you don't believe that, why would
you believe that doing anything at all with your ballot counts as making your
voice heard?

Democracy is about participation. Not campaigning, participation. You need to
make your voice heard at all times, not just at elections (frankly, elections
are probably the least effective time to make your voice heard). Be informed
about the issues, challenge your assumptions and debate your opinions
(preferably with people you disagree with). If you can't or won't do those
things, you don't live in a democracy, you live in an oligarchy that happens
to mutate roughly every decade.

~~~
JonnieCache
Obviously I don't believe that it doesnt matter who you vote for, what I was
trying to say was that I'd rather have someone vote in a way that I disagree
with, than not vote at all.

It matters who you vote for, but it doesn't matter _to me._

I'm trying to make it clear that I'm not advocating voting in an attempt to
advance my own agenda, but rather out of a simple desire for people to make
use of their rights as citizens of a democracy.

Notice that I also advocated ballot spoiling as an alternative to casting a
vote for any of the choices presented. If you really can't bring yourself to
vote for any of the parties, and I certainly wouldn't blame you there, at
least go down to the polling station and write "YOU ARE ALL BASTARDS" across
the ballot in your own blood or something. That way, you still show up in the
turnout figures, avoiding the false impression of voter apathy.

And yes, I definitely agree that voting is probably the least important part
of democratic participation, although a lot of the other parts are becoming
increasingly frustrated around here...

------
arethuza
I'm slightly disappointed that the title isn't a reference to the theories of
David Icke.

------
revorad
Voted. It only took 5 minutes; there's no excuse not to.

~~~
petercooper
There is. If you can't decide one way or the other. Which is why I've not
voted on the issue today. (Though if there were an "abstain" or "unsure" box,
I'd have voted for that.)

~~~
hnhg
A spoiled vote is the traditional way of expressing that.

~~~
petercooper
I used to do that, but the problem is spoiled votes are lumped together for
reporting purposes, so there's no real way to judge whether people are
protesting, finding the ballot form confusing, or whatever.

~~~
Super_Jambo
The ballot form has a 'yes' and a 'no' box on it...

------
cturner
Hi Mike. For once some politics on hacker news that has some relevance to me.
I'm still flagging.

Voting systems are interesting algorithms to discuss, but politics is not.
Please keep political stuff off hn.

~~~
MikeTaylor
Hi, cturner. The HD guidelines say "Off-Topic: MOST stories about politics"
(emphasis added). Votes say that this is one of the ones that is not MOST.
Anyway, it'll all be over in less than nine hours, and I'll go back to
reviewing programming books from the 1970s and 80s.

~~~
corin_
Actually the AV result isn't due until 8pm _tomorrow_ , so more than thirty
hours away. Even the first results from AV aren't expected until after 5pm
tomorrow.

~~~
MikeTaylor
corin_, the RESULT isn't due until tomorrow, but the polls close tonight. So
nothing I say or do after 10pm will make any difference.

------
petercooper
_if you care about democracy at all — then get out and vote YES TO AV._

Get a grip. If one cares about democracy "at all" then they need to go out and
vote Yes to one extremely narrow option that's only, arguably, mildly better
than the status quo? This is nothing more than an appeal to emotion.

~~~
MikeTaylor
You misrepresented the call to vote here by trimming the quote down too far.
What the original article says is:

"Please: if you’ve ever complained about how our politicians don’t represent
us and the people who do represent us can’t get elected; if you’re sick of
having to choose between two lizards; if you care about democracy at all —
then get out and vote YES TO AV."

So I did make an actual case, rather than just appealing to emotion.

~~~
petercooper
You made a case but wrapped it up with an appeal to _which way_ someone should
vote.

Sheepishly voting Yes because someone suggested they might not care about
democracy otherwise is not very democratic. If someone cares about democracy,
all they need to do is _vote_ full-stop.

