Grab and change it, it's yours

[venta]

Does anyone know what the actual text which is actually going to appear on the actual ballot papers on May 5th is? A bit of googling hasn't turned up any results for me, but the pages I was finding suggest to me that I may have been going about my searching in the wrong way.

I'm kind of assuming that the ballot paper will look broadly like this:

[Poll #1729575]

Now, lots of campaigners would have you believe that this is analogous to:

[Poll #1729576]

And lots of other campaigners would have you believe it's analogous to:

[Poll #1729577]

You'll notice that the second two polls allow the results to be interpreted as pol(l)ar opposites.

So, does anyone know exactly what the question is? More to the point, has the government made any commitment at all about what they're going to do with the results, how they'll be interpreted, or whether Cameron will (in fact) go "oh, that's nice" and carry on regardless with the existing system?

Comments

[al-fruitbat.livejournal.com]

Of course, the difference in the X factor is that the voting process is iterative, with the results of each round being known prior to recasting ballots - so not equivalent to AV at all.

[emarkienna.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure if I'm reading your emphasis of "at all" correctly - are you just emphasising that it isn't exactly the same as runoff voting (which is indeed true), or do you mean that it isn't anything like the X Factor voting at all?

I think it's close enough for the explanation - I mean, do you think that people's votes in X Factor should be reduced? Or if not, what is the important difference between the two systems?

[al-fruitbat.livejournal.com]

I think it's the difference of information. On X-Factor people can quickly see the real states of the voting (based on last week's poll) so can make informed choices about the next poll, including tactical voting if they so choose.

If everyone on the X-factor got one chance to vote, then yes I would say that they should adopt a ranking system rather than STV.

[emarkienna.livejournal.com]

I think it's the difference of information. On X-Factor people can
quickly see the real states of the voting (based on last week's poll) so
can make informed choices about the next poll, including tactical voting
if they so choose.

Can you give me an example where knowing the previous results would mean you might want to change your preferences?

But either way - yes I know that runoff voting isn't identical to instant runoff voting, but I don't see how that affects the point about why people's votes aren't reduced in value? Why should people's votes be reduced in value in IRV/AV if their most preferred candidate drops out in a round, but not in runoff voting?

The other reason why votes aren't reduced is because it would make the change pointless - you'd be going back to the tactical voting decisions of whether to vote for a minor party or not, just that it'll be a "reduced" vote you get instead of a "wasted" one.

If everyone on the X-factor got one chance to vote, then yes I would say
that they should adopt a ranking system rather than STV.

What if the choice is between IRV and FPTP?

[condign.livejournal.com]

Agreed. And that "known prior to recasting ballots" is huge.