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

[alien8.livejournal.com]

this isn't the official site of the 'yes to av campaign', just a blog and it's a damn sight closer to the truth even given point 5 bollocks than the _official_ no2av lot.

not saying either are perfect - but the no2 lot are _full_ of it. They're at tube stations peddling their BS.

[condign.livejournal.com]

Baloney. Most of the points aren't "truth" or even "facts": they're analogies that can be shown to be irrelevant after a scintilla of thought. Not that I think the No2AV campaign is brilliant, but the sanctimonious quasi-intellectualism of the AV crowd gets on my nerves something awful. Take point 4:

4. In every UK general election bar 1997 and 1983, it is predicted that AV would have distributed seats more in line with vote share, i.e. a more proportional or fairer result.

That's not a "fact." "Fairer" is a normative term, and its quite possible to believe that FPTP is "fairer." I would argue that FPTP is certainly more "fair," and more proportional to what voting should be proportional to: the will of the constituency, not the country as a whole. This point simply begs the question: what is fair, and what is the purpose of a voting system? Define fair such that FPTP can't win, and yes, it's more "fair." But this has nothing to do with facts, and is actually pretty "full of it" as a method of argument.

Point 7 is bogus: AV is not an implied primary, because it doesn't allow party members to elect the candidate of their choice without interference from non-party members. (Admittedly, one could argue that it's a "primary lite" option, but it's not a primary, and supporting AV pretty much eliminates any hope that a party will start having primaries.)

Point 8 is also mathematically incorrect: AV is not the same as elimination by multiple vote, because the voter knows the result of the first vote before the second choice vote was cast: voting strategies will different in the two systems. (At least, Big Brother used to be multiple elimination: you eliminate one person at a time. I can't imagine why Big Brother would change formats to actual AV voting, as it would make the phone voting not only less complex, but less lucrative. But if you tell me differently, I'll believe you.)

Point 9 is just an expression of opinion, unless you present as a fact that this is why all politicians would use AV for a party but not a general election.

I could go on and on, but most of that post is self-serving claptrap that, if you happened to disagree with it, you could easily tear apart. Basically, this is cheap reasoning. It's just cheap reasoning that you happen to agree with.

[alien8.livejournal.com]

fair enough.

go shoot their site down! :-)

I could honestly care less. Politicians suck.

[emarkienna.livejournal.com]

It's still not the official site. In any debate, there will be people on all sides who make incorrect or misleading claims - I don't think it's ever fair to take an argument made by a single person, and imply it to be representative of people on that side of the debate in general.

The bigger concern I feel is the offical Tory-backed No2AV campaign that's based on lies and scaremongering. No, not everything the Fairer Votes campaign have said is 100% accurate, but it doesn't come anywhere close to No2AV's tactics in my opinion.

Hell, I could be a troll and put up a "No2AV" site putting up completely stupid and foolish claims, to ridicule their side. (Except I'd have a hard time outdoing the nonsense of the official campaign, that is...)

[condign.livejournal.com]

Give me a break: I didn't select this site as "kinda needed to counter the garnage [sic] being put out atm." My point was that this was countering garbage with garbage, merely garbage the whiff of which didn't bother alien8's nose overly much. If your point is that the "official site" is so much better, and doesn't make such claims, you're welcome to link it. But it's a bit silly to say it's unfair to point out that a post linked approvingly to "counter the garnage" is itself garbage.

That the Fairer Votes campaign is more "accurate" and less "based on lies and scaremongering" is, in my opinion, more a reflection of your pre-existing views on the matter than any kind of reasoned critique based upon looking at both sides. For instance, looking at this (which I'm assuming is part of the campaign you're mentioning), the site contains a similar number of... shall we say spun distortions of the truth. To spend just five minutes playing devil's advocate:

The Alternative Vote is a simple system but infinitely fairer than the discredited First Past The Post system we currently use.

Really? FPTP is discredited? The many countries, including the U.S., which use it are engaging not in a political choice system with which one can honestly disagree, but one that is absolutely without credit? Cheers, at least two of the world's largest democracies are illegitimate! (Oh, except for the city of San Francisco. Edwin M. Lee was legitimately elected, but the system that got Nanci Pelosi in is, according to the Lib Dems and your apparently "official" campaign, "discredited.")

The biggest country in which the Alternative Vote is used is Australia, where the strong political system is widely credited with helping the Australians avoid recession recently.

The idea that AV was even a significant factor in Australia's avoidance of recession (as opposed to, say, its position as a key materials supplier to China) is laughable. Note that India also avoided much of the recession, and uses FPTP, but if the No campaign used it as an example I'd think they were bonkers.

Look, I'm happy to admit that there are pros and cons to both FPTP, AV, and most voting systems. (I mostly subscribe to Arrow's hypothesis about the impossibility of a perfect voting system, so it's all trade offs.) And an intelligent conversation can be had about the nature of these tradeoffs. But the idea that either the Yes or No campaign is engaging in this conversation, or that one is on the side of the angels... well, it may be your opinion, but it's woefully short on fact.

[emarkienna.livejournal.com]

I agree that that Lib Dem page has a couple of woolly claims. Although that's still not what I mean by scaremongering and lies - I don't mind if No2AV say that FPTP is discredited - or as they do, undemocratic. Saying that Australia etc are undemocratic is bizarre too, but that's not the thing I have a problem with, as it's simply an opinion being expressed.

I mean things like the two-faced-ness of it: it's not that Cameron calls it undemocratic and unfair, but that he does so when a form of AV made him Tory leader and hence Prime Minister. Similarly, this also makes me suspicious of their "second bite of the cherry" talk. Even though I think that's nonsense (see my other comments here), I could at least accept it as someone's viewpoint on the issue, if they thought that 1st preferences are all that should count. But the Tory party evidently don't think that, which makes it come across as using the argument to scaremonger. Similarly again with the "It means the loser wins" claims, when presumably Cameron doesn't think of himself as a loser.

That no one wants AV - by all means tell us what they want, but there's something frustrating in claiming that the Yes supporters don't want it.

Indeed, the whole stitch up where the Tories are the ones to offer only AV, and then use Clegg's "miserable little compromise" quote out of context (which he said about AV compared with their preferred STV) in their campaign to imply he doesn't want AV over FPTP. Other people are quoted too, including the Electoral Reform Society - the implication being they've changed their mind, when actually they always liked FPTP even less.

The stooping to levels of "Vote No or the baby gets it", and linking the debate to the cuts - especially when the Tories are the ones making the cuts.

The lies about needing voting machines.

The lies about the cost - the figure almost entirely made up of the unnecessary voting machines, and the referendum.

The scaremongering about the BNP, even though there's no evidence AV will help them, and they are campaigning against it. (It's true that the Yes campaign are now referring to the BNP - though firstly that's based on the truth, since the BNP are against it; and secondly, it's fair game to respond to No2AV's claims about them in my opinion.)

Lies that some people (like BNP voters) have their votes counted again and again, whilst others don't. (Saying that it's unfair that people's lower preferences are counted is one thing, but claims about some people having more votes that others is just plain wrong.)

The claims that it'll mean an eternal coalition with the Lib Dems in power.

Trying to make it all about Nick Clegg, instead of a discussion about voting systems.

That only Nick Clegg's vote would count in AV.

The bizarre claim that AV leads to broken promises, based on grinding an axe against the Lib Dems (even though this happened under FPTP...)

Yes, I've no doubt you can go away and find a webpage somewhere which has a couple of inaccurate claims, or refers to FPTP with an unkind description. There are indeed areas where I would criticise the claims made by Yes to Fairer Votes, and areas where I wish they would focus on instead. But I'm still not convinced this is on the same scale as the examples I give above. And these aren't found on some website - they're on the forefront of the campaign: TV adverts, multiple leaflets through my door etc. The Yes letter through my door had some woolly stuff about making MPs work harder, but none of the same kind of thing as I've described.

Maybe I'm biased because I have a point of view - but then, maybe you are too :) This is why I did state my view was "in my opinion".

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, I've no doubt you can go away and find a webpage somewhere which has a couple of inaccurate claims, or refers to FPTP with an unkind description.

Sort of moves the goalposts, don'tcha think? First I respond to the specific page provided above, which you decide is unfair because "it's not official." Not that you tell me what you would consider an "official" site. So I picked the site the Lib Dems put up, which I would think is close. So now it's "can go away and find a webpage." Pray tell: what actual source can I point to that you will agree is both "official" and a yardstick against which the Pro-AV forces can be judged? One notes that you haven't provided anything like this in your examples: you have paraphrased the arguments of others (without citing sources), and it's impossible for me to tell if you've done so uncharitably or not.

This tendency to hold others to standards that one would not for a moment think of applying to one's allies or oneself is the attitude that I find galling in many of the official (and unofficial) supporters of the Yes campaign. Disagreement of opinion I find enjoyable. Sanctimony is not.

Maybe I'm biased because I have a point of view - but then, maybe you are too :)

Perhaps. Then again, I'm not particularly partisan for FPTP. When I was a TA, I had to teach an entire unit on voting theory. I'm fond of Arrow's theorum that roughly states that there is no perfect voting system: it's a matter of trade offs. I'm marginally more partial to FPTP, but I recognize that it has its weaknesses.

That said: any theory of political malfeasance that says (a) it's a horrible travesty to link AV to potentially higher spending, cuts in services, etc. (which I agree are not necessary outcomes of AV, although each falls in the "possible but unlikely" category) but (b) it is not equally morally bankrupt to link the adoption of AV to the relatively strong economic Australian performance after the financial crisis, or to state that the most populous democracy in the world is using a "discredited" system to chose its members is one that, if it is following a system of consistent principals at all, follows one that I cannot divine.

[emarkienna.livejournal.com]

[continued]


And an intelligent conversation can be had about the nature of these
tradeoffs. But the idea that either the Yes or No campaign is engaging in
this conversation, or that one is on the side of the angels... well, it
may be your opinion, but it's woefully short on fact.

I never suggested they were angels - I said "not everything the Fairer Votes campaign have said is 100% accurate".

I've seen focus on the reduction of tactical voting, so there is some focus at least on the voting theory side of things. All I've seen from No2AV on this is "It means the loser wins" and "Some people have more votes than others"...

[condign.livejournal.com]

You admitted that the Fairer Votes campaign has made "inaccurate" claims, but your argument rests on the idea that making fatuous claims about the costs of implementing AV somehow renders the No folks reprobates, but making equally ridiculous (if not more so--the Australia thing really is a howler) claims about AV's benefits is no-harm, no-foul.

[emarkienna.livejournal.com]

(Also replying to the other comment - note that it was anonymous, so is screened.)

I agree that the Lib Dem has a couple of poor claims. I'm happy to count it as official.

I'm just saying, in my opinion, I don't think that comes anywhere near close to the level of No2AV, either in terms of the number of poor claims, the level that they stoop to (claiming Yes supporters don't like AV by misquoting; argument by emotion; etc), or the prominence that they give them.

This tendency to hold others to standards that one would not for a moment think of applying to one's allies or oneself is the attitude that I find galling in many of the official (and unofficial) supporters of the Yes campaign.

No, as I say, I don't like some of the Yes claims being made. On that note, AV supporters have been criticising claims made by the Yes campaign. Anecdotally, I've seen people on my flist disappointed with the Yes campaign.

Has anything similar happened in the No2AV campaign? Have Tory MPs stood up and said that they've no intention of bringing in voting machines, and that it won't cost £250 million (they should know)? Or that the Tories won't have an extra £250 million for the NHS should No win? Or noted that David Cameron was the "loser" in their first round of leadership election?

Maybe they have, though I haven't seen it yet. If not, that's something else to note: the misinformation from the Yes campaign gets criticised by Yes and No supporters alike; yet there seems to be a silence from No supporters on the No campaign.

That said: any theory of political malfeasance that says (a) it's a horrible travesty to link AV to potentially higher spending, cuts in services, etc. (which I agree are not necessary outcomes of AV, although each falls in the "possible but unlikely" category) but (b) it is not equally morally bankrupt to link the adoption of AV to the relatively strong economic Australian performance after the financial crisis, or to state that the most populous democracy in the world is using a "discredited" system to chose its members is one that, if it is following a system of consistent principals at all, follows one that I cannot divine.

I agree that the Australian claim was incorrect and unfair. The travesty isn't that one claim alone, it's the full extent of the list. I cannot divine making two incorrect points on a webpage equal to a large number of incorrect points in adverts and door leaflets.

Plus the issue wasn't the link to the cuts; it was the link when it's the Tories who are making the cuts whilst supporting No2AV; and the claimed cost of AV is known to be a lie, not simply a matter of opinion.

For the "discredited" point: I noted that it was no different to No2AV referring to Australia as "undemocratic", yet I don't think either is a big problem. Claiming something to be discredited is a matter of opinion (well, I guess there's the implication that it's something that everyone agrees on, though I think this would apply to all uses of the word "discredited"; either way, it applies to calling AV, and places like Australia that use it, as not being democratic).

Also note that America doesn't use straight FPTP, as you have earlier rounds - Primaries - to decide the Democrat and Republican candidates, reducing it to almost a two party system (as venta comments). This factor can't be ignored - the election process includes the primaries as well as the final FPTP round. The primaries reduce the problems of FPTP, such as vote splitting between similar candidates.

You admitted that the Fairer Votes campaign has made "inaccurate" claims, but your argument rests on the idea that making fatuous claims about the costs of implementing AV somehow renders the No folks reprobates, but making equally ridiculous (if not more so--the Australia thing really is a howler) claims about AV's benefits is no-harm, no-foul.

I just think, in my opinion, that the level of misinformation is not equal. I admit that maybe this is just me being biased. Although I've yet to see a list of Yes misinformation countering the list that I've provided - maybe I'm just not seeing it though.

[venta.livejournal.com]

note that it was anonymous, so is screened

Now unscreened. I don't screen anonymous comments, but LJ seems to have got properly picky about what it thinks is spam of late.

[condign.livejournal.com]

Sorry... missed the fact that I posted it anonymously. My error. :(

[condign.livejournal.com]

I just think, in my opinion, that the level of misinformation is not equal. I admit that maybe this is just me being biased.

Yes, I think you're biased.

The mismatch in "misinformation" is rather what I'm finding hard to believe. Not that you haven't found a list--your evidence of having looked very hard is somewhat thin--but that you think such a list wouldn't be trivially easy to produce. Someone of reasonable intelligence should be able to produce a list of "misinformation" that meets the standards you set for the "no" vote very easily.

First, a factual point: not all states have primaries. (Iowans, for example, would be fairly surprised to find out that they've been having primaries all these years.) Second, a primary is simply a nominating election, and many primaries are uncontested. It's not like the Mike Castle/Christine O'Donnell situation was typical.

So for instance:

(a) Tories use AV to choose their leader? No, they do not. The have multiple rounds of elections, yes, but this is not the same as AV (at least as relevant here), because a voter in the second round knows the result of the first round vote. See al_fruitbat's comments above for why this is important. The endless repetition of this ridiculous claim, which actually ignores the importance of interim knowledge in voting,

(b) Take a look at the first three claims here: http://www.yestofairervotes.org/pages/av-myths. That is to say, the first three bullet points of the first paragraph. Please note that all of the failings of the FPTP system also apply to AV so long as what they list as "Myth 9" is not true. The only condition under which AV eliminates the three problems mentioned is where a voter is required to vote for multiple candidates. Otherwise, AV as a system may result in candidates winning with only 1 in 3 votes cast for them, candidates retaining seats without a majority, etc. This is just basic math.

I could go on, but here's the point: I'm not actually that strongly against AV, and I recognize that these claims are BS. Or rather, they're the same thing as the claim about the cost of voting machines: a statement which is not necessarily true, but true inasmuch as it relies upon certain assumptions, those assumptions not shared by opponents on the other side. Either that or "shading" the truth by leaving out facts necessary to be coherent (such as the Tory election not being AV, at least as contemplated here).

This happens all the time in politics, and it's no big surprise. I don't think there's an "imbalance" in misinformation. I do think, however, that there is a serious imbalance in the sanctimony about it. I'm not saying that two isolated points on a website are equivalent to your "list"--though one has to point out that you've cited no sources and quoted no statements, merely paraphrased arguments--but that you're not looking critically at the arguments that you favor, certainly not with the same standards you apply to the No campaign.

[venta.livejournal.com]

Really? FPTP is discredited? The many countries, including the U.S., which use it are engaging not in a political choice system with which one can honestly disagree, but one that is absolutely without credit?

I wouldn't describe FPTP as discredited (and it seems rather foolish to do so), but I do wonder that the US isn't a very good example of why it works.

My understanding of US politics (which may be wrong, or at least naive) is that it's basically a two-horse race. You've got your Republicans and your Democrats, and realistically pretty much no one else. So FPTP works fine (and is basically equivalent to AV anyway). One of the reasons I feel the UK is floundering a bit is that at the last election there were three horses of (very) approximately equal likelihood which makes the whole business much more complicated.