Argument against Alternative Voting (AV) made by Lord Alexander in the 1998 Jenkins Commission Report for the British Parliament: “Suppose within a constituency, Conservatives receive 40% of first preferences. Labour are second on 31% and Lib Dems third on 29%. Lib Dems second preferences happen to be split 15/14 in favour of Labour. The Conservatives are therefore elected with 54% of the total vote (i.e. 40% + 14%). But now suppose the position of Labour and Lib Dems had been reversed on first preferences, with Lib Dems 31% and Labour 29%. If Labour second preferences were split 20/9 in favour of Lib Dems, the Lib Dems would be elected with 51% of the total vote (i.e. 31% + 20%). So the result would be different depending on which horse was second and which third over Becher's Brook first time round. This seems to me too random to be acceptable.” My response to this argument:
It should be noted that in Britain someone opposing AV is supporting retention of FPTP, He is not recognizing there are better alternatives to FPTP than AV, which of course there are. (For one thing, AV is not proportional, while STV is.) Lord Alexander states "So the result (under AV) would be different depending on which horse was second and which third over Becher's Brook first time round. This seems to me too random to be acceptable.” FPTP allows minority rule in the district, the Conservative candidate winning with 40 percent of the vote, irrespective of which candidate is second or how many non-Conservative votes there are, BUT AV ensures that the winning candidate must receive majority support, whether that is from one party or a combination of two (or more) candidates support. In the example, with such a thin field of candidate, on the second count the bottom one is eliminated, leaving only two others - one a winner and the Conservatives which had call on only a minority of the votes. Either one or the other of the non-Conservative parties will survive to be elected. And in the artificial example the two are separated by only two percent of the vote. With a few more candidates, the elimination would be more spread out and less random-looking - although not random at all - it is based on relative strength of popularity. Sure, elimination of the least popular party may seem random but if the least popular party is not eliminated, then which party should be?
Under AV the lowest candidate, no matter how far behind the next contender, is eliminated. This is no more random than FPTP where the leader, no matter how far ahead of the next contender, is elected. The difference is that in FPTP the arbitrary rule is used to establish the winner while under AV the arbitrary rule may or may not elect the winner - the winner is still decided by majority of the votes. The lord saw random-ness in the way, after the elimination of the lowest party, either of the remaining two candidates may win, but this is not random-ness - it shows how under AV it is not just simple lead over others that determines the winner but majority of votes. The thing is not basically the order of the party but which party in the end has a majority of the votes. A different situation elects a different candidate. That is fairness. Only in very thin field of candidates do the order of eliminations or who is eliminated, if there is only one elimination, make a big difference. The equivalent example under FPTP would be like this, an example that is easily seen in today's politics, Conservatives get 34, Liberal 33 and NDP 32 percent of the vote. then the Conservative would be elected, but if votes are only slightly changed, Liberal or NDP would be elected. That is just as random looking as the AV example and without the benefit of ensuring majority representation at the end. I am not defending AV necessarily, but saying that any system that cares about fairness will reflect even slight changes in popularity if the system is good enough (especially if the changes affect order of ranking of party). This is not random-ness but instead exact-ness. It is what is seen under pro-rep.
Thanks for reading.
==================================================
Comentarios