Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

reprog.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 103 posts

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#51

Post by MikeTaylor »

petercooper wrote: post #32

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.

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.

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#52

Post by JoeAltmaier »

gjm11 wrote: post #25

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/2011/04/29/av-vs-fptp-a-suppleme... http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/av-vs-fptp-the-shorte... (if you're only going to read one -- and I wouldn't blame you, because they're very long --…

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.

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#53

Post by jellicle »

josephShmoe wrote: post #6

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 pr…

IRV is substantially better than FPTP.

The choice today is a FPTP choice: the alternatives are A and B, not some mythical third choice that you just invented. Voters in the UK should vote for the best choice of those available, which is clearly IRV.

Even your statement is simply silly. You're assuming that a voting system ought not eliminate a candidate when he was the least favorite of the voters, and you proceed from there to bash IRV. Big assumption much?

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#54

Post by NickPollard »

danparsonson wrote: post #8
josephShmoe wrote: post #6

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 pr…

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.

Well if we vote in AV, can we then have an AV referendum next year on voting reform?

"Please rank the following voting systems in order of preference."

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#55

Post by Isofarro »

petercooper wrote: post #32

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.

I can't remember the last time the UK had a referendum about voting reform, and based on that it's quite tough to figure out when the next one will be if the winning result is "No".

A clear "No to AV" may be interpreted that no voting reform is needed.

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#56

Post by frobozz »

josephShmoe wrote: post #6

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 pr…

An important factor in this electoral system is that you don't have rank all the candidates, just those that you wish to receive your vote. This makes your sample election a trifle unrealistic.

Since everyone voted for everyone in your sample election, everyone would be reasonably happy with the result, regardless of who wins.

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#57

Post by sp332 »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #52
gjm11 wrote: post #25

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/2011/04/29/av-vs-fptp-a-suppleme... http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/av-vs-fptp-the-shorte... (if you're only going to read one -- and I wouldn't blame you, because they're very long --…

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.

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.

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#58

Post by goatforce5 »

MEHColeman wrote: post #44
petercooper wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a personal view but I think there is. I think that AV could make the process of voting different/confusing enough for many voters to be turned off of voting or, perhaps, screwing up their ballots. If I agree with only one element of the "No" campaign, it's that enough of the electorate is stupid/ignorant enough to find the change difficult changing the outcome of future elections.

This probably sounds terrible, but if you are too "stupid/ignorant" to write your preferences in order 1-5, are you really competent enough to be voting? I really don't expect there are many people (or any, I mean, really?) who are that stupid - that's just doesn't seem a valid reason to be against it. If you just write "1" instead of an "X", it's exactly as easy as the current system. Could you do it? Can you really…

In Australia every polling booth has party volunteers handing out How To Vote flyers showing how they recommend you distribute your preferences. So if you like the Greens but don't really know where those two obscure independents fit in to the picture, you'd just follow their guidance on whether to put them at the top or the bottom of the list.

I suspect most Australians probably just follow their preferred candidates preferences.

http://www.australianpolitics.com/elections/htv/

Allocation of preferences is the mechanism that gives the smaller parties a say in the political process. The Greens (say) might know they have no chance of getting more than a couple of percent of the votes in a giving electorate, but they can do deals with the major parties based on that. e.g. "If renewable energy becomes a campaign promise, we'll direct our supporters to put you as their second preference."

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#59

Post by NickPollard »

petercooper wrote: post #32

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.

Mildy better than the status quo is still better than the status quo. Don't fall into the trap of the Status Quo fallacy; vote for your preference about the two options you are given, don't abstain just because you're waiting for the 'perfect' option (hint: it doesn't exist).

Re: British hackers: stop voting for lizards; start voting for people today

#60

Post by seabee »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #52
gjm11 wrote: post #25

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/2011/04/29/av-vs-fptp-a-suppleme... http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/av-vs-fptp-the-shorte... (if you're only going to read one -- and I wouldn't blame you, because they're very long --…

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.

It's described under the 'simulation method' heading. Unless you have a reason to suggest otherwise, it's reasonable to assume voters' preferences follow a normal distribution.
Post reply on HN