Electoral reform: AV+ is open to cheating

[thoughtful]

The 'Alternative Vote Plus' voting system for the House of Commons, originally proposed by Simon Jenkins MP some years ago,
and more recently proposed by some Labour MPs following the expenses scandal, has several flaws, and one of them is serious.


CONTENTS
Brief description of AV+
Flaw #1: AV+ is open to cheating
Flaw #2: Only a limited advance in voter control
Better systems


Brief description of AV+
Voters fill in a form with two parts. In part 1 of the ballot, voters rank candidates for their constituency in order of preference. This part of the ballot paper is used to elect most MPs in the House of Commons, in single member constituencies.

Such a system is known as 'Alternative Vote'. Basically, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated, and votes for that candidate are transferred to the other candidates, using the voters' next preferences.

Counting would continue until only one candidate remains, and is declared the winner. (In practice, it's possible to 'short-circuit' the process by finding a candidate who has so many votes that he/she is certain to win earlier on, but this is the basic idea.)

However, such a system would tend to create landslide victories even more extreme than in our present system. To counteract this tendency, there is a second part to the ballot paper, in which voters choose their favourite party. This doesn't have to be the same party as the one which they favoured in part 1 of the ballot,. You could give a candidate from Party A as your first preference in part 1, and then give Party B as your favourite party in part 2.

Using the party preferences given by voters in part 2, some additional MPs are elected from parties that are held to be 'under-represented'. These MPs are taken from lists supplied by the parties, on a regional basis. The intention is to bring the system closer to 'proportional representation' and make it less 'landslide-y', or if you prefer, less extreme.


Flaw #1: AV+ is open to cheating

It is possible for voters to cheat, by voting for 'clone parties' in part 2 of the ballot. By 'clone party' I mean a party that in essence is almost exactly the same as the party whose candidates they favoured in part 1 of the ballot.

The clone party would perhaps field candidates for part 1 of the ballot, for the sake of appearances, but wouldn't try particularly hard to get them elected.

When the votes are being counted, the counters start by examining part 1 of voters' forms, and electing the Alternative Vote MPs.

Then the counters move on to part 2 of voters' forms. At this stage, because the 'clone party' didn't try to get its candidates elected, it counts as an 'under-represented' party, and is given MPs from the party lists, even if the original party has actually been very successful! This gives the original + clone party, taken together, an unfair advantage.


Flaw #2: Only a limited advance in voter control
The part 1 MPs, chosen by Alternative Vote would, I admit, be very open to pressure from voters concerned about matters such as expense claims. However, the part 2 MPs would be 'party poodles', shielded from responsibility to the voters by their positions within political parties.

It would be possible to rectify this particular flaw by having a slightly more complicated ballot paper, in which voters could rank candidates from their part 2 party in order of preference. However, I think Flaw #1 is unavoidable.


Better systems

A better system would be one based on the 'Single Transferable Vote' (in the USA this is known as 'ranked preference voting'). This would give true proportionality, at least for the larger parties, and it would be much more honest.

[Midas]

Don't you feel that a closed list voting system can offer as many benefits as the STV system but is a lot less complicated to administer and is less open to manipulation?

[thoughtful]

Don't you feel that a closed list voting system can offer as many benefits as the STV system but is a lot less complicated to administer and is less open to manipulation?

With Closed List systems, the party that a candidate belongs to decides which candidates will be the most likely to get elected, and puts these candidates near the top of its list.

This creates 'party poodle' MPs, who are mainly concerned about their position within a party, and much less interested in what the public thinks about them.

It's not the best kind of system to choose, if you're worried about MPs abusing their positions through expenses claims.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'manipulation'.

[RedJake]

A better system would be one based on the 'Single Transferable Vote' (in the USA this is known as 'ranked preference voting'). This would give true proportionality, at least for the larger parties, and it would be much more honest.

There no point in changing the voting sytem, inless it provides more choice to the electorate.

[Midas]

With Closed List systems, the party that a candidate belongs to decides which candidates will be the most likely to get elected, and puts these candidates near the top of its list.

This creates 'party poodle' MPs, who are mainly concerned about their position within a party, and much less interested in what the public thinks about them.

Maybe I should have been a bit more explicit. What I meant was a modified closed list system whereby voters still vote for the party, however actual candidates are chosen on a random allocation basis if they don't already live in/near a constituency where their party has won a seat. There's no specific ordering of candidates, which would prevent the problem you highlight.

[keithunder]

This has actually happened in Italy both main blocks stood most of their constituency candidates as members of bogus blocks

in 2001 the right stood as ABOLIZIONE SCORPORO
and the left as
PAESE NUOVO

In the constituency vote and under their proper Names in the proportional vote!

[thoughtful]

Maybe I should have been a bit more explicit. What I meant was a modified closed list system whereby voters still vote for the party, however actual candidates are chosen on a random allocation basis if they don't already live in/near a constituency where their party has won a seat. There's no specific ordering of candidates, which would prevent the problem you highlight.

The system that you suggest might be better than an un-modified Closed List system, as candidates wouldn't be totally under the thumb of a political party.


However, it would not give the voters themselves an opportunity to say which candidates within a particular party they preferred. So, it wouldn't be as effective as either

• an Open List system, or
• a system such as the Single Transferable Vote

in allowing voters to penalise representatives who had fiddled their expense claims.

[Midas]

However, it would not give the voters themselves an opportunity to say which candidates within a particular party they preferred. So, it wouldn't be as effective as either.

I understand what you're saying, however don't you think that it's more important to support a party than just a person? Politics is rather more about governing the country than it is about whether the little old lady at number 47 likes Joe Bloggs from the Labour Party because he was nice to her at the church fete, which is what you get (to a degree) when a fair percentage of people vote for named candidates.

[thoughtful]

This has actually happened in Italy both main blocks stood most of their constituency candidates as members of bogus blocks

in 2001 the right stood as ABOLIZIONE SCORPORO
and the left as
PAESE NUOVO

In the constituency vote and under their proper Names in the proportional vote!

Thanks for that information. There's more on the 2001 Italian election at
http://electionresources.org/it/chamber.html
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_Member_Proportional

I understand what you're saying, however don't you think that it's more important to support a party than just a person? Politics is rather more about governing the country than it is about whether the little old lady at number 47 likes Joe Bloggs from the Labour Party because he was nice to her at the church fete, which is what you get (to a degree) when a fair percentage of people vote for named candidates.

Democracy is about choosing a government, and governments have real people in them. The character of those people will determine how the government relates to

• civil servants
• judiciary
• leaders of armed forces
• grassroots groups
• trade unions
• other countries on the international scene, etc etc

It will also determine how well the government handles events within the lifetime of the government, and how successful the government will be in making new policies as the need arises.

So it's not desireable to have 'personality-free' politics; attempting to do so leads to a lack of balance.

I concede that it is unbalanced to speak about personalities alone, and ignore policies. But it is equally unbalanced to speak only about policies, and ignore personalities. Both are important.

Also, many people find personality-free politics boring, especially women. Therefore, including personalities in the discussion is likely to increase voter interest and participation.


To take the example that you give, if Joe Bloggs from the Labour Party is nice to a little old lady at a church fete, maybe she will feel confident enough to tell him that she is concerned about the low pension that she (and many other women) have received, because she took time off work earlier on in her life.

She might also tell him about her concerns regarding local housing, warden and care provision for the elderly, policing, her son and daughter who are fighting a war in a foreign country, and so forth.

So, being nice to little old ladies is not to be sneezed at!

[Midas]

Democracy is about choosing a government, and governments have real people in them. The character of those people will determine how the government relates to

• civil servants
• judiciary
• leaders of armed forces
• grassroots groups
• trade unions
• other countries on the international scene, etc etc

It will also determine how well the government handles events within the lifetime of the government, and how successful the government will be in making new policies as the need arises.

So it's not desireable to have 'personality-free' politics; attempting to do so leads to a lack of balance.

I concede that it is unbalanced to speak about personalities alone, and ignore policies. But it is equally unbalanced to speak only about policies, and ignore personalities. Both are important.

Also, many people find personality-free politics boring, especially women. Therefore, including personalities in the discussion is likely to increase voter interest and participation.


To take the example that you give, if Joe Bloggs from the Labour Party is nice to a little old lady at a church fete, maybe she will feel confident enough to tell him that she is concerned about the low pension that she (and many other women) have received, because she took time off work earlier on in her life.

She might also tell him about her concerns regarding local housing, warden and care provision for the elderly, policing, her son and daughter who are fighting a war in a foreign country, and so forth.

So, being nice to little old ladies is not to be sneezed at!

I accept all that, however I would make the point that the only real difference between voting for a named candidate and simply voting for a party is that the candidate won't be identified prior to an election. Once the election has passed, the selected MP will be just as available to all those little old ladies as is the case under any voting system. I don't see that it places a party under any greater disadvantage than say if there's a by-election to select a new incoming MP; in any event, and advantages/disadvantages would affect every single party equally, thus would have no overall effect.

[thoughtful]

Replies to responses at 06-06-2009, 06:40 PM and 09-06-2009, 12:06 PM

This has actually happened in Italy both main blocks stood most of their constituency candidates as members of bogus blocks

in 2001 the right stood as ABOLIZIONE SCORPORO
and the left as
PAESE NUOVO

In the constituency vote and under their proper Names in the proportional vote!

Thanks for that information. There's more on the 2001 Italian election at
http://electionresources.org/it/chamber.html
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_Member_Proportional

I understand what you're saying, however don't you think that it's more important to support a party than just a person? Politics is rather more about governing the country than it is about whether the little old lady at number 47 likes Joe Bloggs from the Labour Party because he was nice to her at the church fete, which is what you get (to a degree) when a fair percentage of people vote for named candidates.

Democracy is about choosing a government, and governments have real people in them. The character of those people will determine how the government relates to

• civil servants
• judiciary
• leaders of armed forces
• grassroots groups
• trade unions
• other countries on the international scene, etc etc

It will also determine how well the government handles events within the lifetime of the government, and how successful the government will be in making new policies as the need arises.

So it's not desireable to have 'personality-free' politics; attempting to do so leads to a lack of balance.

I concede that it is unbalanced to speak about personalities alone, and ignore policies. But it is equally unbalanced to speak only about policies, and ignore personalities. Both are important.

Also, many people find personality-free politics boring, and especially many women. Therefore, allowing real named people to be shown on the ballot papers is likely to increase voter interest and participation.


Regarding personalities and politics in general, let me take the example that you give. If Joe Bloggs from the Labour Party is nice to a little old lady at a church fete, maybe she will feel confident enough to tell him that she is concerned about the low pension that she (and many other women) have received, because she took time off paid work (or worked part time) earlier in her life to look after children.

She might also tell him about her concerns regarding local housing, warden and care provision for the elderly, policing, her son and daughter who are fighting a war in a foreign country, and so forth.

So, being nice to little old ladies is not to be sneezed at!