« Going Local - Guardian backs PR for local elections | Main | Turn out to count and to keep them out »
April 30, 2008
A simple formula for journalists
SV does not equal AV does not equal proportional representation
Or to put it another way:
The mayoral elections are conducted under the Supplementary Vote. This is a truncated version of the Alternative Vote system and operates in a different way. Voters can only express 2 preferences. And, where no-one wins over 50% of first preferences, you eliminate all but the top 2 candidates and then only look at and add on 2nd preferences for those 2 candidates. This limits voters' choice and forces them into making tactical decisions on their 2nd preference, compared to the fuller version of Alternative Vote. Under AV voters rank numerically as many candidates as they choose and the elimination / transfer of preferences starts with the bottom candidate and works up.
Neither SV nor AV are proportional. They are used when electing one candidate only. There is no way of achieving proportionality when you only have one candidate elected.
The Alternative Vote has been mooted by Dept of Justice Ministers as part of a package of measures designed to enhance voter engagement and participation in elections for the Commons. For more on this see the 'Commons Reform Debate' section of the Londoners' Votes Count website. www.londonersvotescount.org.uk
PS. This post was inspired by an inaccurate reference in an article in yesterday's Telegraph.
Posted by malcolmclark on April 30, 2008
Comments
On this subject I put a comment under Polly Toynbee's article in yesterday's Guardian. Here is a copy which incidentally I also sent to PT in an e-mail:-
"That's the joy of the alternative vote we need for Westminster."
This is a surprising comment from Polly Toynbee of all people. Mayoral elections are conducted under the Supplementary Vote (SV). This is NOT the same as the Alternative Vote (AV). The Alternative Vote system employs a SINGLE vote which is however transferable so that each voter records his first preference; but if this fails his vote can be transferred to his second, third, etc preference as candidates are eliminated This means that the overall most acceptable candidate is elected. It is the best system for electing single individuals like mayors or presidents. It most certainly is not the best system for general elections: it can be even more disproportional than first-past-the-post
SV is a TWO vote system. The voter records his first vote for his preferred candidate. On the basis of this (effectively) first-past-the-post vote all candidates except the two who top the poll are eliminated.The voter has to GUESS who the top two will be and cast his SECOND vote accordingly. This means that for instance the candidate with the third highest number of first votes is eliminated even though he may be only one vote behind the second highest, and even though potentially he/she may be the overall favourite.
It is hard to think of a worse system: it is even worse than the French double election system - at least the French voter can see who the first two are, even if they turn out to be a rogue and fascist (with the probable favourite eliminated) as in 2002!
SV for Westminster! No thank you. AV (ie STV in single-member constituencies) might be acceptable, but only as a stepping-stone to the proportional STV in multi-member constituencies.
Posted by: Joe Patterson at April 30, 2008 10:26 AM
We're democrats and believe in free speech, but we're also committed to civil and rational debate. We reserve the right to delete material posted to our site, but we hope and expect to exercise this right rarely if at all.
