Why vegetarians are bad for AV

Fairness is often subjective, at least when it comes to electoral systems, so I am taken aback at the unquestioning ease with which the more ‘enthusiastic’ proponents of the alternative vote (AV) have appropriated the term. Ever contrary, I adapted an earlier example of how AV can lead to an unfair result, by using the dinner analogy popular with such support.

Imagine you are in a party of 21 and there are four restaurants within reach for a work-time lunch; in alphabetical order: Lentil Heaven, Liver Lounge, Pizza Palace and Thai Temptation.

One strange individual plumps for Liver Lounge and puts down Thai Temptation as his second preference. Nine people vote for Thai Temptation as their first choice; it subsequently turns out their second choice isn’t relevant - likewise for the seven people who choose Pizza Palace. The four people who remain are vegetarians, they’re cool; they don’t really care where they eat so long as they can avoid the liver.

That’s fair enough, and the best way to achieve this is a feature of AV that isn’t afforded by our current first-past-the-post (FPTP) system; the ability to vote against one option – by voting for all the others. In our example the vegetarians do exactly this, and since they don’t have a preference with the other options they rank them according to the order in which they are listed. This is called a donkey vote and whilst it is most common where full preferential voting is required, it applies equally here.

With the vote in, the count begins, and after the first round Liver Lounge, having the fewest votes, is eliminated. The next preference of that singular person is now added to the vote to give us the following: just over 47% of you would like a Thai, with around 33% opting for Pizza. It’s still not quite a majority so Lentil Heaven is eliminated… and something interesting happens. The ‘second preferences’ of the vegetarians are added to the count; those would be the people whose only real preference was to avoid the liver and who consequently voted for the other options in the order that they appeared - despite having significantly less of the ‘positive’ vote, Pizza Palace wins through having a superior position in the alphabet.

What this illustration and others show is how AV can work; the result - fair or otherwise - depends on how the example is framed. What this particular example shows is that under AV it's possible to have a result that many people would consider unfair; it's a system not quite as simple as some would have us believe.

More about Jane

Another of those odd moments last night, I was unable to sleep, something prompted by a recent conversation. Not entirely sure why it should keep me awake as it was about Jane Eyre, how having finally read the book after seeing so many adaptations I still had the same problem; Rochester’s betrayal of Jane and Jane’s subsequent forgiveness of Rochester. Why?

It was always the least satisfactory part, a moment where my commitment to the story would falter. I understood that she loved him but, again, why? Only by the narrowest of margins is he prevented from being the cause of her ruin. And I suppose I had a light bulb moment, though when I write it down I feel silly because it seems obvious; she forgives him because that’s what love is. Something I vaguely remember being taught as a child, but long since forgotten.

Hail, Zuckerberg!

From Augustus, first emperor of Rome, to Zuckerberg, first emperor of the social network. Is it coincidence that Mark Zuckerberg skipped studying for “Art in the time of Augustus” in order to build Facebook? Yes, of course it is, and a Google search reveals that Kari O’Brien (to name one) has already noticed the similarity in an earlier version of her blog, goddammit!

AV tombola

The Alternative Vote tombola (AVt) is a refinement of the Alternative Vote (AV) voting system proposed in a referendum for later this year. It too is a form of preferential voting where voters mark the candidates in order of preference; the first choice is marked “1”, the second choice “2” and so on.

To quote one proponent of AV when addressing the issue of complexity: “The electorate will not need to know how to count the votes”, but should you be interested the winner in an AVt system is decided as follows:

1. Each candidate is allocated a colour.
2. For every 1st preference vote a candidate is given ten tokens of their allocated colour, every 2nd preference vote receives eight tokens, 3rd preference receives six - all other preferences are assigned one token each.
3. When every vote has been counted, the accumulated tokens of each candidate are placed in a large tombola and a winner is chosen by a local celebrity.

Hence the alternative view that when evaluating a voting system, understanding how to vote is meaningless without an understanding of how your vote is counted.

As easy as ABC… or ACB… or BAC... or...

The Alternative Vote (AV), it is often argued, is a voting system that provides more data on the preferences of the voter as it requires the available candidates to be ranked in order of choice. However, though there is certainly more noise, I’m not convinced this equates to more information.

For example, I have four candidates, A, B, C and D. I like candidate A and I loathe candidate D; how should I vote? Bearing in mind that the form of AV proposed for the UK doesn’t require a full list of preferences, the answer (it would appear) is ABC… or ACB. It’s the “or” that interests me. Since there is no ‘equal ranking’ – I can’t rank B and C as joint second – I am forced to make an arbitrary choice solely for the purpose of voting against D; most likely it will be a donkey vote.

If candidate C fails to obtain a majority in the first round and candidate A is eliminated through having the fewest number of votes, my randomly chosen 2nd preference is now counted for those who remain. Whilst I achieve my aim of voting against D, is democracy best served if candidate C, with the most (1st choice) votes, loses out to candidate B through having an inferior position in the alphabet?

Further, it may seem counter-intuitive but a vote of ABC doesn’t necessarily mean a preference of A over B, and B over C; it might do, but the only inference we can make with certainty is that it is a vote against D. Somewhat perversely, in comparison to this “anyone but them” portrayal of AV, our current first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system in lacking this ability could be seen as requiring the voter to concentrate on who they vote for, rather than who they vote against. FPTP at minimum requires a “least worst” decision from the voter whereas AV, in this example at least, abrogates the responsibility.

Dear John

I spend a lot of time deriding the viewing habits of the general public, which is a polite way of saying a lot of my friends have poor taste. Television, I used to think, is an excellent guide to the decline of civilisation, but I consoled myself with the thought that no matter how bad it got we would never sink as low as our American cousins. Blind Date, which ran for an astonishing 18 years, disabused me of that notion; who commits the greater crime - the country that creates an appalling television format or the country that copies it?

Later I decided it had always been crap, rather like discovering how bad your favourite childhood cartoon was, though it hasn’t stopped me from mocking those who watch reality programmes or the various soaps; excepting Coronation Street because... er... that’s the one I watch. There is great television available, if you look hard enough, but what greater pleasure can there be than finding quality where it is least expected? None more so than in John Stape, Corrie’s increasingly hapless serial killer:

You buried my son under a knicker factory.

…complains his soon to be latest victim. To which he replies:

It sounds worse than it is.

Strike!

Supporting the ‘right to strike’ - as I do - is an empty gesture if qualified with complaints about the timing; a strike has little point unless it inconveniences people. That’s not to say I’ve turned to the dark side, merely that the recent (and inaccurate) report suggesting ASLEF were considering action on the day of the royal wedding, seems designed to play on people’s prejudice, to encourage a negative attitude as opposed to healthy discussion. Like most, I can get irritated when personally affected, but it’s a reminder that if I fail to consider a judgement on the cause of the dispute I have no right to judge the effect.