In this latest Yes2AV video Dan Snow confidently tells us that AV is the system used to elect local mayors. Well actually the London Mayor is chosen by the Supplementary Vote system. Ah Yes2AV will say but Dan Snow actually said "AV or systems like it". Yes the Supplementary Vote is similar to pure AV but there is one big difference: under the Supplementary Vote 'voters express a first and second choice of candidate only, and, if no candidate receives an absolute majority of first choice votes, all but the two leading candidates are eliminated and the votes of those eliminated redistributed according to their second choice votes to determine the winner.' So under Supplementary Vote only one of the top two candidates in the initial voting can win and there are just two rounds of voting. Under AV candidates are eliminated one by one and it is possible that the candidate coming third could win - now do you see why Lib Dems like AV?
Wednesday 4 May 2011
Very simple but wrong (or at least not quite right)
In this latest Yes2AV video Dan Snow confidently tells us that AV is the system used to elect local mayors. Well actually the London Mayor is chosen by the Supplementary Vote system. Ah Yes2AV will say but Dan Snow actually said "AV or systems like it". Yes the Supplementary Vote is similar to pure AV but there is one big difference: under the Supplementary Vote 'voters express a first and second choice of candidate only, and, if no candidate receives an absolute majority of first choice votes, all but the two leading candidates are eliminated and the votes of those eliminated redistributed according to their second choice votes to determine the winner.' So under Supplementary Vote only one of the top two candidates in the initial voting can win and there are just two rounds of voting. Under AV candidates are eliminated one by one and it is possible that the candidate coming third could win - now do you see why Lib Dems like AV?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"it is possible that the candidate coming third could win"
Surely you mean the candidate who would have come third under FPTP. The two systems produce different results as they should, otherwise there would be no point in changing.
Fair point, pedantic but fair... However my point about AV appealing to the third party stands.
Post a Comment