- We should establish the principle that things like this can change. It would be good for us.
- AV is a bit better than first-past-the-post at reflecting voter intentions.
But it's only a bit better. Some people, including me, would prefer a more proportional system, but my main objection is that both AV and the common forms of proportional representation depend on the idea that the least popular candidates are eliminated one by one until someone crosses a numerical threshold and gets elected.
That means that the second choices of the people who vote for the least popular candidates are taken into account when most people's other choices are ignored. That is the only logical justification I can think of for the No campaign's assertion that AV helps extremists - the BNP will be eliminated, but its supporters may have their votes counted again and again.
So my own geekish proposal is that every choice expressed by every voter should be taken into account right from the start:
- a first choice vote counts as 1
- a second choice vote counts as 1/2
- a third choice vote counts as 1/3
- etc
If there are four candidates, and you use all your choices, ranking them 1, 2, 3, 4, then you have 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 votes. Candidates get whole votes, half votes, etc and they are all added up, and the person with the highest total wins. It doesn't have to cross a notional 50% mark, just come top when everybody's choices have been taken into account.
Have I woken the sleeping geek within you?
