|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: A conspiracy against voters?
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
After a consultation which nobody knew about, they changed all the polling stations in this city.
The consultation suggested: Polling stations should be ‘logical’ i.e. wherever possible electors should not have to travel past another polling station to get to their own - I had to travel past THREE polling stations (And there would have been one at the end of my road, had it not been Ascension Day)
It’s not a mile – but nearly - .8 mile
[ 05. May 2016, 18:05: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I'd have thought slightly more worrying than walking a bit less than a mile is the prospect of being disenfranchised, as happened to a bunch of people in Barnet this morning.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
Are you sure you're in the U.K. and not in Arizona?
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I was disgracefully and antidemocratically DISENFRANCHISED in the PCC election because my ballot paper wasn't big enough for me to spoil it properly.
Also the pencil wasn't sharp enough.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
You are making some serious allegations there ....
The Bishop ought to be told!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
The Welsh voting system is interesting.
Each elector gets two votes; one for a constituency representative and one for the region - where the votes are combined to elect more Assembly Members.
But the party that actually wins in the regional poll may get no seats - in the South East Wales region, Labour won twice the votes than UKIP. The latter got two seats and the former got none.
The reason is that the votes in the regions are weighed against the constituency seats won.
Which, if one was being crafty, might encourage a party - let's say UKIP for the sake of argument - to encourage enough voters in the constituency poll not to vote UKIP (or possibly not to vote at all) to ensure that they don't win. Then if these people all vote UKIP in the regional poll, they get a higher proportion and then have a much better chance of getting their candidates in.
I'm no fan of FPTP, but that's utter madness. I'd be very surprised if that kind of tactic was not happening.
[ 06. May 2016, 08:52: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It's the same system in use in Scotland. And, it works very well to balance the failures of FPTP at constituency level. Since the two votes are counted seperately it actually makes no sense to vote tactically in the way you suggest - if you want party A to get seats vote for party A on both ballots, they may do surprisingly well on the FPTP constituency ballot and get a seat, if not they get a second bite at the cherry on the regional list.
Where the system works very well is giving a second choice to electors in very safe seats. If party A has a very high chance of picking up all the constituency seats in your region then a list vote for party A is unlikely to return an additional member. That means that votes for smaller parties become very important. So, if you like party A and party B, but know that party A will get most of the constituency seats in the region then you vote A for your constituency (to make sure they do get in) and B for the list giving them a chance of a member too.
It's a system I really like. It has just managed to ensure the SNP don't have an outright majority of MSPs on less than 50% of the vote, but given the Greens enough to make up the difference (and the two parties are natural allies anyway). So, the Greens get a little bit of power to temper the SNP. The Tories somehow managed to beat Labour, and gain 25% of the seats which makes them a numerically credible opposition. If it was just FPTP like we're forced into for Westminster then the Scottish election would have gone a very similar way with 59 SNP MSPs, and 14 others with no credible opposition - and, that would be a disaster for democracy.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's the same system in use in Scotland. And, it works very well to balance the failures of FPTP at constituency level. Since the two votes are counted seperately it actually makes no sense to vote tactically in the way you suggest - if you want party A to get seats vote for party A on both ballots, they may do surprisingly well on the FPTP constituency ballot and get a seat, if not they get a second bite at the cherry on the regional list.
Why doesn't it make sense to vote tactically? A single UKIP seat in the constituencies in the SE Wales constituency would have meant zero seats in the region. By winning none they're guaranteed seats.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonah the Whale
Ship's pet cetacean
# 1244
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Each elector gets two votes; one for a constituency representative and one for the region - where the votes are combined to elect more Assembly Members.
But the party that actually wins in the regional poll may get no seats - in the South East Wales region, Labour won twice the votes than UKIP. The latter got two seats and the former got none.
The reason is that the votes in the regions are weighed against the constituency seats won.
I don't understand what you mean here. Could you throw some figures in to illustrate your point?
Posts: 2799 | From: Nether Regions | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's the same system in use in Scotland. And, it works very well to balance the failures of FPTP at constituency level. Since the two votes are counted seperately it actually makes no sense to vote tactically in the way you suggest - if you want party A to get seats vote for party A on both ballots, they may do surprisingly well on the FPTP constituency ballot and get a seat, if not they get a second bite at the cherry on the regional list.
Why doesn't it make sense to vote tactically? A single UKIP seat in the constituencies in the SE Wales constituency would have meant zero seats in the region. By winning none they're guaranteed seats.
But that's down to the numbers of people voting for them. The reason *not to bother* voting tactically is that the regional list is, as Alan says, a second bite of the cherry.
So, in your example, voting UKIP/UKIP in enough numbers means you might get someone elected for the constituency. If you don't then the second UKIP vote will count for the regional list. If you get through on the first list, then it is weighted down on the second. Not voting at all on the first list and then voting UKIP on the second isn't tactical voting, it's daft. *You might as well* have a go at both.
If enough people feel the same and vote UKIP but still not enough to get a constituency member then the numbers overall give you a list one. The d'Hondt system is admittedly complex, but encouraging tactical voting along the lines you're arguing isn't actually one of its faults.
There's no advantage (or sense) in a party not encouraging its supporters to use both their votes for it.
Sure, the regional list might in practice be where your seats come from, but you'll never know how you'd do in a constituency ballot if you tell people not to vote for you in one.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's the same system in use in Scotland. And, it works very well to balance the failures of FPTP at constituency level. Since the two votes are counted seperately it actually makes no sense to vote tactically in the way you suggest - if you want party A to get seats vote for party A on both ballots, they may do surprisingly well on the FPTP constituency ballot and get a seat, if not they get a second bite at the cherry on the regional list.
Why doesn't it make sense to vote tactically? A single UKIP seat in the constituencies in the SE Wales constituency would have meant zero seats in the region. By winning none they're guaranteed seats.
No, a single UKIP seat in SE Wales would have meant they had one seat in the region. I've just had to look up the numbers (more familiar with Scottish regions and constituencies) South Wales East has 12 seats, 8 constituency seats and 4 additional members. To guarantee a seat a party would need to get 8% of the regional vote. But, if they already have a constituency seat they don't get that additional member. The only reason it would make sense to vote for different parties on the two ballots would be if you actually wanted representatives for two parties. You still have the same reasons for tactical voting on the constituency ballot as you have under the Westminster election system - Candidate A is favourite, but you don't like them, Candidate B is OK to you and has a good chance of beating A so you vote B even though Candidate C would be closest to your opinion.
For the regional lists the tactical options change. Because it's a top up list, if you suspect party C will get at least one member from the constituencies and are unlikely to get the 16% regional vote needed to get a second then maybe you think about a different option. Or, more likely, you know they'll pick up at least 6 constituency members and therefore no matter how many votes they get on the regional ballot are unlikely to pick up an additional member (that would require substantially over 50%), you can vote tactically by giving another party you like a chance.
So, there is still tactical voting. But the model you propose makes no sense. Though, much of tactical voting baffles me anyway.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Yes:
In the South East Wales region,
UKIP got 2 seats, Tories got 1, Plaid got 1.
The votes were as follows:
UKIP 34,524
Tory 33,318
PC 29,686
Labour 74,424
There are 8 constituencies in South East Wales, of which Labour won 7, Tories won 1.
I don't know if there were any constituencies where PC or UKIP were a close second. But let's just say that in one of these, they were within a few hundred votes of the winner.
If UKIP or PC had actually been in a position to win any one of the constituencies, the calculation of regional seats would have been upset, to the extent that they wouldn't have won any (it is a calculation based on the number of constituencies won in the region, hence UKIP get the regional seats despite coming a distant second).
So it is actually in their interest not to win any of the constituencies in order to win bigger in the regions.
More to the point, 74,424 Labour votes entirely pointlessly voted in the region.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Sure, the regional list might in practice be where your seats come from, but you'll never know how you'd do in a constituency ballot if you tell people not to vote for you in one.
In addition, although constituency and list members are theoretically equal, getting through as a constituency member is the more prestigious position. It means that a substantial proportion of the electorate in a constituency voted for you, personally. Just ask Ruth Davidson and Kezia Dugdale.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
More to the point, 74,424 Labour votes entirely pointlessly voted in the region.
There is no such thing as a pointless vote cast. No such thing as a pointless vote cast. The only pointless vote is one that isn't used.
I'd have to do the maths. But, there would be a threshold at which, even with 7 members already, Labour would have picked up a list member. Probably around 100,000 votes at a guess. If they'd picked up another 30,000 then no one will be calling those 74,000 votes "pointless". They would be using words like "remarkable" and "unprecedented", but not "pointless".
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
OK well I've done the maths on the total constituency votes. Interestingly almost all the parties got less votes in the region than the total of the constituency votes, other than Labour who got more.
It'd be interesting to do this comparison for the whole of Wales. Maybe they already have somewhere.
[ 06. May 2016, 10:20: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Seeing as this is a thread for moaning about local elections, can we have a moratorium on pundits speculating on whether the results are a triumph / disaster / mixed bag for Jeremy Corbyn?
The fact that Labour outnumber the Conservatives by about 2:1 in terms of council seats while trailing in the national polls would suggest that most voters are doing what they are supposed to do, and using the local elections to vote on local issues and not the parties in Westminster.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
More to the point, 74,424 Labour votes entirely pointlessly voted in the region.
There is no such thing as a pointless vote cast. No such thing as a pointless vote cast. The only pointless vote is one that isn't used.
That's as maybe, but to this Labour voter in South-East Wales, it feels like it. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonah the Whale
Ship's pet cetacean
# 1244
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In the South East Wales region,
UKIP got 2 seats, Tories got 1, Plaid got 1.
The votes were as follows:
UKIP 34,524
Tory 33,318
PC 29,686
Labour 74,424
There are 8 constituencies in South East Wales, of which Labour won 7, Tories won 1.
It seems to me that Lab did quite well out of this. They got 7 seats at about 10 or 11 thousand votes per seat. UKIP and Tories needed over 16000 for each of theirs, and poor old Plaid Cymru only got a single seat for all their 29000.
If the Tories had done what you suggested and "thrown" their directly elected seat would they somehow have ended up with more? And if Labour had won that direct seat instead of the Tories would Labour have had a different seat taken off them? I'm sure I am completely misunderstanding something because it makes no sense to me the way I see it at the moment.
Posts: 2799 | From: Nether Regions | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
If the Tories had done what you suggested and "thrown" their directly elected seat would they somehow have ended up with more?
Yes. I think they'd have got two and UKIP would have got two.
Looking at the numbers and the proportion of the vote overall in Wales, however, I have to admit that this system seems to do a pretty good job at smoothing out the inequalities caused by FPTP.
[ 06. May 2016, 13:38: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
If the Tories had done what you suggested and "thrown" their directly elected seat would they somehow have ended up with more?
Yes. I think they'd have got two and UKIP would have got two.
Looking at the numbers and the proportion of the vote overall in Wales, however, I have to admit that this system seems to do a pretty good job at smoothing out the inequalities caused by FPTP.
Indeed, it does smooth out those inequalities. In fact it does it so well that one wonders why it isn't done for Westminster. Well, as ane fule kno that would make majority governments very unlikely and while central government likes to hamstring devolved assemblies and parliaments, it isn't going to do that to itself. Just look how the current Tory government has changed tack since the moderating influence of the LibDems was removed.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'd have to do the maths. But, there would be a threshold at which, even with 7 members already, Labour would have picked up a list member. Probably around 100,000 votes at a guess. If they'd picked up another 30,000 then no one will be calling those 74,000 votes "pointless". They would be using words like "remarkable" and "unprecedented", but not "pointless".
I'm not sure this is correct.
The first seat is allocated by weighting the votes against the number of FPTP seats plus one.
So in the above example, Labour has 7 seats and Tories have one. So for the first seat the calculation is:
Labour: 74,424/8 = 9,303
Tory: 33,318/2 = 16,659
PC 29,686/1 = 29,686
UKIP 34,524/1 = 34,524
So UKIP win that seat.
for the next, the winner has FPTP plus 2
So
Labour: 74,424/8 = 9,303
Tory: 33,318/2 = 16,659
PC 29,686/1 = 29,686
UKIP 34,524/2 = 17,262
So PC win that seat
The next one is another UKIP
And the final one is Tory.
I can't do the numbers in my head, but Labour would either need to win many multiples more than the opponents or win less constituencies to get a regional seat. With 7 seats and an overwhelmingly large percentage of the vote, they still didn't come close.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Wow. And I thought the Electoral College was weird. (Well, it is, but there is obviously weirdness to go around.)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Which, if one was being crafty, might encourage a party - let's say UKIP for the sake of argument - to encourage enough voters in the constituency poll not to vote UKIP (or possibly not to vote at all) to ensure that they don't win.
This doesn't work.
Say that UKIP got enough regional votes to get one seat. If they win a constituency, they end up with one AM (that constituency member). If they don't win a constituency, they'll get a regional top-up list member instead.
Either way, with about the same vote share, they get one AM.
The thing that you can do with the two-votes system that you can't do with a single-vote system is to vote for someone in your local constituency whilst voting for a different party.
So suppose you're a voter somewhere in South Wales East, and you really like your local constituency AM (who we'll call a member of the Labour party) and think he does a great job, but you prefer the policies of Plaid Cymru. You can express this by voting for your local Labour guy, and by voting Plaid in the regional vote (so when it comes time to hand out the regional top-ups, you count as a Plaid voter).
This doesn't quite reach your ideal, because there aren't enough regional top-ups to get pure proportionality, but it comes close.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
If the Tories had done what you suggested and "thrown" their directly elected seat would they somehow have ended up with more?
Yes. I think they'd have got two and UKIP would have got two.
No, they'd get the same. They'd just get two regional seats instead of one regional and one constituency seat.
Actually, it depends who they threw the directly elected seat to. The seat in question is Monmouth, won by Nick Ramsay for the Tories with 43.3% of the vote. In second place was Labour's Catherine Fookes, with 26.9%. If they "threw" the seat to her, Labour would have 8 constituency AMs, and the 4 topups would be allocated 2 to UKIP, one to the Tories, and one to Plaid, just as in the real election (UKIP just edge out the Tories for the fourth seat).
If they threw the seat to either Plaid or UKIP, then the results would be the same overall as the real election (the Tories would pick up a second regional member, and either Plaid or UKIP would pick up one fewer.)
It is mathematically impossible to "throw" a constituency seat and end up with more seats overall.
It is mathematically possible (although not with these election results) to have the Tories throw the seat to an allied fringe party (let's call them the Conversatives), and pick up an extra regional seat like that.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
With 7 seats and an overwhelmingly large percentage of the vote, they still didn't come close.
Labour got 7 constituency seats and 43% of the total vote. That's not "overwhelmingly large".
Labour: 43% of vote, 58% of seats (7 constituency)
Tories: 19% of vote, 17% of seats (1 const., 1 list)
Plaid: 17% of vote, 8% of seats (1 list)
UKIP: 20% of vote, 17% of seats (2 list)
So basically Labour benefitted from, and Plaid got screwed over by, the FPTP element in the system. If Labour were to pick up the fourth top-up member in place of the Tories, they'd need another 70,000 or so Labour voters to turn out.
[ 06. May 2016, 19:10: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Seeing as this is a thread for moaning about local elections, can we have a moratorium on pundits speculating on whether the results are a triumph / disaster / mixed bag for Jeremy Corbyn?
The fact that Labour outnumber the Conservatives by about 2:1 in terms of council seats while trailing in the national polls would suggest that most voters are doing what they are supposed to do, and using the local elections to vote on local issues and not the parties in Westminster.
Actually yougov 26th April poll has Labour at 33% and Conservatives at 30% - which I think is roughly the vote share in the votes that just happened.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
So apparently there are irregularities in the London mayoral votes.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Actually yougov 26th April poll has Labour at 33% and Conservatives at 30% - which I think is roughly the vote share in the votes that just happened.
Modest loss in councillors by Labour and the Tories, modest gains by UKIP and the Lib Dems.
I don't see much there for anyone to get excited about, although doubtless everyone is busy claiming this as a huge victory.
Perhaps the biggest news is Scottish Labour being pushed into third place in the Scottish Parliament.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
London mayoral election has been declared - Sadiq Khan. To, by this point, no one's surprise at all.
[ 06. May 2016, 23:30: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Women's Equality Party candidate did surprisingly well.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Seeing as this is a thread for moaning about local elections, can we have a moratorium on pundits speculating on whether the results are a triumph / disaster / mixed bag for Jeremy Corbyn?
The fact that Labour outnumber the Conservatives by about 2:1 in terms of council seats while trailing in the national polls would suggest that most voters are doing what they are supposed to do, and using the local elections to vote on local issues and not the parties in Westminster.
Actually yougov 26th April poll has Labour at 33% and Conservatives at 30% - which I think is roughly the vote share in the votes that just happened.
Wikipedia has a compilation of recent opinion polls which is surprisingly comprehensive, and which does unfortuantely confirm that Labour are still behind in the majority of recent polls, although by not nearly as much as the constant 'Jeremy Corbyn is a loonie who is leading his party to electoral suicide' reports would suggest.
As for the council elections, I can't find any statistics for each party's share of the vote, but in England Labour currently holds 1280 seats against 753 for the Conservatives. Unless there's some serious gerrymandering going on, or a bunch of Tory councils yet to declare, that gives Labour a lead of something like 3:2.
Meanwhile Mr Cameron says the results show Labour has completely lost touch with the public. Apparently the speechwriter gave him the 'speech to be read if the Labour vote completely collapses' and neither of them noticed that it hadn't. Or else he has finally succumbed to messianic syndrome and believes he merely has to speak to make it so.
[ 07. May 2016, 06:44: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It's a common Conservative failing. In Scotland, Ruth Davidson has declared that there is no mandate for another independence referendum, ignoring the fact that pro-independence parties hold a majority of seats with 48% of the vote.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
More to the point, 74,424 Labour votes entirely pointlessly voted in the region.
There is no such thing as a pointless vote cast. No such thing as a pointless vote cast. The only pointless vote is one that isn't used.
That's as maybe, but to this Labour voter in South-East Wales, it feels like it.
I've just realised that there is a reason why those 74,000 votes weren't "wasted" (and, the same would apply to the 111,000 SNP votes in the Glasgow region). With that level of support for the region, if Labour had failed to get any of the constituencies they were guaranteed a list member. A leading party benefits from the two bites at the cherry as much as a small party like UKIP or Greens.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
To be honest, it also shows that no voting system is perfect. FPTP disenfranchises anyone who didn't vote for the winner, but gives good constituency representation. PR as practised in Scotland gives a more representative result but adds in list members who do not represent a locality (not to mention greater complexity). AV as rejected a few years ago is just gruesome!
ISTM that the greatest difficult arises when a sizeable minority is spread across a large area (and therefore gets no representation in the governing body) rather than within a smallish area (and thus gets disproportionate representation). This is especially true in FPTP, of course, A party could get 100k votes across 20 constituencies and win nothing; but it might win 5 seats if those votes were all concentrated in ne small area.
Things would be helped if Governments/Councils reflected to a greater degree the views of those opposing them. Of course they must advocate and prosecute their own policies, that's why they got in. But a little listening would not go amiss.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
To be honest, it also shows that no voting system is perfect.
No, nothing's perfect. But, it is possible to have a system that is less-worse. And, there is good reason to say that different systems are preferable for different types of election.
quote:
FPTP disenfranchises anyone who didn't vote for the winner, but gives good constituency representation. PR as practised in Scotland gives a more representative result but adds in list members who do not represent a locality
The system in Scotland combines both FPTP and a form of regional something-not-really-PR. Of course, the list members represent a locality, just a locality that is larger than constituencies. And, because it's a top up system it isn't PR anyway otherwise in Glasgow the SNP would have picked up 3 list members as well (with just under 50% of the regional vote and 7 list members for Glasgow). So, if you live in Glasgow and want to contact your MSP you have the choice of your SNP constituency MSP or one of the MSPs for the other parties elected from the lists.
It is, IMO, a pretty good system. It has some complications in the calculation of top up MSPs, but nothing that can't be done on a bit of paper even though they probably rely on a computer to do the calculation. But, it's a very simple voting procedure.
quote:
AV as rejected a few years ago is just gruesome!
It's gruesome for electing a local member for a council, assembly or Parliament. It's actually a pretty good system for a Presidential style election as it allows people to vote for the candidate they really like the best first, and still have a vote for one of the candidates who actually have a real chance. The first vote then gives a good indication of the real popularity of each candidate, the second allows one candidate to be elected with a clear verdict of "acceptable" from the electorate.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
So what do we think the impact of police investigations into the conduct of campaigns by 20 tory MPs is going to be - on our government with a 12 seat majority ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I'd like to believe that the Police and prosecutors will follow the money wherever it leads.
But over here in the Real World, I think it is pretty unlikely there will ever be anyone held to account at Tory HQ.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
Just reading through the thread I think that some people are missing an important point.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking that every seat in England was up for grabs last week. Taking England only, it was the seats from 2012 which came up, and Labour went into the election with more seats than the Tories - because last week skewed towards metropolitan areas where Labour is ahead anyway. After the election, the Tories were down 48 councillors, and Labour down 18.
Without parroting the Central Office line, given the councils which were up for grabs it was Labour's to lose last week. In 2 years time there's an equivalent one where virtually everything up for grabs is a Tory council.
That's why even Jeremy came out with the "holding on in England line"
The final tally from last Thursday was 1326 Labour vs 842 Tory. Essentially, nothing really changed (although obviously both parties were slightly down) on the position before last Thursday.
If every mayor, district,county, unitary and metropolitan council seat had been up for grabs last week, and every council had done the same (ie not much change overall) then the numbers would still be something like:
Tory: 8,088
Labour: 7,010
Labour are ahead in the seats contested last week, which was the position anyway before Thursday. They are not the largest party in English local government, however.
[ 10. May 2016, 06:20: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
In fact, the BBC has a lovely map showing quite how few people in England voted for anything other than a police and crime commissioner last week.
Significantly, amongst the "no election" grey is a big red splodge across Labour's NW heartlands, and another in the NE. From that map, as usual, where there was an election, urban areas went red, rural areas and small towns blue.
colour me surprised.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Does anyone know the turnout figures ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Does anyone know the turnout figures ?
slightly oddly it's not in my link above - Wales and Scotland are. I imagine it was, er, variable.
My own council was an anomaly in that it was a shire DC with boundary changes, so every single seat was up for grabs. This led to a higher turnout, and no change overall. The DC next door didn't have any seats up for election at all.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
They weren't in any of the election reporting either, except for the mayoral election - which I find quite odd. I think they are important for giving any result its context.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Betjemaniac - thanks, that makes better sense of the results and the reaction to them.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
They weren't in any of the election reporting either, except for the mayoral election - which I find quite odd. I think they are important for giving any result its context.
Each council website (at least, the few I've looked at) seem to have the turnout figures, but it's hard work to get there. Random example Rotherham has turn out for each ward, and you have to go through them one at a time ... 37.5%, 38.1%, 31.9% ...
But, I can't find any national news outlet giving that information. Local media (another random example Liverpool Echo - 31.4%) seem to be the only news source for those numbers.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Birmingham appears to be something in the early thirties too (form the Brimingham Mail site) - I do think the national average turnout should be reported though.
(I think above 30% is quite high for local elections - what do you think ?)
[ 10. May 2016, 09:41: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I think it's a sad reflection on our national attitude to elections if a turn out of over 30% is considered "quite high" for any election. I bet that many of those 60% who didn't vote will still complain about pot holes and the bins not being emptied often enough.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
AV as rejected a few years ago is just gruesome!
On behalf of a country that has been happily using preferential voting for longer than either of us have been alive: ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Complete and utter bullshit was involved in the 'No' campaign you had. It was bizarre.
And no thanks to Alan for agreeing with you that it's gruesome for a local member. Funny, we've been managing to elect local members with it for nearly a century now nationally, and in some places well over a century. No fancy electronic systems were required, and any slowness in results was caused by having to collect them across an electorate larger than your entire fucking country!
[ 10. May 2016, 11:39: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
There was quite a lot of nonsense on the other side too.
Just wait until the EU referendum campaign gets into full swing now this round of elections is over. The amount of complete and utter bullshit produced will be astounding.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And no thanks to Alan for agreeing with you that it's gruesome for a local member. Funny, we've been managing to elect local members with it for nearly a century now nationally, and in some places well over a century.
Gruesome wouldn't have been my first choice of terms. But, for those of us seeking significant reform of Westminster to produce a Parliament that is more proportionally representative of the views of the nation then AV was barely better than FPTP. They'll both favour the large parties and smaller parties will still miss out on Parliamentary seats.
As I said, AV is a very good system for electing a single person given that you can't have parts of people. So, for a Presidential election, or a Mayor. And, yes I know that we elect a single person as our MP, even though usually it's a vote for the colour of the rosette rather than the person. Which is exactly the problem with the current Westminster Parliamentary system, we go to vote for a single local member and a government on a single ballot paper. AV is marginally less "gruesome" than FPTP.
A better option, IMO, would be to ditch the constituencies entirely, and have a fully proportional vote for our government. But, that would loose our local representative. So, even better IMO is an additional member system, with a proportionally elected top up on top of constituencies. In that system, I would prefer AV over FPTP for the constituency part of the vote.
The problem I had with the options on the voting referendum wasn't particularly with AV as a method of electing constituency MPs. The problem was that both options we were given were for electing a Parliament consisting of only constituency MPs. If that was what we're stuck with for the Commons then a proportionally elected Upper House to help balance out the disproportionality of constituency MPs. Which I think I'm right in saying you have?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
