|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Oct 9, 2015 14:56:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Dec 15, 2015 17:04:26 GMT
Surely any meaningful poll about the London Mayoral election should have a two-stage question, to mirror the Supplementary Vote system. Even if Khan is preferred to Goldsmith, that doesn't mean that people voting for smaller parties will use their second preference vote for either of the two.
|
|
|
|
Post by keithn on Dec 16, 2015 11:35:25 GMT
Surely any meaningful poll about the London Mayoral election should have a two-stage question, to mirror the Supplementary Vote system. Even if Khan is preferred to Goldsmith, that doesn't mean that people voting for smaller parties will use their second preference vote for either of the two. Indeed. No candidate has ever got 50% of the first votes - at the last election it was Boris 44% Ken 40% and Ken got the majority of the second votes to come very close. Although only two candidates have a chance of winning, it will be the voters who support neither who will decide the contest. |
|
|
|
Post by keithn on Dec 16, 2015 11:42:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 16, 2015 11:46:01 GMT
Over the course of the four Mayoral elections there has been an increasing concentration on the top two candidates - in the first two elections the top two candidates had less than two thirds of the first preference vote. In the last two it was over 80%. The 44% obtained by Johnson last time is the highest percentage vote on first preferences.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2015 12:46:26 GMT
Looks like the lib Dems may struggle to get list seats in London.
I think Kahn will win this one as Zac doesn't quite have the appeal of Boris who cut through the political spectrum.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Dec 16, 2015 13:31:38 GMT
I don't think the second preferences will make much difference. Goldsmith is likely to pick up more 2nd preferences from Lib Dem and Green supporters than Boris did, so I would expect the 2nd prefs to split more or less 50:50.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Dec 16, 2015 13:37:19 GMT
Surely any meaningful poll about the London Mayoral election should have a two-stage question, to mirror the Supplementary Vote system. Even if Khan is preferred to Goldsmith, that doesn't mean that people voting for smaller parties will use their second preference vote for either of the two. Indeed. No candidate has ever got 50% of the first votes - at the last election it was Boris 44% Ken 40% and Ken got the majority of the second votes to come very close. Although only two candidates have a chance of winning, it will be the voters who support neither who will decide the contest. Voters who support neither? How is that possible? I thought that preferential voting was the panacea to all of society's ills, and demonstrated that more than 50% would be fully supportive of the winning candidate? |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Dec 16, 2015 18:10:35 GMT
Indeed. No candidate has ever got 50% of the first votes - at the last election it was Boris 44% Ken 40% and Ken got the majority of the second votes to come very close. Although only two candidates have a chance of winning, it will be the voters who support neither who will decide the contest. Voters who support neither? How is that possible? I thought that preferential voting was the panacea to all of society's ills, and demonstrated that more than 50% would be fully supportive of the winning candidate? The Supplementary Vote system is, at best, a massively watered down version of preferential voting and, at worst, a poor parody of it. Instead of allowing you to preference as many or as few candidates as you want you get a single second preference vote, which is only valid if the candidate you cast it for happens to be in the top two. It's less preferential voting, and more trying to run a French-style two-stage election on a single ballot paper. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Dec 16, 2015 18:47:34 GMT
Voters who support neither? How is that possible? I thought that preferential voting was the panacea to all of society's ills, and demonstrated that more than 50% would be fully supportive of the winning candidate? The Supplementary Vote system is, at best, a massively watered down version of preferential voting and, at worst, a poor parody of it. Instead of allowing you to preference as many or as few candidates as you want you get a single second preference vote, which is only valid if the candidate you cast it for happens to be in the top two. It's less preferential voting, and more trying to run a French-style two-stage election on a single ballot paper. That's missing the point, possibly wilfully. The relevant quote was "it will be the voters who support neither who will decide the contest". This clearly implies that those who preference one of the final two candidates with their second vote do not actually support that candidate. By extension then, those who use their second, third, and further preferences also do not actually support the candidate to whom their lower preferences have led to their vote being transferred to. Doesn't this fly in the face of statements that preferential voting leads to more than 50% of voters being supportive of the winning candidate? The fact that SV is not a fully preferential system is irrelevant to the point, as the original post effectively stated that those preferences were not actually meaningful with relation to any indication of support. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 7, 2016 10:51:58 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2016 10:58:36 GMT
My gut feeling is that it will be closer (YouGov is still struggling with the differential turnout problem), but I shouldn't be too surprised by a result along these lines. |
|
|
|
Post by jollyroger93 on Jan 7, 2016 11:02:18 GMT
That poll will definitely worry the tories in HQ,i think a loss by 10 percentage points will be rather embarrassing for them and goldsmith.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,916
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 7, 2016 12:32:12 GMT
But......but.......Galloway's groupies have been telling everybody he is about to sweep London!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2016 14:31:31 GMT
That poll will definitely worry the tories in HQ,i think a loss by 10 percentage points will be rather embarrassing for them and goldsmith. I'm not sure that's fair. Objectively Labour should be winning this easily. Both candidates are pretty crap, so there's no real reason for the Tories to be over-performing, as they did (hugely) in 2012. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2016 14:34:15 GMT
But......but.......Galloway's groupies have been telling everybody he is about to sweep London! He might have a chance of running the lib Dems close, who are only holding onto 36% of their 2015 voters (!) Interesting to see that Sadiq is outperforming Lab slightly, while Zac is underperforming. Don't blame me, I voted Kamall... |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,433 
|
Post by iain on Jan 7, 2016 15:54:37 GMT
He might have a chance of running the lib Dems close, who are only holding onto 36% of their 2015 voters (!) Not at all surprising. We also won 4% in 2012. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 7, 2016 19:36:00 GMT
But......but.......Galloway's groupies have been telling everybody he is about to sweep London! He might have a chance of running the lib Dems close, who are only holding onto 36% of their 2015 voters (!) Interesting to see that Sadiq is outperforming Lab slightly, while Zac is underperforming. Don't blame me, I voted Kamall... Zac will do better than Kamall would have done and will probably win. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2016 19:39:43 GMT
That poll will definitely worry the tories in HQ,i think a loss by 10 percentage points will be rather embarrassing for them and goldsmith. I'm not sure that's fair. Objectively Labour should be winning this easily. Both candidates are pretty crap, so there's no real reason for the Tories to be over-performing, as they did (hugely) in 2012. The Conservatives would need to defy electoral gravity to pull this off again. In 2012, the Con to Lab swing was 1.65% - and that was while the Assembly constituencies were showing a much larger shift. I doubt anyone but Boris could have won last time. This year, Labour need a further swing of 1.53% to win. It is for this reason over all others that I'm predicting Khan will win in my own poll in the relevant thread. I do so not without a great deal of regret. I'd be interested in opinions as to what will happen to the composition of the GLA - that seems much more of an uncertainty. |
|
|
|
Post by A Brown on Jan 7, 2016 19:45:11 GMT
GLA list vote
Something like:
Lab 39.5
Con 35
Grn 7.6
UKIP 7.4
LD 5.5
Others 5
|
|
