mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,961 
|
Post by mondialito on May 8, 2018 20:35:23 GMT
I share Foggy's disdain for multi-member FPTP, but have no hesitation in going Average Vote, dividing total votes cast for a party's candidates by number of candidates standing. |
|
|
|
Post by swanarcadian on May 8, 2018 20:44:21 GMT
Here's a little challenge. Which party came second in Forest Gate ward in the 1994 Newham council elections? Glynis A. Carpenter Labour 1,849Shama Ahmad Labour 1,601Conor M. McAuley Labour 1,528John M. Gray Liberal Democrat 544Christine Hodgson Conservative 471Louise Pritchard Green 450Jonathan Ivinson Conservative 429Doris Rees Conservative 409Jean M. Tee Liberal Democrat 408Walter C. Tee Liberal Democrat 310(Forest Gate ward is now entirely part of the Forest Gate North ward, basically the centre & eastern parts with E7 postcodes. Amongst other things it contains the site of the former gate itself.) Using the average vote method, the Greens. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 8, 2018 20:50:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 8, 2018 20:52:00 GMT
Here's a little challenge. Which party came second in Forest Gate ward in the 1994 Newham council elections? Glynis A. Carpenter Labour 1,849Shama Ahmad Labour 1,601Conor M. McAuley Labour 1,528John M. Gray Liberal Democrat 544Christine Hodgson Conservative 471Louise Pritchard Green 450Jonathan Ivinson Conservative 429Doris Rees Conservative 409Jean M. Tee Liberal Democrat 408Walter C. Tee Liberal Democrat 310(Forest Gate ward is now entirely part of the Forest Gate North ward, basically the centre & eastern parts with E7 postcodes. Amongst other things it contains the site of the former gate itself.) Maybe I'm thick but I can't see what the challenge is. Try each of the following methods: * Divide each party's total vote by the number of seats available * Divide each party's total vote by the number of candidates they stood * Take the top scoring candidate of each party |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on May 8, 2018 21:38:51 GMT
My ward in 1973:-  I prefer 'Highest Vote Method' but with a slight tweak (if full figures available). The actual turnout in Elland was 45.21% - 3343 valid votes. Divide each candidate's votes by the valid votes to give a true reflection of their strength:-  |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on May 9, 2018 19:36:55 GMT
Here's a little challenge. Which party came second in Forest Gate ward in the 1994 Newham council elections? Glynis A. Carpenter Labour 1,849Shama Ahmad Labour 1,601Conor M. McAuley Labour 1,528John M. Gray Liberal Democrat 544Christine Hodgson Conservative 471Louise Pritchard Green 450Jonathan Ivinson Conservative 429Doris Rees Conservative 409Jean M. Tee Liberal Democrat 408Walter C. Tee Liberal Democrat 310(Forest Gate ward is now entirely part of the Forest Gate North ward, basically the centre & eastern parts with E7 postcodes. Amongst other things it contains the site of the former gate itself.) Ordered by average vote: Labour 1659 (plus a third) Green 450 Conservative 436 (plus a third) Liberal Democrat 421 (less a third) |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 15, 2018 10:38:43 GMT
But divide by seats available:
Labour 1659.33
Conservative 436.33
Liberal Democrats 420.67
Green 150
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on May 16, 2018 3:55:50 GMT
It would be just as logical to use the lowest vote of any candidate for each party, but nobody seems to do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on May 17, 2018 16:07:21 GMT
In Scotland with STV I go with party vote. I find it odd to think just because there's two candidates and not three a third candidate would attract more people to vote for that party rather than just dilute the party vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on May 18, 2018 12:09:49 GMT
In Scotland with STV I go with party vote. I find it odd to think just because there's two candidates and not three a third candidate would attract more people to vote for that party rather than just dilute the party vote. There ought to be no doubt about this. In STV you only get one vote, which then transfers. Hence your first preference vote should be recorded as your first preference Party, and if there are two or more candidates for that Party, they should be added together.
However there are some people who insist on calculating STV elections wrong by using the top or the average vote method. ALDC (Association of Lib Dem councillors) are an example. They get things seriously wrong in recording changes in vote share from an STV election to a local by-election, which is usually by alternative vote with only one candidate per Party. Strangely, this often results in apparent big swings towards SNP, LAB or Con if they put up two candidates in the preceding STV election, and an apparent swing away from Lib Dem!
|
|
|
|
Post by swanarcadian on May 18, 2018 16:31:31 GMT
I had originally only set the poll to last for a week, but I've re-opened it.
|
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on May 18, 2018 20:09:24 GMT
In Scotland with STV I go with party vote. I find it odd to think just because there's there are two candidates and not three a third candidate would attract more people to vote for that party rather than just dilute the party vote. Not always true. A third candidate can often have a regional appeal or reach a base that the other two can't. If people transfer appropriately, there shouldn't be any dilution of the party vote. However, in practice, there will always be transfer leakage as people plump for their favourite candidate(s) in the mistaken belief that giving more preferences will help other candidates against their favoured choice. Lower preferences can never count against a higher preference. There is also an advantage to parties in nominating more people as more candidates encourages more people to join and be involved with the party. Agree with Foggy, I can certainly see the argument for FPTP but multi-member FPTP seems the worst of all worlds. |
|
