johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,588
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Dec 29, 2018 2:27:05 GMT
... the candidate with the most votes is elected.... "The candidate (or candidates) with the most votes is (are) elected" is true of FPTP, AV, STV, AMS, list systems, and all electoral systems that I am aware of being in existence anywhere in the world. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2018 15:11:34 GMT
... the candidate with the most votes is elected.... "The candidate (or candidates) with the most votes is (are) elected" is true of FPTP, AV, STV, AMS, list systems, and all electoral systems that I am aware of being in existence anywhere in the world. No. I am referring to the system whereby the candidate with a simple plurality of votes getting elected with no distribution, transfers etc. You know exactly what I'm talking about and I'm getting a bit fed up of this thread. I stand by my belief that proportional represention is the fairest way of electing local candidates. I agree. As a constitutional compromise, PR should be introduced at County and Met Boroughs level. AV is the worst voting method of them all by a country mile and the electorate were correct to soundly reject it in 2011. |
|
|
|
Post by lbarnes on Dec 29, 2018 18:02:17 GMT
Sandy, if you meant "the candidate with a simple plurality of votes getting elected with no distribution, transfers etc" then you should have said so. Instead the words you chose show the very weakness of your argument, as do your other posts.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312 
|
Post by maxque on Dec 29, 2018 20:40:46 GMT
Getting rid of a fair voting system that gives representation to the widest range of people is exactly what I would expect from Tories (and sadly also Labour, most of the time) On the subject of AV for by-elections, it is the best system available when only one person is elected (and would be better in England too!). The problem in analysing the results lies in comparison with which councillor is being replaced. A more sensible comparison if you want to see how different Parties are doing is with the votes cast for each Party in the last normal election. That applies under any voting system. I’m sure I have clashed with you over this before so I will keep it brief. There is no system fairer than one vote for all electors, and the candidate with the most votes is elected. Very few people understand STV which is why there are always many spoilt ballots. Under FPTP there is a clear connection between the electorate and their representatives. If electors are too lazy to inform themselves, that's their problem. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Dec 31, 2018 8:51:19 GMT
"The candidate (or candidates) with the most votes is (are) elected" is true of FPTP, AV, STV, AMS, list systems, and all electoral systems that I am aware of being in existence anywhere in the world. No. I am referring to the system whereby the candidate with a simple plurality of votes getting elected with no distribution, transfers etc. You know exactly what I'm talking about and I'm getting a bit fed up of this thread. I agree. As a constitutional compromise, PR should be introduced at County and Met Boroughs level. AV is the worst voting method of them all by a country mile and the electorate were correct to soundly reject it in 2011. AV is only a small improvement on FPTP. The ridiculous and hysterical arguments successfully used to smear AV in that referendum campaign should have warned us all not to have another referendum in the foreseeable future. |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,460
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Dec 31, 2018 9:57:33 GMT
No. I am referring to the system whereby the candidate with a simple plurality of votes getting elected with no distribution, transfers etc. You know exactly what I'm talking about and I'm getting a bit fed up of this thread. AV is the worst voting method of them all by a country mile and the electorate were correct to soundly reject it in 2011. AV is only a small improvement on FPTP. The ridiculous and hysterical arguments successfully used to smear AV in that referendum campaign should have warned us all not to have another referendum in the foreseeable future. I think AV is worse that FPTP and while I would welcome a change to AMS or similar, I am opposed to preference systems and particularly those like AV which would only benefit second choices |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2018 10:17:11 GMT
No. I am referring to the system whereby the candidate with a simple plurality of votes getting elected with no distribution, transfers etc. You know exactly what I'm talking about and I'm getting a bit fed up of this thread. AV is the worst voting method of them all by a country mile and the electorate were correct to soundly reject it in 2011. AV is only a small improvement on FPTP. The ridiculous and hysterical arguments successfully used to smear AV in that referendum campaign should have warned us all not to have another referendum in the foreseeable future. Your dislike of the result isn’t a reason not to hold referendums. I take it you are also against a “peoples vote”? I welcome any occourance which kills electoral reform stone dead. |
|
|
|
Post by robert1 on Dec 31, 2018 15:22:52 GMT
Returning to middleenglander's excellent charts, they highlight several factors worth considering:-
By-elections were going to Labour during the LD near death experience but that is no longer the case
The last few months of 2018 have produced markedly fewer changes than earlier in the year and than in most earlier years
In a period of political unpopularity of both major parties the losses of both might well have been expected to be higher
With the Tories in almost perpetual internal dispute losses also might have been expected to have been higher than usual not lower
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jan 1, 2019 9:07:21 GMT
AV is only a small improvement on FPTP. The ridiculous and hysterical arguments successfully used to smear AV in that referendum campaign should have warned us all not to have another referendum in the foreseeable future. I think AV is worse that FPTP and while I would welcome a change to AMS or similar, I am opposed to preference systems and particularly those like AV which would only benefit second choices If a candidate gets more than 50% of the first preferences under AV they are elected. If they are not the first choice of the majority then the people who prefer someone else get a bit more power. That is a good idea but STV (with more than 3 members per constituency) gives far more power to the electorate and is therefore far preferable. For me, giving electors real choice of candidates for their own and for other parties should be the main purpose of an electoral system which is currently controlled by party machines. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jan 1, 2019 9:21:31 GMT
AV is only a small improvement on FPTP. The ridiculous and hysterical arguments successfully used to smear AV in that referendum campaign should have warned us all not to have another referendum in the foreseeable future. Your dislike of the result isn’t a reason not to hold referendums. I take it you are also against a “peoples vote”? I welcome any occourance which kills electoral reform stone dead. Our whole political system has become corrupted by mendacious populism. This is a big problem in general elections and much worse in referenda, as we have seen. I do not "want" another referendum on Europe but I want the folly of Brexit curtailing the future of my children and grandchildren even less. We have the political system we have and overturning a referendum other than by another referendum would be a big mistake. If Leavers are confident the result last time was founded on truth then they have nothing to fear. |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,460
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 1, 2019 9:30:44 GMT
I think AV is worse that FPTP and while I would welcome a change to AMS or similar, I am opposed to preference systems and particularly those like AV which would only benefit second choices If a candidate gets more than 50% of the first preferences under AV they are elected. If they are not the first choice of the majority then the people who prefer someone else get a bit more power. That is a good idea but STV (with more than 3 members per constituency) gives far more power to the electorate and is therefore far preferable. For me, giving electors real choice of candidates for their own and for other parties should be the main purpose of an electoral system which is currently controlled by party machines. I feel the opposite. I want ideas not individual personality to be important so I dislike STV far more than FPTP. It produces appalling pork-barrelling- see Ireland. I prefer single member constituencies with top ups. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Jan 1, 2019 10:18:10 GMT
If a candidate gets more than 50% of the first preferences under AV they are elected. If they are not the first choice of the majority then the people who prefer someone else get a bit more power. That is a good idea but STV (with more than 3 members per constituency) gives far more power to the electorate and is therefore far preferable. For me, giving electors real choice of candidates for their own and for other parties should be the main purpose of an electoral system which is currently controlled by party machines. I feel the opposite. I want ideas not individual personality to be important so I dislike STV far more than FPTP. It produces appalling pork-barrelling- see Ireland. I prefer single member constituencies with top ups. And then there are those of us who support MMS with IRV for the constituencies...  |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jan 1, 2019 10:53:19 GMT
... the candidate with the most votes is elected.... "The candidate (or candidates) with the most votes is (are) elected" is true of FPTP, AV, STV, AMS, list systems, and all electoral systems that I am aware of being in existence anywhere in the world. I can think of one electoral system that is actually in use where the candidate with the most votes hasn't been elected on four separate occasions. But I think that system is pretty much unique. |
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Jan 1, 2019 11:19:59 GMT
Our whole political system has become corrupted by mendacious populism. This is a big problem in general elections and much worse in referenda, as we have seen. I do not "want" another referendum on Europe but I want the folly of Brexit curtailing the future of my children and grandchildren even less. We have the political system we have and overturning a referendum other than by another referendum would be a big mistake. If Leavers are confident the result last time was founded on truth then they have nothing to fear. I do not see populism as being the problem if by that it is meant the people. For over twenty five years I have been convinced it is the political class that is the issue. The EU and its predecessors, have not only been corrupt but corrupting. The scandal of MPs expenses, and the House of Lords for that matter, arose because those sitting in Westminster were "jealous" of the untaxed benefits available to MEPs with little or no control being exercised along with "gold plated" pensions and pay-offs far beyond what anyone in a normal occupation could expect. Both before and after 1997 I knew through work every single MP within our sub-region irrespective of party affiliation plus several others elsewhere in the country. I considered only a minority would be able to hold down a senior job in the real world, as witnessed when many lost their seat at subsequent elections. I suspect the quality of the political class has deteriorated since, with the current MP for Peterborough being more typical than the exception. William Hague used to do the dinner circuit saying: You can tell when Blair lies, his lips move. I believe that now applies to nearly all politicians. This is the swamp that needs to be drained. Without doing so for the first time in my life I fear for the future of democracy and with it the stability of the country. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 1, 2019 12:05:42 GMT
Our whole political system has become corrupted by mendacious populism. This is a big problem in general elections and much worse in referenda, as we have seen. I do not "want" another referendum on Europe but I want the folly of Brexit curtailing the future of my children and grandchildren even less. We have the political system we have and overturning a referendum other than by another referendum would be a big mistake. If Leavers are confident the result last time was founded on truth then they have nothing to fear. I do not see populism as being the problem if by that it is meant the people. For over twenty five years I have been convinced it is the political class that is the issue. The EU and its predecessors, have not only been corrupt but corrupting. The scandal of MPs expenses, and the House of Lords for that matter, arose because those sitting in Westminster were "jealous" of the untaxed benefits available to MEPs with little or no control being exercised along with "gold plated" pensions and pay-offs far beyond what anyone in a normal occupation could expect. Both before and after 1997 I knew through work every single MP within our sub-region irrespective of party affiliation plus several others elsewhere in the country. I considered only a minority would be able to hold down a senior job in the real world, as witnessed when many lost their seat at subsequent elections. I suspect the quality of the political class has deteriorated since, with the current MP for Peterborough being more typical than the exception. William Hague used to do the dinner circuit saying: You can tell when Blair lies, his lips move. I believe that now applies to nearly all politicians. This is the swamp that needs to be drained. Without doing so for the first time in my life I fear for the future of democracy and with it the stability of the country. This is worthy of a separate thread with some detailed examination of what we mean in as non-partisan and non-abusive manner as possible. It is a matter of critical importance to politics and to good governance. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2019 12:23:22 GMT
If a candidate gets more than 50% of the first preferences under AV they are elected. If they are not the first choice of the majority then the people who prefer someone else get a bit more power. That is a good idea but STV (with more than 3 members per constituency) gives far more power to the electorate and is therefore far preferable. For me, giving electors real choice of candidates for their own and for other parties should be the main purpose of an electoral system which is currently controlled by party machines. I feel the opposite. I want ideas not individual personality to be important so I dislike STV far more than FPTP. It produces appalling pork-barrelling- see Ireland. I prefer single member constituencies with top ups. A rare moment of agreement between us on the subject of STV being a horrid system. However, I feel that individual personality is also important. I would rather MPs capable of independent thought to mindless party hacks. |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,460
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 1, 2019 13:24:02 GMT
Which is why I prefer a combined system of individual and list members.
Lists can be determined regionally should the parties wish this to be the case
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,800
|
Post by john07 on Jan 1, 2019 15:23:15 GMT
The EU and its predecessors, have not only been corrupt but corrupting. The scandal of MPs expenses, and the House of Lords for that matter, arose because those sitting in Westminster were "jealous" of the untaxed benefits available to MEPs with little or no control being exercised along with "gold plated" pensions and pay-offs far beyond what anyone in a normal occupation could expect. Both before and after 1997 I knew through work every single MP within our sub-region irrespective of party affiliation plus several others elsewhere in the country. I considered only a minority would be able to hold down a senior job in the real world, as witnessed when many lost their seat at subsequent elections. I suspect the quality of the political class has deteriorated since, with the current MP for Peterborough being more typical than the exception. William Hague used to do the dinner circuit saying: You can tell when Blair lies, his lips move. I believe that now applies to nearly all politicians. This is the swamp that needs to be drained. Without doing so for the first time in my life I fear for the future of democracy and with it the stability of the country. Oh dear oh dear. I am sorry to have to say this but the statement that the MP expense scandal was caused by the European Parliament had to be one of the most moronic comments I have seen on here. And it’s up against some stiff competition! Then descending into sub-Trumpian bullshit about ‘draining the swamp’ makes thing even worse. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2019 15:53:03 GMT
The EU and its predecessors, have not only been corrupt but corrupting. The scandal of MPs expenses, and the House of Lords for that matter, arose because those sitting in Westminster were "jealous" of the untaxed benefits available to MEPs with little or no control being exercised along with "gold plated" pensions and pay-offs far beyond what anyone in a normal occupation could expect. Both before and after 1997 I knew through work every single MP within our sub-region irrespective of party affiliation plus several others elsewhere in the country. I considered only a minority would be able to hold down a senior job in the real world, as witnessed when many lost their seat at subsequent elections. I suspect the quality of the political class has deteriorated since, with the current MP for Peterborough being more typical than the exception. William Hague used to do the dinner circuit saying: You can tell when Blair lies, his lips move. I believe that now applies to nearly all politicians. This is the swamp that needs to be drained. Without doing so for the first time in my life I fear for the future of democracy and with it the stability of the country. Oh dear oh dear. I am sorry to have to say this but the statement that the MP expense scandal was caused by the European Parliament had to be one of the most moronic comments I have seen on here. And it’s up against some stiff competition! Then descending into sub-Trumpian bullshit about ‘draining the swamp’ makes thing even worse. Well a remoaner such as yourself who can’t accept that the majority of the electorate who turned out to vote took a different opinion from you would say that. |
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Jan 1, 2019 15:58:05 GMT
Oh dear oh dear. I am sorry to have to say this but the statement that the MP expense scandal was caused by the European Parliament had to be one of the most moronic comments I have seen on here. And it’s up against some stiff competition! Then descending into sub-Trumpian bullshit about ‘draining the swamp’ makes thing even worse. So what was the fundamental cause of the expenses scandal then? Something that infected all parties and, if my memory serves me right, all ages of MPs but more so the long serving ones. I presume you do not do irony. |
|
