|
|
Post by cherrycoffin on Aug 4, 2019 18:05:03 GMT
I’m the only one out of my core group of 7 seven friends at uni to drive. As far as I know the others haven’t even taken lessons
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2019 18:18:09 GMT
Surprised there are so many on the forum who don't drive - I can drive but don't currently for health reasons (epilepsy). Hopefully will be able to drive again next year provided I remain seizure free.
|
|
clyde1998
SNP
Green (E&W) member; SNP supporter
Posts: 1,765 
|
Post by clyde1998 on Aug 4, 2019 19:59:55 GMT
I've been busy recently so I've not really been following much of what's been going on, but I'm surprised that the Brexit Party don't have a candidate for this by-election - particularly given their showing in the Euros and the relatively strong leave vote in Shetland.
Something worth noting is that the list vote in 2016 was very different to the constituency vote in Shetland - the Lib Dems were nearly double on the constituency vote as on the list: Lib 35.7% (-31.7 compared to constituency); SNP 26.6% (+3.5); Con 10.8% (+7.1); Lab 9.1% (+3.2); Grn 6.7%; Ind 6.4%; UKIP 2.7%; Oth 2.1%. Perhaps not a massive surprise with the differences in a constituency where person is far more important than party.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Aug 4, 2019 20:53:41 GMT
As discussed upthread, the lack of a Brexit Party candidate saves them having to get into another postal vote row and have people from southern England lecturing islanders about ferry timetables.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,005
|
Post by Khunanup on Aug 4, 2019 21:40:48 GMT
I've been busy recently so I've not really been following much of what's been going on, but I'm surprised that the Brexit Party don't have a candidate for this by-election - particularly given their showing in the Euros and the relatively strong leave vote in Shetland. Something worth noting is that the list vote in 2016 was very different to the constituency vote in Shetland - the Lib Dems were nearly double on the constituency vote as on the list: Lib 35.7% (-31.7 compared to constituency); SNP 26.6% (+3.5); Con 10.8% (+7.1); Lab 9.1% (+3.2); Grn 6.7%; Ind 6.4%; UKIP 2.7%; Oth 2.1%. Perhaps not a massive surprise with the differences in a constituency where person is far more important than party. As can often be the case for MMP, the list vote is also seen by some as being a second preference vote, especially when it's patently obvious that your first preference is going to win the constituency vote. Also if it's unlikely that the party you're supporting is going to get any additional seats on the regional list (as with the Lib Dems in the Highlands and Islands due to the two island seats with regards to the polling at the time) there's little incentive to vote for that party on the list. One of the reasons why I find MMP with regional lists a deeply unsatisfactory version of PR. |
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 911
|
Post by piperdave on Aug 4, 2019 21:44:34 GMT
Don't they read prisoners' mail before it's sealed? If so, how would a secret postal ballot be compatible? I suspect somehow prisoners will not appear on the list of exceptional reasons the anti-PV campaigners come out with. At risk of getting back on topic, Part 8 of the Prisons and Young Offender Institutions (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended) sets out the rules for prisoner correspondence. Scottish Ministers may issue a direction naming persons or bodies whose correspondence with a prisoner is privileged and therefore not to be read either inbound or outbound. In practice, this often means there are either markings on the exterior envelope, or a covering letter with the privileged correspondence in a second envelope. I'd expect the SPS to issue an additional direction adding Returning Officers to the list. In any event, postal votes are well marked and the Government appear to expect only a handful of prisoners to be eligible to vote in the by-election. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Aug 4, 2019 21:44:49 GMT
And if certain parties go calling the list vote a "second vote" it must add to the confusion.
Maybe AMS with a single ballot paper and use the constituency vote totals would be better?
|
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Aug 4, 2019 21:57:30 GMT
And if certain parties go calling the list vote a "second vote" it must add to the confusion. Maybe AMS with a single ballot paper and use the constituency vote totals would be better? Just separate the election of the two types of MPs, if we must have the list. The current system is absurd and gamble. You can lose your seat if your party does too well. You can lose your constituency and stay in the parliament. A voter can tactically vote; eg the people who vote green on the list in order to get more Nat MPs. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Aug 4, 2019 21:59:34 GMT
And of course a party could split itself in two or form an alliance with another so that constituency wins do not cancel out list seats. AKA Decoy Lists or the Berlusconi Trick.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 4, 2019 22:10:03 GMT
Don't they read prisoners' mail before it's sealed? If so, how would a secret postal ballot be compatible? I suspect somehow prisoners will not appear on the list of exceptional reasons the anti-PV campaigners come out with. , Part 8 of the Prisons and Young Offender Institutions (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended) sets out the rules for prisoner correspondence. Scottish Ministers may issue a direction naming persons or bodies whose correspondence with a prisoner is privileged and therefore not to be read either inbound or outbound. In practice, this often means there are either markings on the exterior envelope, or a covering letter with the privileged correspondence in a second envelope. I'd expect the SPS to issue an additional direction adding Returning Officers to the list. In any event, postal votes are well marked and the Government appear to expect only a handful of prisoners to be eligible to vote in the by-election.
Good to see you back btw.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,005
|
Post by Khunanup on Aug 5, 2019 1:04:33 GMT
And if certain parties go calling the list vote a "second vote" it must add to the confusion. Maybe AMS with a single ballot paper and use the constituency vote totals would be better? If it's a whole body area (constituent country, land, province, state etc) list it's generally ok (as the list is so large the FPTP seat second guessing is less likely to be a factor). I think you could do worse than what you suggested, as long as it's not regional (I really don't see any point having regional lists when you have constituency MPs already, especially if you can allocate to areas subsequently like they do in other countries if it's really that necessary). |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Aug 5, 2019 7:28:52 GMT
I don't drive. I live in places where you don't need to. I'd have thought driving would be advantageous around Olney. It's not exactly a public transport mecca. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2019 8:54:25 GMT
I don't drive. I live in places where you don't need to. I'd have thought driving would be advantageous around Olney. It's not exactly a public transport mecca. I live in London now. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,780
Member is Online
|
Post by john07 on Aug 5, 2019 9:55:04 GMT
And if certain parties go calling the list vote a "second vote" it must add to the confusion. Maybe AMS with a single ballot paper and use the constituency vote totals would be better? But it is a second vote. There are different candidates, different rules and different ballot papers. It is certainly feasible for the electorate to split their votes for tactical reasons as well as for candidate preferences. In the first couple of elections to the Scottish Parliament, it was obvious that Labour were going to win so many constituency seats that they would get nothing from the list. Hence many voted Labour in the constituency and Green or even SSP on the list. I can see the case for combining the two and using the constituency votes to allocate the list seats. However, it would deprive the electorate of choice. They may like a particular constituency candidate but may be less than enthralled about the list candidates for that Party. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Aug 5, 2019 10:09:16 GMT
And if certain parties go calling the list vote a "second vote" it must add to the confusion. Maybe AMS with a single ballot paper and use the constituency vote totals would be better? Just separate the election of the two types of MPs, if we must have the list. The current system is absurd and gamble. You can lose your seat if your party does too well. You can lose your constituency and stay in the parliament. A voter can tactically vote; eg the people who vote green on the list in order to get more Nat MPs. I suspect the amount of tactical voting associated with the list is tiny.. One of those things political activists obsess about but that never even occurs to 99% of people. (I msan tactical voting in tge sense of trying to second guess the system) Losing your list seat if your Party does too well is something that only happens to people who would not be an MSP anyway under FPTP. If the aim is proportionality you cant separate the list from the constituency votes although I agree that just one vote would be better. You could de-regionalise the list, but that would likely increase concentration of Parties in particular regions. On my scale of voting systems STV would be 1000 times better than FPTP, but the Scottish system would be 900 times better. At the local level the current STV system in Scotland is also 1000 times better, but making the wards larger and obliging registered Parties to put up multiple candidates would be 2000 times better. |
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,842
|
Post by Crimson King on Aug 5, 2019 10:17:48 GMT
Just separate the election of the two types of MPs, if we must have the list. The current system is absurd and gamble. You can lose your seat if your party does too well. You can lose your constituency and stay in the parliament. A voter can tactically vote; eg the people who vote green on the list in order to get more Nat MPs. I suspect the amount of tactical voting associated with the list is tiny.. One of those things political activists obsess about but that never even occurs to 99% of people. (I msan tactical voting in tge sense of trying to second guess the system) Losing your list seat if your Party does too well is something that only happens to people who would not be an MSP anyway under FPTP. If the aim is proportionality you cant separate the list from the constituency votes although I agree that just one vote would be better. You could de-regionalise the list, but that would likely increase concentration of Parties in particular regions. On my scale of voting systems STV would be 1000 times better than FPTP, but the Scottish system would be 900 times better. At the local level the current STV system in Scotland is also 1000 times better, but making the wards larger and obliging registered Parties to put up multiple candidates would be 2000 times better. I have told you a million times to stop exaggerating but to be more serious, how precisely do you oblige parties to put up multiple candidates |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Aug 5, 2019 10:27:14 GMT
I suspect the amount of tactical voting associated with the list is tiny.. One of those things political activists obsess about but that never even occurs to 99% of people. (I msan tactical voting in tge sense of trying to second guess the system) Losing your list seat if your Party does too well is something that only happens to people who would not be an MSP anyway under FPTP. If the aim is proportionality you cant separate the list from the constituency votes although I agree that just one vote would be better. You could de-regionalise the list, but that would likely increase concentration of Parties in particular regions. On my scale of voting systems STV would be 1000 times better than FPTP, but the Scottish system would be 900 times better. At the local level the current STV system in Scotland is also 1000 times better, but making the wards larger and obliging registered Parties to put up multiple candidates would be 2000 times better. I have told you a million times to stop exaggerating but to be more serious, how precisely do you oblige parties to put up multiple candidates You make it a rule. If you want to use a Party name you have to put up a mininum of two candidates (or as many candidates as seats, whatever). Otherwise you have to stand as an Independent.. The main purpose of STV (over other systems) is to give voters real choice between candidates, but especially with the small wards Parties lose out if they do that. Open lists are ok but lose the constituency link. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Aug 5, 2019 10:36:42 GMT
And of course a party could split itself in two or form an alliance with another so that constituency wins do not cancel out list seats. AKA Decoy Lists or the Berlusconi Trick. Simple rule to discourage that would be no list seats in a region unless the Party stands in every constituency. Compared to the elective dictatorship of FPTP this is all just whataboutery however |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Aug 5, 2019 11:06:17 GMT
In AMS, the two votes should be called the constituency vote and the list vote, not the first vote and the second vote. When I was younger, and when I used to invent electoral systems, I tended to assume that all voters understood fully, and would be capable of voting tactically to the most effective level, to make sure that their votes or votes would be used most efficiently. For example, in an additional member system which has multiple layers of local lists, regional lists and a national top up list, the voter would be able to decide which party to vote for at each level based on their knowledge of the likely effective thresholds and likely share of the vote for each party. However, as I got older, I gradually realised that this is not realistic. I think that if I supported AMS now, then I would want there to be only one vote in the constituency, and that all the constituency votes should be added up to provide the totals for the additional top up allocation of seats.
Having a statutory requirement that parties should be forced to nominate multiple candidates, either under STV, or under an open list system, is nincompoopismatic and totalitarian . A lot of small parties would struggle to find more than one candidate in the relevant area.
When I was a member of the Electoral Reform Society for 20 years, I was more dogmatic than I am now about supporting STV rather than anything else. If we had PR now, I would be open to virtually any type of PR, and I would want it to be simple enough to accommodate the stupidity of ordinary voters. I wouldn't mind having a closed list system, with small (STV sized) constituencies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2019 13:04:18 GMT
Lots of the problems being discussed could be solved by increasing the ratio of list seats to constituency seats; by reforming it so that instead of simply adding the constituency seats to the divider when calculating quotas you calculate seat entitlement and then subtract the number of constituency seats won and by allowing an overhang.
|
|
