|
|
Post by kvasir on Apr 10, 2020 13:15:30 GMT
It is not about about whether you "win". We all lose. Look I'm a Labour party member, this isn't about trying to get more seats at Westminster. It is what is right and fair. There are voting systems which attempt to empower as many votes as possible. What you see as a tedious argument I see as people's votes not having power and to be honest it pisses me off. Because lets be honest here "this vote doesn't make a difference" is actually very very true in FPTP. Now you are correct that it is a collective exercise, but we can have voting systems where their votes matter more. Look this is obsessive. I have never had time for it. Issues of justice and fairness relate to the food in peoples cupboards and the law in our courts. I think you'll find that the right to vote has been at the heart of most civil rights movements: working class men, women, ethnic minorities etc. Because laws are written by legislatures where the votes don't reflect the views of the electorate. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Apr 10, 2020 13:32:21 GMT
When Labour realise that a majority is not possible PR will appear much more appealing.
And as Starmer appears to be in favour that will make a difference.
I'm in favour because I think we need more parties and everyone having a vote which counts
|
|
edgbaston
Labour
Posts: 4,454
Member is Online
|
Post by edgbaston on Apr 10, 2020 13:38:28 GMT
Look this is obsessive. I have never had time for it. Issues of justice and fairness relate to the food in peoples cupboards and the law in our courts. I think you'll find that the right to vote has been at the heart of most civil rights movements: working class men, women, ethnic minorities etc. Because laws are written by legislatures where the votes don't reflect the views of the electorate. And that, is a bate and switch |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2020 13:49:48 GMT
I think you'll find that the right to vote has been at the heart of most civil rights movements: working class men, women, ethnic minorities etc. Because laws are written by legislatures where the votes don't reflect the views of the electorate. And that, is a bate and switch I assume you meant "bait"...  |
|
edgbaston
Labour
Posts: 4,454
Member is Online
|
Post by edgbaston on Apr 10, 2020 13:55:00 GMT
And that, is a bate and switch I assume you meant "bait"... Well bate too. I have no interest in circular arguments on PR but he likes to instigate and it annoys me. I can't get inside the mindset of a person who thinks all the ills of the world would be solved by giving the Lib Dems marginally more power. |
|
|
|
Post by kvasir on Apr 10, 2020 14:54:26 GMT
I assume you meant "bait"... Well bate too. I have no interest in circular arguments on PR but he likes to instigate and it annoys me. I can't get inside the mindset of a person who thinks all the ills of the world would be solved by giving the Lib Dems marginally more power. So, I think you know that supporting PR doesn't mean that I think that giving the Liberal Democrats marginally more power will solve all the ills of the world. Firstly, I don't care at all about whether the Liberal Democrats have more power or not. I happen to not like Liberal Democrats. I'm a Labour Party member from Leeds, it goes without saying that I have zero time for them. Secondly, I don't think that PR would solve all the ills of the world. Something doesn't need to solve all the ills of the world for you to want to do it. If you want to get into my mindset, I don't care whether this benefits Labour or the Tories or the Liberal Democrats or the Brexit Party or the Greens. It's a matter of principle. A legitimate government requires consent of the governed. Representative Democracy requires real representation. Some things are more important than raw power. I want to live in a democratic country and FPTP is not very democratic and it is as simple as that. |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Apr 10, 2020 18:02:55 GMT
This is '1 vote won't make a difference' line is a warped way to see elections, which are a collective exercise that can have any outcome. It's not unjust, you just didn't win. It is not about about whether you "win". We all lose. Look I'm a Labour party member, this isn't about trying to get more seats at Westminster. It is what is right and fair. There are voting systems which attempt to empower as many votes as possible. What you see as a tedious argument I see as people's votes not having power and to be honest it pisses me off. Because lets be honest here "this vote doesn't make a difference" is actually very very true in FPTP. Now you are correct that it is a collective exercise, but we can have voting systems where their votes matter more. I certainly support STV but I think a more palatable solution for Leeds would be to actually have FPTP. None of this three members per ward elected every year nonsense. Just replace the existing 33 wards by 99 single member wards. As well as making it much less likely that you have to split wards, you also reduce the costs of the elections by a third. Sorted. |
|
|
|
Post by kvasir on Apr 10, 2020 18:23:01 GMT
It is not about about whether you "win". We all lose. Look I'm a Labour party member, this isn't about trying to get more seats at Westminster. It is what is right and fair. There are voting systems which attempt to empower as many votes as possible. What you see as a tedious argument I see as people's votes not having power and to be honest it pisses me off. Because lets be honest here "this vote doesn't make a difference" is actually very very true in FPTP. Now you are correct that it is a collective exercise, but we can have voting systems where their votes matter more. I certainly support STV but I think a more palatable solution for Leeds would be to actually have FPTP. None of this three members per ward elected every year nonsense. Just replace the existing 33 wards by 99 single member wards. As well as making it much less likely that you have to split wards, you also reduce the costs of the elections by a third. Sorted. Oh no. That would not be a good idea at all. The wards benefit from having three representatives and the city benefits from having regular elections. It keeps the councillors in touch with the electorate far more, they don't have to only listen to people once every 4 or 5 years. If you have one representative and one of them is shit you have others who can take up some of the slack. It also allows the option of different parties or independents being representative. Less in Leeds, but you have situations where some individuals are popular in spite of their party. So actually I would passionately resist this reform with every fibre of my being. The only thing I can think of as worse would be a directly elected mayor. The current system works relatively well. Obviously an improvement would be STV. Four to Six councillors for ward in size, aiming for about five. Elections every four years. STV seems to have the effect of encouraging far more engagement of the elected representatives to boot, though that could be an Irish thing. |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Apr 10, 2020 18:35:43 GMT
I certainly support STV but I think a more palatable solution for Leeds would be to actually have FPTP. None of this three members per ward elected every year nonsense. Just replace the existing 33 wards by 99 single member wards. As well as making it much less likely that you have to split wards, you also reduce the costs of the elections by a third. Sorted. Oh no. That would not be a good idea at all. The wards benefit from having three representatives and the city benefits from having regular elections. It keeps the councillors in touch with the electorate far more, they don't have to only listen to people once every 4 or 5 years. If you have one representative and one of them is shit you have others who can take up some of the slack. If you have 3 councillors representing an extremely large ward, but all elected at separate times, you gain neither the proportionality that multi-member wards provide nor the more local representation that FPTP provides. It seems the worst of both worlds. If regular elections are a concern then you can deal with that very easily by having elections every two years instead of four. You still save 33% costs compared to the current situation and have the added benefits of more localised representation and being able to turf out the "shit" councillors that you refer to in half the time you can at present. PS The STV elections you're advocating usually mean elections every 4 years, so I'm unclear whether you support that or the current system? |
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on Apr 11, 2020 15:56:11 GMT
A wasted vote, should be viewed as a vote that has no effect on the outcome of the election. FTPT has far more wasted votes than any other system. You may not care that it has no effect on the system. You may want to reject the label (I actually don't care what it is called). But that doesn't stop it being true. Other voting systems can increase the number of votes that actually have an effect on the results. Now, you may think that it is okay that votes have no consequence on the outcome, the "its the taking part" approach to elections. But what that actually means is that people's views aren't being heard in the halls of power. It's undemocratic, and honestly unjust. And just to provide more context, for FPTP these votes which don't have meaningful effects, it isn't just those who vote for failing candidates. It is the over-vote. It is for example the person in Liverpool voting Labour who knows their vote doesn't make a difference, it is just one more to the pile. EDIT: There is no major need to consider the size of constituencies for most PR elections. In multi-member PR seats you just change how many MPs are represented by the area. With list PR there is also no need.This is '1 vote won't make a difference' line is a warped way to see elections, which are a collective exercise that can have any outcome. It's not unjust, you just didn't win. Must we rerun this tedious argument. If you want to discuss the merits of splitting wards I'm all ears. No; Ireland, Scotland, etc etc. STV is not a silver bulletIn both the 1997 and 2001 General elections Labour won all 24 seats in West Yorkshire. The idea that everyone in West Yorkshire supported Labour is as ludicrous as it is perseve . FPFP makes a total mockery of democracy. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Apr 11, 2020 16:43:11 GMT
This is '1 vote won't make a difference' line is a warped way to see elections, which are a collective exercise that can have any outcome. It's not unjust, you just didn't win. Must we rerun this tedious argument. If you want to discuss the merits of splitting wards I'm all ears. No; Ireland, Scotland, etc etc. STV is not a silver bulletIn both the 1997 and 2001 General elections Labour won all 24 seats in West Yorkshire. The idea that everyone in West Yorkshire supported Labour is as ludicrous as it is perseve . FPFP makes a total mockery of democracy. Another example of this is Cornwall where in 2015 the Conservatives won all six seats despite only polling only 45% of the vote across Cornwall that year. Only in South East Cornwall did the Conservatives poll over 50% that year. |
|
|
|
Post by ClevelandYorks on Apr 11, 2020 17:28:47 GMT
In both the 1997 and 2001 General elections Labour won all 24 seats in West Yorkshire. The idea that everyone in West Yorkshire supported Labour is as ludicrous as it is perseve . FPFP makes a total mockery of democracy. Did anybody ever claim that 'everyone in West Yorkshire supported Labour' as a result of them winning all the seats? That's not how the system works, or how it is intended to work... |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Apr 16, 2020 17:44:44 GMT
It also allows the option of different parties or independents being representative. Less in Leeds, but you have situations where some individuals are popular in spite of their party. So actually I would passionately resist this reform with every fibre of my being. The only thing I can think of as worse would be a directly elected mayor. Actually, the switch to single-member wards in Birmingham was a big factor in the election of the city's first Green councillor, because it's easier for a small party to effectively campaign across a smaller area. However, it also meant that electors had a much smaller choice of candidates than they would normally have as only Labour, the Tories, and the Lib Dems had anything like the membership and organisation to get that many candidates together.
That said, in general I think thirds elections under FPTP make it easier for smaller parties to get some representation on the council than all-out elections under FPTP, since it's a lot easier to build momentum in a ward over time and to motivate your members to campaign. Assuming, of course, that there's some election know-how and competence on the part of said parties on the ground.
|
|
clyde1998
SNP
Green (E&W) member; SNP supporter
Posts: 1,765 
|
Post by clyde1998 on Apr 16, 2020 18:38:21 GMT
This is '1 vote won't make a difference' line is a warped way to see elections, which are a collective exercise that can have any outcome. It's not unjust, you just didn't win. Must we rerun this tedious argument. If you want to discuss the merits of splitting wards I'm all ears. No; Ireland, Scotland, etc etc. STV is not a silver bulletIn both the 1997 and 2001 General elections Labour won all 24 seats in West Yorkshire. The idea that everyone in West Yorkshire supported Labour is as ludicrous as it is perseve . FPFP makes a total mockery of democracy. This. It annoys me when you get people who should know better saying something along the lines of 'the North votes Labour, the South votes Conservative' - when a great deal of people don't vote for said party in said area. It leads to the presumption among the general public of greater division than their actually is; yes, Labour tend to get more votes in the North, Conservatives more in the South, but no area is homogeneous. Labour's 'red wall' is a good example. In the 36 seats the Conservative gained from Labour and had also gone Labour in 2010 and 2015, Labour 'only' got 51% of votes in 2017 compared to 41% for the Conservatives. The Conservatives got a higher vote share in 2017, than Labour did in these 36 constituencies in 2010. The program I use suggests that in 1997 (different boundaries, so some error expected), these areas had a 58% Labour vote share. In other words, 42% didn't vote Labour - which is a very significant number in a landslide win for Labour; there's always been an sizeable underlying non-Labour vote in those places (and that's without getting into tactical votes). |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 17, 2020 11:52:48 GMT
OK, I agreeI reject this idea that not voting for a winner constitutes a 'wasted vote'.Well it can be; whether you agree or disagree it just objectively can be.The boundary commission doesn't gerrymander. From what we have seen of their work I doubt they are competent enough in map making to do it, even if they tried.How will they ever cope!Well then the debate would likely move as to whether we should split local authorities. A wasted vote should be viewed as a vote that has no effect on the outcome of the election. FTPT has far more wasted votes than any other system. You may not care that it has no effect on the system. You may want to reject the label (I actually don't care what it is called). But that doesn't stop it being true. Other voting systems can increase the number of votes that actually have an effect on the results. Now, you may think that it is okay that votes have no consequence on the outcome, the "its the taking part" approach to elections. But what that actually means is that people's views aren't being heard in the halls of power. It's undemocratic, and honestly unjust. And just to provide more context, for FPTP these votes which don't have meaningful effects, it isn't just those who vote for failing candidates. It is the over-vote. It is for example the person in Liverpool voting Labour who knows their vote doesn't make a difference, it is just one more to the pile. EDIT: There is no major need to consider the size of local authorities for most PR elections. In multi-member PR seats you just change how many MPs are represented by the area. With list PR there is also no need. kvasir's post raises an issue I've often wondered about.
What do people mean when they talk about a 'wasted vote'? It's an expression one often hears during this sort of discussion, but I've never been entirely sure what it means, or indeed whether all people using it mean the same thing.
kvasir says above that it's a vote that 'has no bearing on the outcome of the election'. But in that case, if 'the outcome of the election' means 'who gets elected', then virtually all votes are 'wasted' because it's highly unlikely that a single vote will make any difference. This applies under FPTP, of course, but is surely almost equally true under STV or any other system. So I feel sure that kvasir must have meant something different, but I'm not sure what so I'd be very grateful if he, or anyone else, can enlighten me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 17, 2020 11:54:00 GMT
The term 'wasted vote' is purely subjective and any attempt to give it an objective meaning fails.
|
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Apr 19, 2020 11:39:25 GMT
The term 'wasted vote' is purely subjective and any attempt to give it an objective meaning fails. Rubbish. In a contest between A and B, a vote for C is wasted. It's why my father, a Labour supporter all his life, could not vote Labour as he knew his vote would be wasted. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 19, 2020 11:42:40 GMT
That's a subjective example.
|
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Apr 19, 2020 11:46:01 GMT
That's a subjective example. No it isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Apr 19, 2020 12:03:39 GMT
That's a subjective example. No it isn't. I think David's point is that the contest being between A and B is subjective at the point the voter decides to vote on that basis. There are definitely cases of tactical voters who would have been better off with a different tactical vote, or sticking with their natural party of preference. And, of course, in Westminster elections there are other factors involved than just who a contest is between - you might be voting for a party that has no chance at winning a constituency in order to help them keep their deposit, or to get more short money for example.
Now, FPTP does horribly distort election results so that they are at odds with the way the nation as a whole voted. But the language of wasted votes isn't necessarily the best way of expressing that, since votes for smaller parties do have some effect, even if it doesn't lead to more of their candidates being elected.
|
|
