|
|
Post by islington on Apr 22, 2020 11:39:20 GMT
Greenchristian, how do you make that out? I still wince at recalling that back in 2008 the PR system in use for London Assembly elections resulted in the return of Richard Barnbrook of the BNP. So for the next four years this far-right fantasist was entitled to go around saying that he represented me. Now, I know it's part and parcel of democracy that candidates to whom I'm opposed sometimes get elected. Such is life. I may not like it, but I can swallow it if they got most votes. But Barnbrook didn't: the BNP got 131,000 votes in the election, compared with 836,000 for the Tories and 665,000 for Labour (for completeness, LD 253000, Green 203000). So the BNP lost the election; and while I'm not going to say which party I voted for (I have a politically sensitive job), I'm giving away no secrets when I say I was very definitely voting against the BNP.
So there you have it: I voted against the BNP and almost 95% of my fellow Londoners did the same. Yet will still ended up with the BNP man seated in the London Assembly as our supposedly democratically-elected representative.
This was twelve years ago and I still can't recall it without a deep sense of shame.
Did the person you voted for get elected? It was a party list system. The party I voted for got representatives on the GLA.
But my point is that the party I voted against, along with nearly 95% of those voting, also got elected.
I come back to my previous point. I don't vote only to try to elect people; I also vote to try to block candidates and parties I don't want elected. FPTP allows me to do this; but under proportional systems they tend to get seats anyway. Thus I end up with a specimen like Richard Barnbrook as my so-called representative despite the fact that nearly 95% voted against his party.
As you can probably tell, I'm still seething about this.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 22, 2020 12:48:52 GMT
By your logic, presumably you wanted the London Assembly to consist of 25 Conservative members, as every other party "lost" the election? That's not how the election was structured. There were 14 seats elected by FPTP from single-member constituencies (the Tories won 8 of these and Labour 6), topped up by the remaining 11 seats chosen by a London-wide party list vote.
If the Tories had been awarded the 11 London-wide seats it would have left the Assembly at Tories 19, Labour 6. This wouldn't have been an entirely outrageous outcome (the Tories did, after all, win the election) but it seems harsh on Labour given their relatively strong showing both at constituency level and in the London-wide vote.
It would have been better, in my view, to elect the whole assembly by single-seat FPTP and if this had been done on any reasonable set of boundaries I'm sure it would have delivered the Tories a working majority but with strong minority representation for Labour; and maybe the odd LD if they could concentrate their support sufficiently.
But I don't want this discussion to distract from my central complaint, which is that almost 95% voted against the BNP and this still wasn't enough to stop it from winning a seat. So I'm still asking my basic question: I can see how PR allows me to vote for the candidate I want to elect, but how can I effectively vote against the candidate I want to exclude?
|
|
edgbaston
Labour
Posts: 4,454
Member is Online
|
Post by edgbaston on Apr 22, 2020 13:11:16 GMT
By your logic, presumably you wanted the London Assembly to consist of 25 Conservative members, as every other party "lost" the election? Well he advocates FPTP so he doesn’t ‘want’ PR to deliver him anything as he recognises it’s obvious flaws. I feel that is a very dishonest reading of the argument made. Under FPTP it is more than obvious the BNP would’ve come nowhere near in any of the hypothetical constituencies. |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Apr 22, 2020 13:11:34 GMT
It is significantly worse at this than pretty much any preferential system, though because under FPTP a voter who wishes to vote against particular candidates has to know what most of the other voters are going to do in order to cast their vote effectively. Greenchristian, how do you make that out?
I still wince at recalling that back in 2008 the PR system in use for London Assembly elections resulted in the return of Richard Barnbrook of the BNP. So for the next four years this far-right fantasist was entitled to go around saying that he represented me.
Now, I know it's part and parcel of democracy that candidates to whom I'm opposed sometimes get elected. Such is life. I may not like it, but I can swallow it if they got most votes. But Barnbrook didn't: the BNP got 131,000 votes in the election, compared with 836,000 for the Tories and 665,000 for Labour (for completeness, LD 253000, Green 203000). So the BNP lost the election; and while I'm not going to say which party I voted for (I have a politically sensitive job), I'm giving away no secrets when I say I was very definitely voting against the BNP.
So there you have it: I voted against the BNP and almost 95% of my fellow Londoners did the same. Yet will still ended up with the BNP man seated in the London Assembly as our supposedly democratically-elected representative.
This was twelve years ago and I still can't recall it without a deep sense of shame.
Easy enough to explain. If you are restricted to voting for a single party then you are automatically voting against all other parties. Such a voting system treats it that you dislike them all equally. However, it's very unlikely that the average Labour voter dislikes the Greens or LibDems as much as they dislike the BNP or that a Conservative voter disliked the Brexit Party as much as the Communist Party. Under a preferential system, you can give preferences to everyone except the BNP or rank them last (same difference.) Incidentally, I'm not sure how your London Assembly example is supposed to disprove Greenchristian's argument about preferential systems, since the London Assembly is elected by AMS which is NOT a preferential system? |
|
edgbaston
Labour
Posts: 4,454
Member is Online
|
Post by edgbaston on Apr 22, 2020 13:11:45 GMT
Of course the London assembly is a talking shop in need of abolition but that’s another matter.
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,771
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Apr 22, 2020 13:23:17 GMT
Of course the London assembly is a talking shop in need of abolition empowerment but that’s another matter. FTFY. Having a rather larger number of members (twice to three times the current complement) would also be desirable. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Apr 22, 2020 13:33:57 GMT
Did the person you voted for get elected? It was a party list system. The party I voted for got representatives on the GLA. But my point is that the party I voted against, along with nearly 95% of those voting, also got elected. I come back to my previous point. I don't vote only to try to elect people; I also vote to try to block candidates and parties I don't want elected. FPTP allows me to do this; but under proportional systems they tend to get seats anyway. Thus I end up with a specimen like Richard Barnbrook as my so-called representative despite the fact that nearly 95% voted against his party. As you can probably tell, I'm still seething about this.
You are transferring your own personal views onto the wider electorate. 95% of the voters did not "vote against" the BNP in any meaningful sense. They voted for whichever party they preferred. I suspect the vast majority of the electorate didn't give the BNP a moment's thought. That is the whole point of a list system, that the minority can still have some representation, whether you personally approve of that representative or not, sufficient people did positively vote for the BNP. |
|
edgbaston
Labour
Posts: 4,454
Member is Online
|
Post by edgbaston on Apr 22, 2020 14:10:23 GMT
To prove the point you could have had in 2008:  Romford - Tory Ilford - Labour Walthamstow - Labour Docklands - Labour East End - Labour King's Cross - Labour Harringay - Labour Two Cities - Tory Enfield - Tory Barnet - Tory Willesden - Labour Harrow - Tory Hayes - Tory Ealing - Labour Brentford - Tory Hampton - Tory Morden - Tory Wandsworth - Tory Purley - Tory Beckenham - Tory Thamesmead - Tory Chislehurst - Tory Lewisham - Labour Southwark - Labour Lambeth - Labour Tory - 14, Labour - 11. A very equitable split given the votes cast. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 22, 2020 15:05:59 GMT
It was a party list system. The party I voted for got representatives on the GLA. But my point is that the party I voted against, along with nearly 95% of those voting, also got elected. I come back to my previous point. I don't vote only to try to elect people; I also vote to try to block candidates and parties I don't want elected. FPTP allows me to do this; but under proportional systems they tend to get seats anyway. Thus I end up with a specimen like Richard Barnbrook as my so-called representative despite the fact that nearly 95% voted against his party. As you can probably tell, I'm still seething about this.
You are transferring your own personal views onto the wider electorate. 95% of the voters did not "vote against" the BNP in any meaningful sense. They voted for whichever party they preferred. I suspect the vast majority of the electorate didn't give the BNP a moment's thought. That is the whole point of a list system, that the minority can still have some representation, whether you personally approve of that representative or not, sufficient people did positively vote for the BNP. Yes, but that - the words I've put in bold - is exactly my point. People didn't vote against the BNP because, even if they'd been minded to (as I'm sure many of them would), the system allowed them no effective way of doing so.
Essentially, the question is whether you believe that the negative casting of a vote, i.e. to try to block a particular candidate, is just as legitimate an exercise of the franchise as a positive vote cast in favour of one's best-liked candidate.
If so, then you need a system that accommodates 'anti' voting, if that's what the elector wants to do, as well as 'pro' voting. In my view this is a perfectly proper way to use one's vote and FPTP caters for this need better than any other system I'm aware of.
(Although this isn't the only reason I favour it, of course.)
Huge thanks to Edgbaston for the map and I agree that 14-11 would be a very reasonable representation of the political forces at this election (although I also agree with Chris from Brum that 25 is too small for an assembly covering a city the size of London).
|
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Apr 22, 2020 17:29:31 GMT
Yes, but that - the words I've put in bold - is exactly my point. People didn't vote against the BNP because, even if they'd been minded to (as I'm sure many of them would), the system allowed them no effective way of doing so.
Essentially, the question is whether you believe that the negative casting of a vote, i.e. to try to block a particular candidate, is just as legitimate an exercise of the franchise as a positive vote cast in favour of one's best-liked candidate.
If so, then you need a system that accommodates 'anti' voting, if that's what the elector wants to do, as well as 'pro' voting. In my view this is a perfectly proper way to use one's vote and FPTP caters for this need better than any other system I'm aware of.
In reality, the only time you are casting an explicit negative vote against a particular candidate is when you have a 2-way contest. In multi-candidate contests you are voting against all the other candidates and saying that you dislike them equally, which, as I pointed out above is rarely if ever true. The question you seem to be asking is not how you can cast a negative vote against a particular candidate but how you can stop minority parties winning representation? The reason the BNP haven't won parliamentary seats is nothing to do with people casting negative votes against them, it's because the effective threshold is too high for them to win seats. In single member districts you need 50%+1 to guarantee election. At Westminster elections, 40% is usually enough. Once you increase the number of members a district elects, you reduce the effective threshold. But even at Westminster elections, you'd probably be safe enough to go to 5-member districts without the BNP winning anything. However, what if your BNP candidate is around the 40% mark? In that situation, voters need to unite behind an alternative in order to stop them. Quite often they don't and your extremist wins on a split vote. A preferential voting system makes that much less likely to happen, since the 60% that hate the BNP can explicitly vote against them by giving preferences to every party except the BNP. So, while I'm not advocating Alternative vote (AV), that is the solution to your problem, not FPTP. |
|
|
|
Post by michaelarden on Apr 22, 2020 18:08:12 GMT
To prove the point you could have had in 2008: Romford - Tory Ilford - Labour Walthamstow - Labour Docklands - Labour East End - Labour King's Cross - Labour Harringay - Labour Two Cities - Tory Enfield - Tory Barnet - Tory Willesden - Labour Harrow - Tory Hayes - Tory Ealing - Labour Brentford - Tory Hampton - Tory Morden - Tory Wandsworth - Tory Purley - Tory Beckenham - Tory Thamesmead - Tory Chislehurst - Tory Lewisham - Labour Southwark - Labour Lambeth - Labour Tory - 14, Labour - 11. A very equitable split given the votes cast. I suspect in 2008 the Lib Dems would have won any constituency involving just Richmond and Kingston - I take it that's your 'Hampton' constituency? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2020 22:04:22 GMT
Did the person you voted for get elected? It was a party list system. The party I voted for got representatives on the GLA.
But my point is that the party I voted against, along with nearly 95% of those voting, also got elected.
I come back to my previous point. I don't vote only to try to elect people; I also vote to try to block candidates and parties I don't want elected. FPTP allows me to do this; but under proportional systems they tend to get seats anyway. Thus I end up with a specimen like Richard Barnbrook as my so-called representative despite the fact that nearly 95% voted against his party.
As you can probably tell, I'm still seething about this.
I had Nick Griffin as MEP here in the NW. Like you, I felt shame and horror. But I see things from another perspective. The other, mainstream parties fell behind, and the BNP took advantage. That's not a failing of PR. That's how PR divides seats between mainstream parties that lose votes and extreme parties that gain votes. It also helps that giving extremists the chance to "prove" themselves usually ends up with them embarrassing themselves soon after. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144 
|
Post by Foggy on Apr 23, 2020 0:26:56 GMT
You are transferring your own personal views onto the wider electorate. 95% of the voters did not "vote against" the BNP in any meaningful sense. They voted for whichever party they preferred. I suspect the vast majority of the electorate didn't give the BNP a moment's thought. That is the whole point of a list system, that the minority can still have some representation, whether you personally approve of that representative or not, sufficient people did positively vote for the BNP. If so, then you need a system that accommodates 'anti' voting, if that's what the elector wants to do, as well as 'pro' voting. In my view this is a perfectly proper way to use one's vote and FPTP caters for this need better than any other system I'm aware of.
The system you're looking for would be some form of approval voting, though I can't bring to mind any jurisdiction or organisation that actually uses it. A 19-6 Tory-Labour split based on a relatively narrow plurality for the Conservatives brings to mind the French system for municipal and regional councils (of which the London Assembly is, in effect, both). Of course, they insist on doing it over two rounds there, which we wouldn't contemplate. It's not a seat apportionment system I'm an admirer of, but I do recognise it as a legitimate outcome of a local election that should, in most circumstances, offer stability for the subsequent term of office. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Apr 23, 2020 1:31:50 GMT
It is significantly worse at this than pretty much any preferential system, though because under FPTP a voter who wishes to vote against particular candidates has to know what most of the other voters are going to do in order to cast their vote effectively. Greenchristian, how do you make that out?
I still wince at recalling that back in 2008 the PR system in use for London Assembly elections resulted in the return of Richard Barnbrook of the BNP. So for the next four years this far-right fantasist was entitled to go around saying that he represented me.
Now, I know it's part and parcel of democracy that candidates to whom I'm opposed sometimes get elected. Such is life. I may not like it, but I can swallow it if they got most votes. But Barnbrook didn't: the BNP got 131,000 votes in the election, compared with 836,000 for the Tories and 665,000 for Labour (for completeness, LD 253000, Green 203000). So the BNP lost the election; and while I'm not going to say which party I voted for (I have a politically sensitive job), I'm giving away no secrets when I say I was very definitely voting against the BNP.
So there you have it: I voted against the BNP and almost 95% of my fellow Londoners did the same. Yet will still ended up with the BNP man seated in the London Assembly as our supposedly democratically-elected representative.
This was twelve years ago and I still can't recall it without a deep sense of shame.
I make that out because I was talking about preferential systems, and whilst the London Assembly is elected by a proportional system, it is not elected by a preferential system. Either AV or STV would fit your particular priorities far better than FPTP or any directly proportional system. Under both FPTP and party list systems your vote is counted solely as a positive vote towards one candidate or party. FPTP only works as a negative vote if you happen to vote for one of the top two parties in a situation where the party you wish to vote against happens to be the other one of those top two candidates. Party list systems only work as a negative vote if you happen to vote for one of the two parties who are competing for the final seat and the party you wish to vote against happens to be one of the other parties that are close to the threshold for that final seat. Preferential systems mean that your vote always works as a negative vote towards whichever candidate you give the lowest possible preference to. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 23, 2020 5:35:16 GMT
I remember some of these discussions in the 2000s and someone (not on here) suggesting that PR should be adopted because FPTP might deliver a BNP majority in Burnley council (for example) on a minority vote share (though they didn't seem to worry about Labour or the Lib Dems being able to do so).
It's rather laughable that even now, when they are only a slightly more significant electoral force than Gwlad Gwlad, that there are still people out there arguing that we should base out entire electoral system on how best to stop the BNP winning seats
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on May 20, 2020 16:03:18 GMT
How likely is it that we'll have a boundary review before the next general election?
|
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on May 20, 2020 16:06:10 GMT
How likely is it that we'll have a boundary review before the next general election?
Depends how long lockdown lasts  |
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 20, 2020 17:35:50 GMT
How likely is it that we'll have a boundary review before the next general election? Well, the Bill just published calls for the Boundary Commissions to submit their final reports by 1 Jul 2023, which can then (assuming the Bill passes in its present form) be given effect by Order in Council without any confirmatory Parliamentary vote. So that's definitely the plan, assuming of course that the next GE is some time in 2024. |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,463
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on May 20, 2020 19:07:13 GMT
How likely is it that we'll have a boundary review before the next general election? Well, the Bill just published calls for the Boundary Commissions to submit their final reports by 1 Jul 2023, which can then (assuming the Bill passes in its present form) be given effect by Order in Council without any confirmatory Parliamentary vote. So that's definitely the plan, assuming of course that the next GE is some time in 2024. With a safe majority and the Brexit issue where it is I think 2024 should be a safe bet for the next election |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2020 20:05:44 GMT
So. 650.
Option A: Government genuinely believes that the consequences of Brexit mean we need to keep this number of MPs
Option B: The Government has been advised that it will do very well at the next election with the number of MPs staying the same, what with the red wall and everything..
|
|
