|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jun 10, 2020 12:40:16 GMT
It takes a lot to make STV look simple but this might have done it. Simple enough for many trades unions to use. I wish I could access the archives of the old forum. I remember explaining the surplus system as used in Northern Ireland during a thread on the Republic's election and several replies including from Lib Dem posters said they just gone off STV. Trade unions may have implemented it but how many have detailed discussions about how the systems convert votes into seats and why the outcomes don't always match the hype? |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,729
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jun 10, 2020 13:58:12 GMT
It takes a lot to make STV look simple but this might have done it. Simple enough for many trades unions to use. And Scottish councils, NI councils and the NI Assembly. And the Dáil Éirann (I'm guessing councils over there too, but we don't hear much about those). And many private organisations use it for internal elections (not just the Lib Dems, in my experience). |
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Jun 10, 2020 15:12:53 GMT
It takes a lot to make STV look simple but this might have done it. Simple enough for many trades unions to use. One of the points made in the report was that there is little or no correlation between how well people understand how their national system works and how well they trust it to represent them well. |
|
|
|
Post by IceAgeComing on Jun 10, 2020 16:20:24 GMT
The thing with STV is that while the process of counting can be confusing (the version used in Scotland is actually the last complicated even with all of the fractional votes; the ones that take surplus votes only from certain places are not only worse versions but also more complicated - the worst of all worlds) I think people can understand its general idea: you rank candidates in order of preference and, by factoring in people's secondary preferences the top x people are elected to ensure a diverse group of people is elected.
That's the thing with the best electoral systems: they aren't necessarily the most proportional or the fairest or whatever but they do a good enough job while also being easy to understand in a basic level. The average person doesn't get D'Hondt or Largest Remainder or whatever but the theory behind List PR (you count all of the votes, and parties get the same share of representatives as they do share of the vote) is fundamentally a simple thing to explain. The average person doesn't need to know how MMP or AMS calculates the number of seats: the idea that you vote for a constituency MP you want representing you plus the party you want to have the most seats ideally in parliament; and that the latter vote works as a balance to the former is easy to explain and I think widely understood in Scotland even if people could not tell you how the List MSPs are elected. AV in a vacuum is very easy to explain: everyone ranks candidates in order of preference and if no one has 50% of the vote you eliminate the lowest candidates and look at their next preferences until someone gets over 50%.
What AV+ does is complicate things: while AMS and AV are simple in themselves adding the two together complicates things - why do people need to number on one paper and not on the other would be the main one: why you'd need to change both is the other. And frankly in a mixed member proportional system not having AV in the constituencies should not really matter: the top up list seats will compensate for any constituency losses so the value of preferential voting is less than it would be under FPTP.
I get why the Mayor and the GLA are elected the way they are and while it isn't perfect I can't think of a different solution - I think that FPTP would be a bad way of directly electing a person as powerful as the Mayor in a country with a multi-party system, and transitioning the Assembly to FPTP (or SV, in a hell world) would just create a Labour majority for the foreseeable and deny everyone else fair representation. Ideally you'd put SV in the bin (where is deserves to be; its an awful system) and move towards AV or a two-round system for the Mayors election but the former gives you the numbers/crosses mix problem and the latter would guarantee that one of the rounds would have a comically low turnout. Tricky issue to deal with, really.
|
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Jun 10, 2020 17:28:22 GMT
The thing with STV is that while the process of counting can be confusing (the version used in Scotland is actually the last complicated even with all of the fractional votes; the ones that take surplus votes only from certain places are not only worse versions but also more complicated - the worst of all worlds) I think people can understand its general idea: you rank candidates in order of preference and, by factoring in people's secondary preferences the top x people are elected to ensure a diverse group of people is elected. That's the thing with the best electoral systems: they aren't necessarily the most proportional or the fairest or whatever but they do a good enough job while also being easy to understand in a basic level. The average person doesn't get D'Hondt or Largest Remainder or whatever but the theory behind List PR (you count all of the votes, and parties get the same share of representatives as they do share of the vote) is fundamentally a simple thing to explain. The average person doesn't need to know how MMP or AMS calculates the number of seats: the idea that you vote for a constituency MP you want representing you plus the party you want to have the most seats ideally in parliament; and that the latter vote works as a balance to the former is easy to explain and I think widely understood in Scotland even if people could not tell you how the List MSPs are elected. AV in a vacuum is very easy to explain: everyone ranks candidates in order of preference and if no one has 50% of the vote you eliminate the lowest candidates and look at their next preferences until someone gets over 50%. What AV+ does is complicate things: while AMS and AV are simple in themselves adding the two together complicates things - why do people need to number on one paper and not on the other would be the main one: why you'd need to change both is the other. And frankly in a mixed member proportional system not having AV in the constituencies should not really matter: the top up list seats will compensate for any constituency losses so the value of preferential voting is less than it would be under FPTP. I get why the Mayor and the GLA are elected the way they are and while it isn't perfect I can't think of a different solution - I think that FPTP would be a bad way of directly electing a person as powerful as the Mayor in a country with a multi-party system, and transitioning the Assembly to FPTP (or SV, in a hell world) would just create a Labour majority for the foreseeable and deny everyone else fair representation. Ideally you'd put SV in the bin (where is deserves to be; its an awful system) and move towards AV or a two-round system for the Mayors election but the former gives you the numbers/crosses mix problem and the latter would guarantee that one of the rounds would have a comically low turnout. Tricky issue to deal with, really. Is there any evidence that requiring ranking on one ballot and a single vote on a different one does cause significant problems? (Genuine question.) |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jun 10, 2020 17:44:57 GMT
I get why the Mayor and the GLA are elected the way they are and while it isn't perfect I can't think of a different solution - I think that FPTP would be a bad way of directly electing a person as powerful as the Mayor in a country with a multi-party system, and transitioning the Assembly to FPTP (or SV, in a hell world) would just create a Labour majority for the foreseeable and deny everyone else fair representation. Ideally you'd put SV in the bin (where is deserves to be; its an awful system) and move towards AV or a two-round system for the Mayors election but the former gives you the numbers/crosses mix problem and the latter would guarantee that one of the rounds would have a comically low turnout. Tricky issue to deal with, really. One thing you could do is get rid of the separate vote for the list and use the constituency results instead - IIRC this was the system recommended by the Hansard Society back in the 1970s though I forget where it's used. This would cut down on confusion, remove the distortions of split ticket voting and the potential for mischief and also require parties to stand in pretty much every constituency to have a chance (IIRC in 2008 the BNP only stood in City & East) which would be a reasonable deterrent against the fringes. |
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Jun 10, 2020 18:00:54 GMT
I get why the Mayor and the GLA are elected the way they are and while it isn't perfect I can't think of a different solution - I think that FPTP would be a bad way of directly electing a person as powerful as the Mayor in a country with a multi-party system, and transitioning the Assembly to FPTP (or SV, in a hell world) would just create a Labour majority for the foreseeable and deny everyone else fair representation. Ideally you'd put SV in the bin (where is deserves to be; its an awful system) and move towards AV or a two-round system for the Mayors election but the former gives you the numbers/crosses mix problem and the latter would guarantee that one of the rounds would have a comically low turnout. Tricky issue to deal with, really. One thing you could do is get rid of the separate vote for the list and use the constituency results instead - IIRC this was the system recommended by the Hansard Society back in the 1970s though I forget where it's used. This would cut down on confusion, remove the distortions of split ticket voting and the potential for mischief and also require parties to stand in pretty much every constituency to have a chance (IIRC in 2008 the BNP only stood in City & East) which would be a reasonable deterrent against the fringes. If done with FPTP constituency results, this further entrenches the disproportionate nature of the results. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jun 10, 2020 18:25:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 10, 2020 18:29:13 GMT
One thing you could do is get rid of the separate vote for the list and use the constituency results instead - IIRC this was the system recommended by the Hansard Society back in the 1970s though I forget where it's used. This would cut down on confusion, remove the distortions of split ticket voting and the potential for mischief and also require parties to stand in pretty much every constituency to have a chance (IIRC in 2008 the BNP only stood in City & East) which would be a reasonable deterrent against the fringes. If done with FPTP constituency results, this further entrenches the disproportionate nature of the results. Only if people voted tactically for the constituency results but there would be no need to because they can vote for the party they support knowing that even if they don't win the seat their vote will count towards seats on the list |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 10, 2020 18:29:40 GMT
Blair himself might have done. But he knew his party wouldn't wear it. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jun 10, 2020 18:43:58 GMT
Blair himself might have done. But he knew his party wouldn't wear it. He wasn't daft. No chance of AV+ but if Jenkins had recommended AV... |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jun 10, 2020 18:47:48 GMT
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,447
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Jun 10, 2020 19:08:12 GMT
The comment made me laugh and I'd have ticked 'like' on your post AJS but I couldn't because I didn't want to appear to be a liking a comment from Jenkins! I wonder if AV+ would have made the whingers, whiners and w*****s at Charter 88 happy. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jun 10, 2020 19:22:15 GMT
Scanned from my old copy:-   |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jun 10, 2020 20:14:18 GMT
Interesting that that piece says "The government is committed to a referendum, although not necessarily in this parliament". So even in October 1998 it wasn't taken for certain that one would happen before the 2001 election.
The 1997 Labour manifesto said: "We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system." which is not as strong as "We will hold a referendum on the voting system in the new parliament pitching first past the post against an alternative recommended by a commission".
And that wasn't the only bit mentioning referendums that didn't happen in the first term:
"Demand for directly elected regional government so varies across England that it would be wrong to impose a uniform system. In time we will introduce legislation to allow the people, region by region, to decide in a referendum whether they want directly elected regional government. Only where clear popular consent is established will arrangements be made for elected regional assemblies."
I don't remember anyone getting upset that 1999 and 2000 did not feature regional devolution votes.
It seems in 1998 it was recognised that a referendum on the voting system wasn't necessarily going to happen in that parliament despite later protests by the Lib Dems.
Incidentally the Lib Dem manifesto didn't make a cast iron pledge either. It said:
"We will make greater use of national referendums for constitutional issues, for example, changing the voting system or any further transfer of power to European institutions. We will enable referendums to be held on specific local issues where there is public demand." Oddly this contradicted a section on constitutional change: "We will introduce proportional representation for all elections, to put more power in the hands of voters and make government more representative" with no mention of a referendum.
|
|
|
|
Post by IceAgeComing on Jun 10, 2020 20:28:25 GMT
The thing with STV is that while the process of counting can be confusing (the version used in Scotland is actually the last complicated even with all of the fractional votes; the ones that take surplus votes only from certain places are not only worse versions but also more complicated - the worst of all worlds) I think people can understand its general idea: you rank candidates in order of preference and, by factoring in people's secondary preferences the top x people are elected to ensure a diverse group of people is elected. That's the thing with the best electoral systems: they aren't necessarily the most proportional or the fairest or whatever but they do a good enough job while also being easy to understand in a basic level. The average person doesn't get D'Hondt or Largest Remainder or whatever but the theory behind List PR (you count all of the votes, and parties get the same share of representatives as they do share of the vote) is fundamentally a simple thing to explain. The average person doesn't need to know how MMP or AMS calculates the number of seats: the idea that you vote for a constituency MP you want representing you plus the party you want to have the most seats ideally in parliament; and that the latter vote works as a balance to the former is easy to explain and I think widely understood in Scotland even if people could not tell you how the List MSPs are elected. AV in a vacuum is very easy to explain: everyone ranks candidates in order of preference and if no one has 50% of the vote you eliminate the lowest candidates and look at their next preferences until someone gets over 50%. What AV+ does is complicate things: while AMS and AV are simple in themselves adding the two together complicates things - why do people need to number on one paper and not on the other would be the main one: why you'd need to change both is the other. And frankly in a mixed member proportional system not having AV in the constituencies should not really matter: the top up list seats will compensate for any constituency losses so the value of preferential voting is less than it would be under FPTP. I get why the Mayor and the GLA are elected the way they are and while it isn't perfect I can't think of a different solution - I think that FPTP would be a bad way of directly electing a person as powerful as the Mayor in a country with a multi-party system, and transitioning the Assembly to FPTP (or SV, in a hell world) would just create a Labour majority for the foreseeable and deny everyone else fair representation. Ideally you'd put SV in the bin (where is deserves to be; its an awful system) and move towards AV or a two-round system for the Mayors election but the former gives you the numbers/crosses mix problem and the latter would guarantee that one of the rounds would have a comically low turnout. Tricky issue to deal with, really. Is there any evidence that requiring ranking on one ballot and a single vote on a different one does cause significant problems? (Genuine question.) You can point to the Scottish Elections in 2007 where there was a significantly above average number of spoiled ballots in all three elections and part of that was confusion regarding the voting system. Admittedly a lot of that was I think the one-paper AMS thing causing people to vote twice in one column and not in the other, or to vote twice on the local election paper as well or something; but its a sign that voters are easy to confuse. I get why the Mayor and the GLA are elected the way they are and while it isn't perfect I can't think of a different solution - I think that FPTP would be a bad way of directly electing a person as powerful as the Mayor in a country with a multi-party system, and transitioning the Assembly to FPTP (or SV, in a hell world) would just create a Labour majority for the foreseeable and deny everyone else fair representation. Ideally you'd put SV in the bin (where is deserves to be; its an awful system) and move towards AV or a two-round system for the Mayors election but the former gives you the numbers/crosses mix problem and the latter would guarantee that one of the rounds would have a comically low turnout. Tricky issue to deal with, really. One thing you could do is get rid of the separate vote for the list and use the constituency results instead - IIRC this was the system recommended by the Hansard Society back in the 1970s though I forget where it's used. This would cut down on confusion, remove the distortions of split ticket voting and the potential for mischief and also require parties to stand in pretty much every constituency to have a chance (IIRC in 2008 the BNP only stood in City & East) which would be a reasonable deterrent against the fringes. The issue I'd have with this is that people might have an entirely valid reason to vote for different parties in both ballots - say they support a small party but want to have a stronger say in who their local member is, or they don't like their local member but want to vote for their party. There's also the issue that some parties stand only on the list and not in constituencies and how do you account for that; how do you design your ballot paper to make it clear that your vote for a named candidate isn't just a vote for them but for everyone in their party; how do you account for Independents running in constituencies - do voters for Independent candidates just throw away their list vote? - and probably other reasons why I think that would be a significantly worse way of doing things. |
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Jun 11, 2020 9:14:39 GMT
Blair himself might have done. But he knew his party wouldn't wear it. He wasn't daft. No chance of AV+ but if Jenkins had recommended AV... Then nobody would have been happy, just as nobody wanted it in 2011. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jun 11, 2020 9:25:08 GMT
He wasn't daft. No chance of AV+ but if Jenkins had recommended AV... Then nobody would have been happy, just as nobody wanted it in 2011. I may be mistaken but recall that Jack Straw was 'sold' upon AV plus a few more Labour bigwigs. A 1999 referendum on AV may have produced a different result than 2011. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jun 11, 2020 10:28:20 GMT
He wasn't daft. No chance of AV+ but if Jenkins had recommended AV... Then nobody would have been happy, just as nobody wanted it in 2011. Cough. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 11, 2020 10:30:00 GMT
Then nobody would have been happy, just as nobody wanted it in 2011. I may be mistaken but recall that Jack Straw was 'sold' upon AV plus a few more Labour bigwigs. A 1999 referendum on AV may have produced a different result than 2011. Yes, the inescapable fact is that in 2011 Clegg (not least due to his previous dismissal of the proposal) toxified AV for many. |
|
