john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,780 
|
Post by john07 on Apr 16, 2021 22:37:19 GMT
How can you have STV to select a single candidate? That would be AV. Technical difference only relating to the number of candidates elected. I don't think that Scottish council by-elections bother to split hairs over it. It's a preference system, whatever you call it. The word is ‘Single’ transferable vote. If there was only one position to fill this would be meaningless. STV is a preferential system to give some element of proportionality. This implies that there are a number of positions to fill and that a certain quota to be elected. It cannot operate to fill a single vacancy. AV may look like STV in terms of the voting but it is very different. I am amazed that a Liberal Democrat confuses two very different preferential systems like this. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Apr 17, 2021 1:07:37 GMT
Don't you have STV in your selections? I thought you did. How can you have STV to select a single candidate? That would be AV. Depends how many candidates you're whittling down at how many stages in order to get to the final selection. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Apr 18, 2021 8:38:27 GMT
Technical difference only relating to the number of candidates elected. I don't think that Scottish council by-elections bother to split hairs over it. It's a preference system, whatever you call it. The word is ‘Single’ transferable vote. If there was only one position to fill this would be meaningless. STV is a preferential system to give some element of proportionality. This implies that there are a number of positions to fill and that a certain quota to be elected. It cannot operate to fill a single vacancy. AV may look like STV in terms of the voting but it is very different. I am amazed that a Liberal Democrat confuses two very different preferential systems like this. You are being unnecessarily contrafibularitative. AV is, by definition, the form in which STV manifests itself if there is only one vacancy. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Apr 18, 2021 8:41:13 GMT
The word is ‘Single’ transferable vote. If there was only one position to fill this would be meaningless. STV is a preferential system to give some element of proportionality. This implies that there are a number of positions to fill and that a certain quota to be elected. It cannot operate to fill a single vacancy. AV may look like STV in terms of the voting but it is very different. I am amazed that a Liberal Democrat confuses two very different preferential systems like this. You are being unnecessarily contrafibularitative. AV is, by definition, the form in which STV manifests itself if there is only one vacancy. or to put it another way, you are all actually correct. Just in different ways. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 18, 2021 15:11:11 GMT
You are being unnecessarily contrafibularitative. AV is, by definition, the form in which STV manifests itself if there is only one vacancy. or to put it another way, you are all actually correct. Just in different ways. in that a system of only AV constituencies is functionally as different a beast to a system of 4 and 5 member STV constituencies as a fptp system is to an ordinary pr-based system with small 4 and 5 member constituencies. You'd be more used to the thought that AV is to fptp as STV is to (impure) pr, but it's true both mathematically/logically and "really" this way round too. (Gotta remember that for future online debates with idiots: "the Fptp you now have is a form of pr system already!") But the original point was about an occasional single-seat election in an stv system, not about a system switch, and that absolutely can be a feature of stv systems - just as a fptp election for the Val d'Aosta seat can be a feature of an Italian pr election. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,780
|
Post by john07 on Apr 18, 2021 15:33:15 GMT
Nobody in their right mind can confuse single member AV votes with multi-member STV. With the possible exception of Nick Clegg who was suckered into accepting the AV referendum when joining the coalition?
The confusion is where AV is used to fill a casual vacancy in an STV multi-member ward. It is an unsatisfactory arrangement. There was a case in Edinburgh City Council back in the day when Labour took 2 seats in a division (Leith Walk?). I think that the SNP councillor resigned and Labour won the seat in an AV election. Labour ended up with three seats out of four with something like 40% of the vote.
How do they deal with casual vacancies in Northern Ireland? By co-option?
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 18, 2021 15:54:53 GMT
Nobody in their right mind can confuse single member AV votes with multi-member STV. With the possible exception of Nick Clegg who was suckered into accepting the AV referendum when joining the coalition? The confusion is where AV is used to fill a casual vacancy in an STV multi-member ward. It is an unsatisfactory arrangement. There was a case in Edinburgh City Council back in the day when Labour took 2 seats in a division (Leith Walk?). I think that the SNP councillor resigned and Labour won the seat in an AV election. Labour ended up with three seats out of four with something like 40% of the vote. How do they deal with casual vacancies in Northern Ireland? By co-option? yes, because of the sectarian implications of by-elections for a minority-held seat. They have by-elections in the Republic. But you could in theory very easily have a regular single member, hence "AV", seat in an STV system if you had a sufficiently isolated area or were using local gov't districts as the constituencies without any problem or contradiction at all. Obviously in the post that started this debate, AV was what was meant. Calling it STV was merely *not technically* wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Apr 18, 2021 15:57:21 GMT
Nobody in their right mind can confuse single member AV votes with multi-member STV. With the possible exception of Nick Clegg who was suckered into accepting the AV referendum when joining the coalition? The confusion is where AV is used to fill a casual vacancy in an STV multi-member ward. It is an unsatisfactory arrangement. There was a case in Edinburgh City Council back in the day when Labour took 2 seats in a division (Leith Walk?). I think that the SNP councillor resigned and Labour won the seat in an AV election. Labour ended up with three seats out of four with something like 40% of the vote. How do they deal with casual vacancies in Northern Ireland? By co-option? yes, because of the sectarian implications of by-elections for a minority-held seat. They have by-elections in the Republic. But you could in theory very easily have a regular single member, hence "AV", seat in an STV system if you had a sufficiently isolated area or were using local gov't districts as the constituencies without any problem or contradiction at all. Obviously in the post that started this debate, AV was what was meant. Calling it STV was merely *not technically* wrong. Only for the Dail, not for local councils in Eire. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 18, 2021 16:35:53 GMT
Only for the Dail, not for local councils in Eire. Not the name of the country. You were writing in the English language so its name is Ireland. |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,730
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Apr 18, 2021 17:26:50 GMT
Nobody in their right mind can confuse single member AV votes with multi-member STV. With the possible exception of Nick Clegg who was suckered into accepting the AV referendum when joining the coalition? The confusion is where AV is used to fill a casual vacancy in an STV multi-member ward. It is an unsatisfactory arrangement. There was a case in Edinburgh City Council back in the day when Labour took 2 seats in a division (Leith Walk?). I think that the SNP councillor resigned and Labour won the seat in an AV election. Labour ended up with three seats out of four with something like 40% of the vote. How do they deal with casual vacancies in Northern Ireland? By co-option? yes, because of the sectarian implications of by-elections for a minority-held seat. They have by-elections in the Republic. But you could in theory very easily have a regular single member, hence "AV", seat in an STV system if you had a sufficiently isolated area or were using local gov't districts as the constituencies without any problem or contradiction at all. Obviously in the post that started this debate, AV was what was meant. Calling it STV was merely *not technically* wrong. In Norn Iron councillors nominate a list of replacements (usually the next person in their party's list) should they vacate the seat for any reason. However these replacements are not obliged to step up when that happens, plus independents may not have a viable replacement. So by-elections can occasionally happen, as andrewteale can attest. |
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Apr 18, 2021 17:42:55 GMT
Only for the Dail, not for local councils in Eire. Not the name of the country. You were writing in the English language so its name is Ireland. And the President of Ireland is elected by the Single Transferable Vote. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 18, 2021 17:43:41 GMT
Only for the Dail, not for local councils in Eire. Not the name of the country. You were writing in the English language so its name is Ireland. never can remember whether RoI is "Republic of Ireland" or "Rest of Ireland". |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Apr 18, 2021 17:54:28 GMT
yes, because of the sectarian implications of by-elections for a minority-held seat. They have by-elections in the Republic. But you could in theory very easily have a regular single member, hence "AV", seat in an STV system if you had a sufficiently isolated area or were using local gov't districts as the constituencies without any problem or contradiction at all. Obviously in the post that started this debate, AV was what was meant. Calling it STV was merely *not technically* wrong. In Norn Iron councillors nominate a list of replacements (usually the next person in their party's list) should they vacate the seat for any reason. However these replacements are not obliged to step up when that happens, plus independents may not have a viable replacement. So by-elections can occasionally happen, as andrewteale can attest. That only applies to councillors elected as independents. For councillors elected on a party ticket, that party is asked to nominate a replacement. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Apr 18, 2021 20:37:31 GMT
Nobody in their right mind can confuse single member AV votes with multi-member STV. With the possible exception of Nick Clegg who was suckered into accepting the AV referendum when joining the coalition? The confusion is where AV is used to fill a casual vacancy in an STV multi-member ward. It is an unsatisfactory arrangement. There was a case in Edinburgh City Council back in the day when Labour took 2 seats in a division (Leith Walk?). I think that the SNP councillor resigned and Labour won the seat in an AV election. Labour ended up with three seats out of four with something like 40% of the vote. How do they deal with casual vacancies in Northern Ireland? By co-option? yes, because of the sectarian implications of by-elections for a minority-held seat. They have by-elections in the Republic. But you could in theory very easily have a regular single member, hence "AV", seat in an STV system if you had a sufficiently isolated area or were using local gov't districts as the constituencies without any problem or contradiction at all. Obviously in the post that started this debate, AV was what was meant. Calling it STV was merely *not technically* wrong. That would be an excellent gerrymander: single-member in rural areas, multi-member PR of some sort in urban ones. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 18, 2021 20:47:37 GMT
yes, because of the sectarian implications of by-elections for a minority-held seat. They have by-elections in the Republic. But you could in theory very easily have a regular single member, hence "AV", seat in an STV system if you had a sufficiently isolated area or were using local gov't districts as the constituencies without any problem or contradiction at all. Obviously in the post that started this debate, AV was what was meant. Calling it STV was merely *not technically* wrong. That would be an excellent gerrymander: single-member in rural areas, multi-member PR of some sort in urban ones. potentially yes, depending on the number of such single seat constituencies. But there are plenty of proportional systems that make do with very differently sized constituencies and thus effectively different thresholds and no one bats an eyelid even though certain types of results may throw up a systemic advantage for one party (eg Spain where PP tends to need a smaller vote lead than PSOE for a clear seat lead, for exactly similar reasons. There are only two single seat constituencies - Ceuta and Melilla - but there's three to five member constituencies in rural areas vs much larger constituencies in urban areas. But the distortion is limited and really only shows up at certain specific points in the vote distribution.) |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Apr 19, 2021 7:03:37 GMT
yes, because of the sectarian implications of by-elections for a minority-held seat. They have by-elections in the Republic. But you could in theory very easily have a regular single member, hence "AV", seat in an STV system if you had a sufficiently isolated area or were using local gov't districts as the constituencies without any problem or contradiction at all. Obviously in the post that started this debate, AV was what was meant. Calling it STV was merely *not technically* wrong. That would be an excellent gerrymander: single-member in rural areas, multi-member PR of some sort in urban ones. I seem to remember there was a Tory proposal for electoral reform in the 1920s along those lines. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Apr 19, 2021 7:16:27 GMT
That would be an excellent gerrymander: single-member in rural areas, multi-member PR of some sort in urban ones. I seem to remember there was a Tory proposal for electoral reform in the 1920s along those lines. It's been suggested a few times. A brief mention in the Jenkins' report. Mooted by AP Herbert (and the Libs?) in the 50s. It's a non-starter because a blatant magnitude gerrymander. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Apr 19, 2021 9:40:33 GMT
I seem to remember there was a Tory proposal for electoral reform in the 1920s along those lines. It's been suggested a few times. A brief mention in the Jenkins' report. Mooted by AP Herbert (and the Libs?) in the 50s. It's a non-starter because a blatant magnitude gerrymander. To be fair, the third-party perspective is a reasonable, albeit self-interested one – it shouldn't be restricted to the Lib Dems: I'd imagine the Green Party would heartily enjoy a 4-member Bristol. I'm surprised this didn't come up in the 2010 coalition negotiations, as it would have been much better for the Lib Dems than AV. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,780
|
Post by john07 on Apr 19, 2021 9:40:43 GMT
I seem to remember there was a Tory proposal for electoral reform in the 1920s along those lines. It's been suggested a few times. A brief mention in the Jenkins' report. Mooted by AP Herbert (and the Libs?) in the 50s. It's a non-starter because a blatant magnitude gerrymander. The justification given was that multi-member constituencies for rural areas would be too large. Hence single member constituencies for rural areas elected by AV and multi-member constituencies for urban areas using STV. So the minority urban parties get elected but the minority rural parties do not. Much easier than gerrymandering or malapportionment. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Apr 19, 2021 9:46:45 GMT
It's been suggested a few times. A brief mention in the Jenkins' report. Mooted by AP Herbert (and the Libs?) in the 50s. It's a non-starter because a blatant magnitude gerrymander. To be fair, the third-party perspective is a reasonable, albeit self-interested one – it shouldn't be restricted to the Lib Dems: I'd imagine the Green Party would heartily enjoy a 4-member Bristol. I'm surprised this didn't come up in the 2010 coalition negotiations, as it would have been much better for the Lib Dems than AV. Some Libs are (privately) lukewarm about STV in multi-member constituencies. David Steel has written that he would not have favoured such a scheme especially for the Scottish Borders. Think that Jeremy Thorpe had similar views. |
|
