|
|
Post by yellowperil on Aug 20, 2021 16:26:44 GMT
Like you I care very little about the result of an election for a role I would prefer not to exist, but your post does indicate an interesting and somewhat different attitude to the maps. It really does seem you care for the maps as a matter of sheer aesthetics. I care about them for the information they give and the interest they arouse regardless of any aesthetics. Your map in this case is aesthetically pleasing, but rather "dull" just because of a lack of variation, or of complexity in the pattern. I prefer the "messy" ones because there is more to learn in the variation they display. Personally, on the substance of PCCs (who do after all have an influence on people's lives) rather than on aesthetics of maps, I think there is a case for Party candidates and campaigning being excluded. The police should be apolitical and detached from Party pressures as far as possible imo. However if they are rolled in with Mayors as in West Yorks, that is different. Here I would say the Mayor should have to pick a Commissioner of no Party or a different Party.. Actually I think that's quite a dangerous route to go down. If you say no party labels, there will still be hidden party attachments rather than open ones, and there may be a bit of that now with so-called independents, some of whom are more independent than others. I think the only real answer is to get rid of the whole sorry charade. |
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,580 
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Aug 20, 2021 16:34:06 GMT
But but, progressive alliance…. Those 15% don’t exist…. about a third of those would be Reform votes I guess so maybe 10% of Lib /Lab votes transferred to the Tory in preference to the Indy. Probably a lot of those didn't like the police being under the control of an ex-copper- I'd have reservations about that somewhat incestuous arrangement. The majority went to the other half of the Lib/Lab "alliance" and so were lost, or simply didn't transfer to anyone. Yes that Is, as has been discussed before, one of the issues in this system. If one is inclined to try and use the system, one is invited to guess who will be in the top two, which in itself is much more difficult with an Indy involved. Of course more voters simply vote for their 2nd favourite party without considering the likely path of the election. Having both presided and counted PCC votes, I think there is a tendency to underestimate the number of voters who dont vote for a second preference, I would say in the election I counted at least a third didn’t cast a 2nd preference. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2021 16:42:26 GMT
Might not be so clear - I suspect that a huge proportion of Labour first preferences will have a Lib Dem second preference and hence won't be counted. Similarly, I think a smaller but still significant proportion of Lib Dem first preferences will have a Labour second preference.
Of course, if the Lib Dems ran on "It's between us and the Tories", which they almost certainly did to some extent, then some Lib Dem voters will have deemed it unnecessary to give a 2nd preference at all.
This is why they should be AV not SV. But of course Patel is going to make them FPTP which is worst of all When Conservative candidates lose because FPTP denies them the democratic validity of preferential and proportional voting, maybe they will wake up to the truth about FpTP. |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Aug 20, 2021 20:23:11 GMT
The Conservatives probably won because 2nd place on 1st preferences wasn't obvious, hence who to transfer to wasn't obvious.
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Aug 20, 2021 21:26:23 GMT
I quickly make it: 32,796 first round votes for Labour, Liberal Democrat and Reform 5,188 (15.8%) to Conservative 9,618 (29.3%) Independent 17,990 (54.9%) not transferred (or whatever terminology) But but, progressive alliance…. Those 15% don’t exist…. They must all have voted Reform... Oh... |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Aug 20, 2021 21:28:54 GMT
But but, progressive alliance…. Those 15% don’t exist…. about a third of those would be Reform votes I guess so maybe 10% of Lib /Lab votes transferred to the Tory in preference to the Indy. Probably a lot of those didn't like the police being under the control of an ex-copper- I'd have reservations about that somewhat incestuous arrangement. The majority went to the other half of the Lib/Lab "alliance" and so were lost, or simply didn't transfer to anyone. Probably more justification for banning ex-rozzers from standing than people who managed in their misspent youth to get convicted of some trivial offence that did not involve moral turpitude. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 20, 2021 21:40:07 GMT
Might not be so clear - I suspect that a huge proportion of Labour first preferences will have a Lib Dem second preference and hence won't be counted. Similarly, I think a smaller but still significant proportion of Lib Dem first preferences will have a Labour second preference.
Of course, if the Lib Dems ran on "It's between us and the Tories", which they almost certainly did to some extent, then some Lib Dem voters will have deemed it unnecessary to give a 2nd preference at all.
This is why they should be AV not SV. But of course Patel is going to make them FPTP which is worst of all Let's alter the rules and then keep tweaking them until the LDs win however few actually want them. And if we can't pull that off gerrymander the system until at least the Conservatives are defeated, however complicated the system has to be to achieve it. Better still, let's have proper simple FPTP with the person getting the most votes winning. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 20, 2021 21:45:21 GMT
Like you I care very little about the result of an election for a role I would prefer not to exist, but your post does indicate an interesting and somewhat different attitude to the maps. It really does seem you care for the maps as a matter of sheer aesthetics. I care about them for the information they give and the interest they arouse regardless of any aesthetics. Your map in this case is aesthetically pleasing, but rather "dull" just because of a lack of variation, or of complexity in the pattern. I prefer the "messy" ones because there is more to learn in the variation they display. Personally, on the substance of PCCs (who do after all have an influence on people's lives) rather than on aesthetics of maps, I think there is a case for Party candidates and campaigning being excluded. The police should be apolitical and detached from Party pressures as far as possible imo. However if they are rolled in with Mayors as in West Yorks, that is different. Here I would say the Mayor should have to pick a Commissioner of no Party or a different Party.. No he either does not know because the candidate has never stated, or he chooses from his own party. If you want to change that win the bloody election! |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Aug 20, 2021 21:47:14 GMT
… Better still, let's have proper simple FPTP with the person getting the most votes winning. There are various good and bad arguments for and against FPTP and/or various other systems, but “the candidate who gets the most votes wins” is one of the silliest and weakest. “The candidate(s) who get(s) the most votes win(s)” is what happens in FPTP, SV, AV, STV, AMS, and list systems. |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Aug 20, 2021 22:00:39 GMT
It does look like a lot of transfers from Labour and Lib Dem must have gone to each other, which has got the Conservatives over the line. Stupid system. If you have a preference system it needs to allow people to make more than 2 choices. Would you add the Western Australian system of having to use all your preferences? |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Aug 20, 2021 22:25:18 GMT
Would you add the Western Australian system of having to use all your preferences? No, it would be an optional thing. Don't you have to use all your preferences at Australian federal elections as well? No, I’m pretty sure at the WA State election this year Antony Green, who would scrap the requirement, said there was only WA and NSW that still operated that form of the system; I think the difference was in Federal and other States you can vote above the line for the entire Party list, thereby using all your preferences, but he’s Tweeted way too many times since then for me to dig his grumbling out. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Aug 20, 2021 22:26:14 GMT
This is why they should be AV not SV. But of course Patel is going to make them FPTP which is worst of all Let's alter the rules and then keep tweaking them until the LDs win however few actually want them. And if we can't pull that off gerrymander the system until at least the Conservatives are defeated, however complicated the system has to be to achieve it. Better still, let's have proper simple FPTP with the person getting the most votes winning. Even better, get rid of these ridiculous posts which end up in the pocket of the chief constable and go back to the police authorities. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2021 0:36:27 GMT
This is why they should be AV not SV. But of course Patel is going to make them FPTP which is worst of all Let's alter the rules and then keep tweaking them until the LDs win however few actually want them. And if we can't pull that off gerrymander the system until at least the Conservatives are defeated, however complicated the system has to be to achieve it. Better still, let's have proper simple FPTP with the person getting the most votes winning. But FPTP is nothing of the sort. The "winner" can have only 25% of the vote in a 3-way marginal (with a couple of independents and the like thrown in)> The most popular is not always the winner. And you know that is true. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Aug 21, 2021 6:37:06 GMT
about a third of those would be Reform votes I guess so maybe 10% of Lib /Lab votes transferred to the Tory in preference to the Indy. Probably a lot of those didn't like the police being under the control of an ex-copper- I'd have reservations about that somewhat incestuous arrangement. The majority went to the other half of the Lib/Lab "alliance" and so were lost, or simply didn't transfer to anyone. Probably more justification for banning ex-rozzers from standing than people who managed in their misspent youth to get convicted of some trivial offence that did not involve moral turpitude. I agree with that sentiment if expressed in general terms, but hope you are not applying it to the particular case leading to this election. There is an argument that the case should have been subject to time limitations which would have applied in almost all other circumstances. Nevertheless dangerous driving while under the influence, plus failing to report the consequent accident, cannot be described as trivial nor as not involving moral turpitude. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Aug 21, 2021 6:56:07 GMT
Probably more justification for banning ex-rozzers from standing than people who managed in their misspent youth to get convicted of some trivial offence that did not involve moral turpitude. I agree with that sentiment if expressed in general terms, but hope you are not applying it to the particular case leading to this election. There is an argument that the case should have been subject to time limitations which would have applied in almost all other circumstances. Nevertheless dangerous driving while under the influence, plus failing to report the consequent accident, cannot be described as trivial nor as not involving moral turpitude. i understand no one was hurt in the accident in question, but don't know if a second car was involved and, if so, whether Seed could know they didn't need assistance. That he could have received jail under the law but not under the sentencing guidelines seems to indicate that there was no such issue and we're dealing only with property damage (and reckless endangerment of everybody else on the road, admittedly). That doesn't meet my standards of "moral turpitude". |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Aug 21, 2021 7:25:28 GMT
Let's alter the rules and then keep tweaking them until the LDs win however few actually want them. And if we can't pull that off gerrymander the system until at least the Conservatives are defeated, however complicated the system has to be to achieve it. Better still, let's have proper simple FPTP with the person getting the most votes winning. But FPTP is nothing of the sort. The "winner" can have only 25% of the vote in a 3-way marginal (with a couple of independents and the like thrown in)> The most popular is not always the winner. And you know that is true. I think you may believe that to carlton43, and many others (including me to an extent), that that's a problem? |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Aug 21, 2021 7:27:23 GMT
What is this stuff about moral turpitude? Have we wound the clock back to 1905?
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Aug 21, 2021 8:02:07 GMT
I agree with that sentiment if expressed in general terms, but hope you are not applying it to the particular case leading to this election. There is an argument that the case should have been subject to time limitations which would have applied in almost all other circumstances. Nevertheless dangerous driving while under the influence, plus failing to report the consequent accident, cannot be described as trivial nor as not involving moral turpitude. i understand no one was hurt in the accident in question, but don't know if a second car was involved and, if so, whether Seed could know they didn't need assistance. That he could have received jail under the law but not under the sentencing guidelines seems to indicate that there was no such issue and we're dealing only with property damage (and reckless endangerment of everybody else on the road, admittedly). That doesn't meet my standards of "moral turpitude". That misses a couple of obvious black marks for Mr Seed; that he drove away from the accident, therefore continued to drive whilst under the influence and unfit to drive. It would appear there was another vehicle involved as he was prosecuted for not exchanging details, therefore by not remaining on scene and exchanging details does suggest an attempt to avoid being found on scene, possibly to avoid being breathalysed, |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 21, 2021 8:11:12 GMT
Let's alter the rules and then keep tweaking them until the LDs win however few actually want them. And if we can't pull that off gerrymander the system until at least the Conservatives are defeated, however complicated the system has to be to achieve it. Better still, let's have proper simple FPTP with the person getting the most votes winning. But FPTP is nothing of the sort. The "winner" can have only 25% of the vote in a 3-way marginal (with a couple of independents and the like thrown in)> The most popular is not always the winner. And you know that is true. The winner is the candidate gaining one vote more than any other candidate and his proportion of the total poll doesn't matter one whit and 'we all know that to be true'! After all why worry if the winner 'wins' on only 27% of the poll when two thirds of the electorate did not vote at all? Why on your opinion would the 'most popular' not win? And why would that matter even if true? And I do not believe it to be true anyway. And I do not care at all if it is true. The winner is, and should always be, he whom achieves the most votes in a sole and simple poll. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 21, 2021 8:43:53 GMT
… Better still, let's have proper simple FPTP with the person getting the most votes winning. There are various good and bad arguments for and against FPTP and/or various other systems, but “the candidate who gets the most votes wins” is one of the silliest and weakest. “The candidate(s) who get(s) the most votes win(s)” is what happens in FPTP, SV, AV, STV, AMS, and list systems. Not at all. It is the only argument that makes any sense at all. The 'candidate who gets the most votes' can only apply to FPTP. All the other systems are elaborate designs to ensure that the candidate getting a simple majority after the count 'does not win'!! And we all know that to be the stark gerrymandering truth. Conservatives are and always have been best at gaining a simple majority in more seats than any other party can. Therefore all forms of voting other than the simple and obvious FPTP are suggested to defeat the Conservatives and to defeat fairness because other parties are tired of losing so often. There is no valid reason for any other voting system than FPTP, as in all races and competitions. We all KNOW this but none other than Conservatives can't stand the heat in a real kitchen. |
|
