|
|
Post by johnloony on Apr 2, 2013 17:49:22 GMT
The first time I attended a count in a London Council all out election I was astonished how many votes weren't in neat party "packets of three" In the first local election in which I stood (1994), about 85% of the ballot papers had votes for all three candidates of the same party. In 2010 it was about 62%. My experience of the other "mixed" ballot papers is that a lot of people vote for 3 candidates, a lot of people vote for 1 candidate, but very few people vote for 2 candidates. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Apr 2, 2013 18:02:04 GMT
The first time I attended a count in a London Council all out election I was astonished how many votes weren't in neat party "packets of three" In the first local election in which I stood (1994), about 85% of the ballot papers had votes for all three candidates of the same party. In 2010 it was about 62%. My experience of the other "mixed" ballot papers is that a lot of people vote for 3 candidates, a lot of people vote for 1 candidate, but very few people vote for 2 candidates. Has there been a uniform decline at each election since 1994, or is that largely due to many voters who wouldn't otherwise vote in local elections turning up in 2010 because of the general election? |
|
|
|
Post by erlend on Apr 2, 2013 19:28:21 GMT
I think my first multi X election was the locals prior to the Barking byelection. I was surprised how many split their votes. But 2010 brought out shedloads.
|
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 911
|
Post by piperdave on Apr 2, 2013 20:09:31 GMT
You only have to look at some of the results from the Mets in 2004 when all seats were up to see some wards where candidates of three different parties were elected, despite each party putting up a full slate of candidates. Although some of my 'favourite' ballot papers were where the voter used two crosses, one next to the Green and the other next to the BNP. Local bees for local people!
|
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Apr 2, 2013 20:16:20 GMT
You only have to look at some of the results from the Mets in 2004 when all seats were up to see some wards where candidates of three different parties were elected, despite each party putting up a full slate of candidates. Although some of my 'favourite' ballot papers were where the voter used two crosses, one next to the Green and the other next to the BNP. Local bees for local people! When canvassing for the Baillieston ward by-election in Glasgow a few years back, I met a man who planned to vote Green 1st, BNP 2nd because he really wanted to legalise cannabis, but also really wanted rid of those foreign types. And indeed, there was one transfer from Green to BNP in that election.  |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Apr 3, 2013 0:48:15 GMT
Has there been a uniform decline at each election since 1994, or is that largely due to many voters who wouldn't otherwise vote in local elections turning up in 2010 because of the general election? I think there has been a general drift away from block-voting since 1994 (not specifically in 2010) but I think it is more to do with the increase in the variation and number of parties and candidates available. I quoted the figures of 85% for 1994 and 62% for 2010, but that is only because they are the two statistics I remember off-hand. To find the intervening years' statistics would require trawling through loads of archives of paper. |
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,901
|
Post by Tony Otim on Apr 3, 2013 10:32:27 GMT
there was one SSP transfer to Conservative in the Midstocket by election contested by Fraser. Had the Conservative been eliminated first, there would have been one transfer to SSP. Both the Conservative and SSP candidates served on the Community Council. SSP to Conservative transfers are not that unusual - I think I've come across them in almost every election I've looked at where both have stood. NOt many in number, but there's always one or two. |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Apr 3, 2013 17:05:28 GMT
When I was eliminated from the Coatbridge North and Glenboig 2009 by-election, my votes transferred: 16 to Labour 31 to SNP 39 to Independent McAnulty 7 to Conservative 0 to Independent Banford 33 non-transferable www.scottishelections.org.uk/scotland/lby/coatbridgenorthglenboig.phpKristofer Keane to Conservative transfers, that's way more ludicrous than SSP to Conservative. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,785 
|
Post by john07 on Apr 3, 2013 21:24:46 GMT
My first experience of a multi-member ward election was in 1980 in Coventry where there were new boundaries in place. Cheylesmore was the tightest ward that year. I think all other wards delivered straight party tickets.
There were a lot of papers with three votes for the same party. There were also a (much smaller) number with a single vote which probably indicated that the voter didn't realize that they had three votes). There were some with two votes (generally on a party ticket). Then there were quite a number of the ballot papers with three votes and split tickets. I assume that people knew what they were doing.
Two of the three incumbent Tory councillors had fled to Wainbody. The other wasn't selected for Wainbody and stayed with Cheylesmore. He had enough voter identification to top the poll well ahead of his two running mates. There was less of gap between the three Labour candidates who were all well clear of the other two Conservatives.
The three Labour candidates came in reverse alphabetical order. I lived in the ward (or rather was moved into the ward from Earlsdon when the new boundaries came in) so that probably added a few votes against the 'carpet baggers' from Earlsdon. I also knocked on far more doors and introduced myself to the electorate far more than the other two who, to be honest, hadn't a clue how to campaign.
It ended up 2 Labour 1 Tory, which is exactly what I predicted when I saw the piles of ballot papers on the table prior to counting.
I assume those in London get used to this but it was disconcerting.
We had much the same thing in 1981 with the West Midlands County Council elections. For some reason Coventry was never divided into county divisions and they were elected using three per constituency. I can't recall the results.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2013 22:44:05 GMT
Never understood the logic of multimember FPTP wards. If it has to be FPTP why not split the ward into 3?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2013 4:54:01 GMT
I can tell you're thinking from a small "c" conservative viewpoint. The logic of multimember wards can only be resolved by STV. And we've got Scotland proving it works.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Apr 4, 2013 13:02:14 GMT
STV's too complicated a system to explain though. You may remember my attempt to explain how the surplus works on the old forum.
(For those who say it isn't, try explaining it in 359 words or less without leaving anything out such as surpluses, surpluses when there are fewer papers with preferences than the total value of votes, left over "wasted" votes, casual vacancy replacement mechanisms and the potential for disproportionality, and how people can get elected with next to no first preferences at all.)
It may have been imposed by political dictat in some parts of the country but do you see the people elsewhere rushing to demand it?
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Apr 4, 2013 13:09:35 GMT
Kristofer Keane to Conservative transfers, that's way more ludicrous than SSP to Conservative. We'll remind you of that when you come over to the blue side. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Apr 4, 2013 13:21:28 GMT
When I was eliminated from the Coatbridge North and Glenboig 2009 by-election, my votes transferred: 16 to Labour 31 to SNP 39 to Independent McAnulty 7 to Conservative 0 to Independent Banford 33 non-transferable It is unusual there were 39 transfers to one independent, but none at all to the other independent. Was there a particular reason why your supporters would not have liked Mr Banford? |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Apr 4, 2013 17:43:18 GMT
When I was eliminated from the Coatbridge North and Glenboig 2009 by-election, my votes transferred: 16 to Labour 31 to SNP 39 to Independent McAnulty 7 to Conservative 0 to Independent Banford 33 non-transferable It is unusual there were 39 transfers to one independent, but none at all to the other independent. Was there a particular reason why your supporters would not have liked Mr Banford? McAnulty was a former parliamentary candidate for Coatbridge on a Save Monklands Hospital ticket, and was standing in the local by-election based on her reputation on that issue, and on another issue of preventing the relocation of a local school. Banford was standing in opposition to a planned railfreight depot that was to be built in the northern rural part of the ward. I guess voters who oppose a rail project are unlikely to be Green-leaning. His vote was probably also very focused on the northern rural area, whilst almost all of my campaigning had been in Coatbridge itself (apart from a short visit to Glenboig one afternoon). Incidentally, McAnulty is now a councillor for this ward, having been elected as an SNP candidate in 2012. |
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,901
|
Post by Tony Otim on Apr 4, 2013 19:29:30 GMT
STV's too complicated a system to explain though. You may remember my attempt to explain how the surplus works on the old forum. (For those who say it isn't, try explaining it in 359 words or less without leaving anything out such as surpluses, surpluses when there are fewer papers with preferences than the total value of votes, left over "wasted" votes, casual vacancy replacement mechanisms and the potential for disproportionality, and how people can get elected with next to no first preferences at all.) It may have been imposed by political dictat in some parts of the country but do you see the people elsewhere rushing to demand it? May I suggest from experience in Scotland something that may border on heresy for members of this site - the vast majority of voters are really not all that bothered about understanding the intricacies of how the voting works and aren't all that put of by it. They know how many councillors will be elected for their ward and how to vote (ranking as many as they wish to in order of preference) and cast their votes quite contentedly without ever troubling about surpluses and quotas. BTW, that also holds true for a fair few activists as well. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Apr 4, 2013 19:37:47 GMT
Did the Scottish local electorate get a say on whether or not they had STV? Or was it just imposed on them to satisfy the demands of the junior party in a coalition?
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by john07 on Apr 4, 2013 20:42:16 GMT
Did the Scottish local electorate get a say on whether or not they had STV? Or was it just imposed on them to satisfy the demands of the junior party in a coalition? I assumed that it was to ensure that the SNP had outright control of as few councils as possible? |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Apr 4, 2013 22:08:12 GMT
May I suggest from experience in Scotland something that may border on heresy for members of this site - the vast majority of voters are really not all that bothered about understanding the intricacies of how the voting works and aren't all that put of by it. They know how many councillors will be elected for their ward and how to vote (ranking as many as they wish to in order of preference) and cast their votes quite contentedly without ever troubling about surpluses and quotas. BTW, that also holds true for a fair few activists as well. We do see in a Scotland a large number of votes that do not transfer. While there will be some people who have made a conscious decision not to express any further preferences, I think there are a significant number of people who do not understand the system and just vote for one candidate. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Apr 5, 2013 1:28:25 GMT
(For those who say it isn't, try explaining it in 359 words or less without leaving anything out such as surpluses, surpluses when there are fewer papers with preferences than the total value of votes, left over "wasted" votes, casual vacancy replacement mechanisms and the potential for disproportionality, and how people can get elected with next to no first preferences at all.) Follow the rules for counting the votes in an STV election, according to the laws governing the election concerned, or according to the Newland-Britton rules (3rd edition), with necessary amendments for local circumstances, accordingly. #FewerThan359 |
|
