Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,905
|
Post by Tony Otim on Apr 5, 2013 9:10:56 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. Possibly - although there are still sections of both the two main parties in Scotland who actively encourage voters not to express further preferences for reasons that utterly escape me. |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Apr 5, 2013 11:39:05 GMT
Never understood the logic of multimember FPTP wards. If it has to be FPTP why not split the ward into 3? In the mets some ward sizes would be tiny in terms of geographical area if they split them into single member wards. And some wards would look very odd. Greenbank in liverpool is probably the best example of a ward that would look daft if split into three. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Apr 5, 2013 13:43:55 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 Sorry you have to cover it in the 359 words not refer people to other documents. |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Apr 5, 2013 13:53:36 GMT
SNTV is obviously the way ahead then.
"In a ward with n members, each voter casts a single vote for their preferred candidate, and the n candidates with the most votes get elected."
26 words.
|
|
|
|
Post by erlend on Apr 5, 2013 13:59:01 GMT
Wasn't there a bizarre system in Birmingham in the 19th century whereit was a 3 seater and people had 2 votes? Or am I talking nonsense?
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 5, 2013 14:02:06 GMT
Wasn't there a bizarre system in Birmingham in the 19th century whereit was a 3 seater and people had 2 votes? Or am I talking nonsense? That was the rule with three-seat Parliamentary constituencies from 1868, as a deliberate policy to stop the largest party taking all the seats. |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Apr 5, 2013 14:19:40 GMT
Wasn't there a bizarre system in Birmingham in the 19th century whereit was a 3 seater and people had 2 votes? Or am I talking nonsense? That was the rule with three-seat Parliamentary constituencies from 1868, as a deliberate policy to stop the largest party taking all the seats. So it has been known for 145 years that multi-member FPTP is crap? |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Apr 5, 2013 16:25:46 GMT
The system was called the Limited Vote and it could throw up anomalies due to overnomination and bad balancing - I think there was one case where one party ran three candidates and had the most support but the other party took two seats. The Birmingham Liberals developed an efficient party machine largely because of the need to control their vote and ensure it was balanced between the candidates to take all three seats.
1885 saw a major move towards single member constituencies as the norm, as part of a deal over franchise reform.
|
|
|
|
Post by stepney on Apr 5, 2013 16:50:54 GMT
So it has been known for 145 years that multi-member FPTP is crap? Correction: it has been known for 145 years that Disraeli was a rather cynical politician. In this instance the cynicism involved mucking about with multi-member FPTP to sneak seats off the Liberals in the big cities. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2013 23:36:35 GMT
Never understood the logic of multimember FPTP wards. If it has to be FPTP why not split the ward into 3? In the mets some ward sizes would be tiny in terms of geographical area if they split them into single member wards. And some wards would look very odd. Greenbank in liverpool is probably the best example of a ward that would look daft if split into three. They would actually be more representative of the local area then. For example in the area I grew up in Centralish Newcastle, a 1 member ward covering the Jesmond Dene area would evolve over time I imagine to a Con-Lib marginal (maybe a lib safeish seat but with Con clear 2nd). Its too expensive in the most part for lefty public sector workers. As it stands its in with a load of students from central Jesmond and is a Lib-Lab marginal (in 2012). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2013 7:25:58 GMT
I would much rather spend time explaining STV than excusing FPTP.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Apr 6, 2013 13:11:32 GMT
I would much rather spend time explaining STV than excusing FPTP. Then why didn't you lot push for the referendum to be on that? I'm sure we could have still beaten you - the only differences being the official explanation for the alternate system being much longer and instead of a focus on Australia (give or take speculation about GVTs), one on Ireland with a collapse of government at a useful time, helpful images of the then-Irish government led by your sister party ("liberal democrats" is easier to explain than "Fianna Fáil") as seen by the papers ("Useless Gobshites"), and a starring role for the likes of Jackie Healy-Rae. |
|
Jim
Non-Aligned
Posts: 161 
|
Post by Jim on May 12, 2013 6:51:46 GMT
I've only just seen this poll, being new, but would have voted yes. I think many people vote for the party more than the candidate, and so a defection means the party being defected to then has a seat to which it wasn't elected.
|
|
|
|
Post by stepney on May 12, 2013 7:09:14 GMT
We've had this discussion. JohnLoony will be along presently to set you to rights.
|
|
Jim
Non-Aligned
Posts: 161
|
Post by Jim on May 12, 2013 7:34:37 GMT
I was just adding my own thoughts since I've only just joined and there are threads I find interesting  |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 12, 2013 13:38:33 GMT
New Zealand biely had the "Electoral Integrity Act" which aimed to ban list members from changing parties. It was passed in 2001 but expired in 2005.
It had the following effects:
* Alliance won 9 list seats and 1 constituency in 1999. In 2002 they fractured (over being in coalition with Labour) with three list members (and the constituency member) forming & fighting the next election as what became the Progressive Party, with another two supporting it but not standing down. However to circumvent the Act they did not formally resign from the Alliance in parliament despite organising against it (and one these numbers would have controlled the majority of the caucus). The farce ended when an early election was called.
* ACT List member Donna Awatere Huata was expelled fom her party in 2003 due to a fraud investigation. In 2004 the Supreme Court ruled she had lost her seat in Parliament and ACT regained the list seat. She was only convicted in 2005.
This would suggest that a party can force an MP out - Alliance either didn't push it or the early election rendered any court action irrelevant. Now one could pass a law to distinguish between MPs who resign and those who are expelled (and even word it to override internal rulings "that by their actions X has resigned from the party") but these cases suggest a rule becomes less a legally binding principle and more an obstacle to navigate.
The law didn't cover constituencies but New Zealand now has a mini-tradition of some new parties being created by defectors calling by-elections. Both the Māori and Mana parties began in this way, whilst Winston Peters's New Zealand First was formed after he left National and got re-elected as an independent (albeit without any serious opposition).
|
|
Jim
Non-Aligned
Posts: 161
|
Post by Jim on May 16, 2013 19:45:03 GMT
What would happen if all the members of a party sitting as government with an overall majority, defected to a different party - let's say some kind of fascist party?
Would that party then become the government of the country without being elected?
Yes, I know it's never going to happen...but in theory?
|
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on May 16, 2013 20:08:33 GMT
Never understood the logic of multimember FPTP wards. If it has to be FPTP why not split the ward into 3? In the mets some ward sizes would be tiny in terms of geographical area if they split them into single member wards. And some wards would look very odd. Greenbank in liverpool is probably the best example of a ward that would look daft if split into three. Doesn't Greenbank look odd anyway? Would it get any worse if it were split into three? In some small authorities with three member wards such as Burnley and Tamworth single member wards would be rather small, and I've looked at drawing up a plan for these in Burnley and it requires the splitting of natural communities to make wards small enough(though the present system creates combinations of communities which make no sense) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2013 20:11:47 GMT
What would happen if all the members of a party sitting as government with an overall majority, defected to a different party - let's say some kind of fascist party? Would that party then become the government of the country without being elected? Yes, I know it's never going to happen...but in theory? then under the rules they themselves would have to vote for an election or otherwise stuck with them. Same thing if a PM is changed through a term, nothing anyone can do about it despite the crying of some. |
|
|
|
Post by erlend on May 16, 2013 20:52:50 GMT
What would happen if all the members of a party sitting as government with an overall majority, defected to a different party - let's say some kind of fascist party? Would that party then become the government of the country without being elected? Yes, I know it's never going to happen...but in theory? Not quite an answer to your question Joe but in 1981 the SDP did take control of Islington Council by having a majority defect to them. |
|
