andrea
Non-Aligned
Posts: 7,056
|
Post by andrea on Jul 2, 2022 15:03:38 GMT
Welsh Labour delegates voted yes to Senedd reform proposal at a special conference this afternoon.
For 75.64% Against 24.36%
|
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,558
|
Post by cibwr on Jul 2, 2022 18:07:45 GMT
Interestingly the arguments from some in Labour against were
1. first past the post is best as the candidate that gets the most votes wins 2. the constituencies are too big 3. its too complicated for the electorate to understand 4. it could disadvantage labour who may lose seats under a more proportional system
1. is obviously highly debatable 2. they had no problem with the electoral regions which were much larger 3. what is complicated about putting your cross against a party name? And its already done for the regional elections 4. you should have a system that broadly reflects the views of the electorate, and not one that artificially inflates the representation of one party (who ever that may be)
My own view is that I am happy for parties to zip their candidates by alternating gender. I'd rather open lists if we are doing list systems, but would of course prefer stv as it gives the electorate more say.
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jul 2, 2022 22:06:02 GMT
3. its too complicated for the electorate to understand 3. what is complicated about putting your cross against a party name? And its already done for the regional elections When are PRists going to realise that the complication concern is only partially in the ballot paper and also relates to how the public understands how votes convert into outcomes?
|
|
johng
Labour
Posts: 4,491
|
Post by johng on Jul 2, 2022 23:58:15 GMT
Welsh Labour delegates voted yes to Senedd reform proposal at a special conference this afternoon. For 75.64% Against 24.36% There's a significant amount of unease with the proposed system - even from a few of the delegates voting yes. Remember that expanding the Senedd to 80-100 members was unanimously supported back in March.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 3, 2022 0:17:28 GMT
Interestingly the arguments from some in Labour against were 1. first past the post is best as the candidate that gets the most votes wins … Oh good grief. That’s one of the silliest arguments in favour of FPTP (or against PR) that it is possible to make. “The candidate(s) who get the most votes, win(s)” is true under FPTP. It’s also true under AV It’s also true under STV It’s also true under PR list systems It’s also true under AMS I am not aware of any electoral system in use in public elections in any country anywhere in the world in which it is not true.
|
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,558
|
Post by cibwr on Jul 3, 2022 8:24:19 GMT
3. its too complicated for the electorate to understand 3. what is complicated about putting your cross against a party name? And its already done for the regional elections When are PRists going to realise that the complication concern is only partially in the ballot paper and also relates to how the public understands how votes convert into outcomes? Even there its easy to see and explain... even stv is relatively simple
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jul 3, 2022 8:40:52 GMT
Interestingly the arguments from some in Labour against were 1. first past the post is best as the candidate that gets the most votes wins … Oh good grief. That’s one of the silliest arguments in favour of FPTP (or against PR) that it is possible to make. “The candidate(s) who get the most votes, win(s)” is true under FPTP. It’s also true under AV It’s also true under STV It’s also true under PR list systems It’s also true under AMS I am not aware of any electoral system in use in public elections in any country anywhere in the world in which it is not true.American presidential elections.
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jul 3, 2022 9:17:50 GMT
When I saw the title was I the only one hopeful of reading about irredentism for a pre-Marcher or maybe even pre- Offaian (Offaeian? Offacian?) settlement? It would certainly increase the chances of a competent Welsh Conservative Party if Herefordshire and Shropshire were included.
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,045
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Jul 3, 2022 13:37:56 GMT
Interestingly the arguments from some in Labour against were 1. first past the post is best as the candidate that gets the most votes wins 2. the constituencies are too big 3. its too complicated for the electorate to understand 4. it could disadvantage labour who may lose seats under a more proportional system
1. is obviously highly debatable 2. they had no problem with the electoral regions which were much larger 3. what is complicated about putting your cross against a party name? And its already done for the regional elections 4. you should have a system that broadly reflects the views of the electorate, and not one that artificially inflates the representation of one party (who ever that may be) My own view is that I am happy for parties to zip their candidates by alternating gender. I'd rather open lists if we are doing list systems, but would of course prefer stv as it gives the electorate more say. This one is usually true for both main parties(exceptions post war Lab 1951,1955.1959,2019 and Con 1945,1966,1997,2001,2005)
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jul 3, 2022 15:36:24 GMT
When are PRists going to realise that the complication concern is only partially in the ballot paper and also relates to how the public understands how votes convert into outcomes? Even there its easy to see and explain... even stv is relatively simple If only we still had access to this forum's predecessor where I posted explaining how surpluses in STV work and several PRists replied to say they'd just gone off STV.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 3, 2022 16:24:27 GMT
Oh good grief. That’s one of the silliest arguments in favour of FPTP (or against PR) that it is possible to make. “The candidate(s) who get the most votes, win(s)” is true under FPTP. It’s also true under AV It’s also true under STV It’s also true under PR list systems It’s also true under AMS I am not aware of any electoral system in use in public elections in any country anywhere in the world in which it is not true.American presidential elections. I am glad that you are agreeing with me in confirming that there are no known electoral systems in use in public elections anywhere in the world in which the winning candidate is not the one with the most votes. For example (as you no doubt know already) in the USA Presidential election in 2016, the winning candidate (Donald Trump) got 304 votes, and the highest-scoring loser (Hilllary Cllinton) got 227 votes. Even at the level of individual states, Donald Trump got the electors in the states in which he won the plurality of the votes (and not in the states where he came second).
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 3, 2022 16:33:17 GMT
American presidential elections. I am glad that you are agreeing with me in confirming that there are no known electoral systems in use in public elections anywhere in the world in which the winning candidate is not the one with the most votes. For example (as you no doubt know already) in the USA Presidential election in 2016, the winning candidate (Donald Trump) got 304 votes, and the highest-scoring loser (Hilllary Cllinton) got 227 votes. Even at the level of individual states, Donald Trump got the electors in the states in which he won the plurality of the votes (and not in the states where he came second). But not the actual public vote. The candidate who came second won, because of the electoral college system - which is clearly faulty by design.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 3, 2022 17:09:37 GMT
I am glad that you are agreeing with me in confirming that there are no known electoral systems in use in public elections anywhere in the world in which the winning candidate is not the one with the most votes. For example (as you no doubt know already) in the USA Presidential election in 2016, the winning candidate (Donald Trump) got 304 votes, and the highest-scoring loser (Hilllary Cllinton) got 227 votes. Even at the level of individual states, Donald Trump got the electors in the states in which he won the plurality of the votes (and not in the states where he came second). But not the actual public vote. The candidate who came second won, because of the electoral college system - which is clearly faulty by design. As you know, the “actual public vote” has got nothing to do with the result of the Presidential election - just as the total vote for a political party doesn’t in the UK in 1974 or 1951 or whenever.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,589
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 3, 2022 17:34:55 GMT
I am glad that you are agreeing with me in confirming that there are no known electoral systems in use in public elections anywhere in the world in which the winning candidate is not the one with the most votes. For example (as you no doubt know already) in the USA Presidential election in 2016, the winning candidate (Donald Trump) got 304 votes, and the highest-scoring loser (Hilllary Cllinton) got 227 votes. Even at the level of individual states, Donald Trump got the electors in the states in which he won the plurality of the votes (and not in the states where he came second). But not the actual public vote. The candidate who came second won, because of the electoral college system - which is clearly faulty by design. The designers would say it's working by design. The winner to be the president of the federation of states must be the winner across a majority of states in the federation.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 3, 2022 17:48:17 GMT
But not the actual public vote. The candidate who came second won, because of the electoral college system - which is clearly faulty by design. The designers would say it's working by design. The winner to be the president of the federation of states must be the winner across a majority of states in the federation. The designers designed it a long time ago.....its past its sell by.
|
|
|
Post by BossMan on Jul 3, 2022 17:57:03 GMT
But not the actual public vote. The candidate who came second won, because of the electoral college system - which is clearly faulty by design. The designers would say it's working by design. The winner to be the president of the federation of states must be the winner across a majority of states in the federation.Don't even need a majority of all the states, in fact you only need to go as far back as the most recent contest to see an example of that: in terms of states carried Biden and Trump were 25:25 (this is not mentioning NE-2 and ME-2 congressional districts), and Biden would've still won had he dropped a couple of states. Other examples include the 1976 and 1960 elections.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jul 3, 2022 18:21:29 GMT
It's not working by design(ers' conscious intentions), and hasn't been for 220 years.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 14,518
|
Post by john07 on Jul 12, 2022 21:29:58 GMT
It's not working by design(ers' conscious intentions), and hasn't been for 220 years. Wait till a future Electoral College elects a Republican President while the defeated Democrat had 10 to 15 million more votes.
|
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,558
|
Post by cibwr on Jul 25, 2022 19:45:59 GMT
Just for fun, looking at a 120 seat parliament for Wales with 20 constituencies made from paired UK parliament constituencies using D'Hondt gives us Labour 57 Conservative 35 Plaid Cymru 26 and Lib Dem 2.
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jul 25, 2022 21:23:55 GMT
It's not working by design(ers' conscious intentions), and hasn't been for 220 years. Wait till a future Electoral College elects a Republican President while the defeated Democrat had 10 to 15 million more votes. That would require the Democrats to do much better in states with 3-4 electoral votes.
|
|