|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jan 3, 2020 17:14:16 GMT
I'm thinking out of the box and not sure I have answers. My thought is that if a party is so small it cannot fill the places then individual candidates could stand as independents, but if they need to be considered a serious party they would need to have candidates to fill all the places available. Who conferred the role of Stalin on you then? Dunno, but if I'm goung to be Stalin, I think you should be very very careful.  |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,887 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 3, 2020 19:21:44 GMT
Who conferred the role of Stalin on you then? Dunno, but if I'm goung to be Stalin, I think you should be very very careful. I'm your Khrushchev and I get the last word. You are no baseball bat and dirk man are you? |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 3, 2020 19:39:47 GMT
Who conferred the role of Stalin on you then? Dunno, but if I'm goung to be Stalin, I think you should be very very careful. We're steeling ourselves. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jan 3, 2020 19:45:19 GMT
Dunno, but if I'm goung to be Stalin, I think you should be very very careful. I'm your Khrushchev and I get the last word. You are no baseball bat and dirk man are you? At last you confess who you really are, Nikita Sergeyevitch. I might have guessed. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jan 3, 2020 21:01:21 GMT
Given that we are unlikely to get STV for UK parliamentary elections for a little while (to put it mildly) I really think we should explore in detail the way political partries manipulate STV elections to subvert the intentions of the designers of the system. I am tempted to suggest insisting that any party contesting a seat put up enough candidates to match the places available. Why not? How do you enforce that? * We're a small party, we've got two members who are going to stand for election. * Sorry, this is a three-member seat, bugger off. IIRC in several Australian states a party can only get a column on the ballot paper (which is laid out very differently from an Irish one) and/or a Group Voting Ticket box if they submit a minimum number of candidates. Otherwise they end up in the ungrouped section. The Australian STV experience is very different from the Irish with much stronger intra party vote transfers. In Tasmania and the ACT it's given voters choice but the large mainland upper house elections have never worked as grand exercises in choosing between a party's candidates. More generally I think it shows that a large country with a strong party system and large constituencies isn't suited for STV - it's a system for small and close elections. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,759
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jan 3, 2020 23:17:55 GMT
I also don't think you've considered ballot paper length. In Liverpool in 2010, eleven parties stood. That's 55 candidates straight off. Add in a few more parties and independents inspired to try due to the greater chance of getting elected and you could easily be beyond the 70-candidate mark. Besides the logistical problems with that (3-foot ballot papers, finding a stage for that many candidates etc.) you would have a large number of spoilt votes and a fair bit of donkey voting, with people marking their own candidates, maybe a like-minded party and then just going down the ballot paper alphabetically. Again, that would defeat the point in the system, which is to have fewer wasted votes. That's why, although I prefer STV, I think any implementation should have a maximum of three members per seat. Otherwise - as you say - the ballot paper gets unmanageable, and implmenters will make it "easier" by making it a party list ballot. The normal 2/3-member seats in current all-up councils are a managable size. Mine last year was the biggest in Scarborough BC with nine candidates for two seats. The other thing to consider about enforcing full seat slates is it cripples parties that are trying to get a toe-hold where the typical strategy in an all-up is one candidate in a handful of multi-member seats spread across the borough. Forced candidature would have forced us (and the Greens) to all stand in two wards in Scarborough town last year. The argument is that if you're serious you should have enough activists to have a full slate of candidates, but you only get those activists by being visible in elections. |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Jul 15, 2024 13:54:20 GMT
2024:
LAB 273 (+35)
CON 167 (-140)
REF 82 (+79)
LD 60 (+15)
SNP 21 (-13)
GP 18 (+17)
IND 5 (+5)
SF 5 (+1)
PC 4 (+1)
APNI 4 (=)
DUP 4 (-1)
UUP 2 (=)
SDLP 2 (-1)
WPGB 1 (+1)
IndU 1 (+1)
Speaker 1 (=)
And the differences from the actual result:
LAB -138
CON +46
REF +77
LD -12
SNP +12
GP +14
IND =
SF -2
PC =
APNI +3
DUP -1
UUP +1
SDLP =
WPGB +1
IndU =
Speaker =
TUV -1
|
|
