|
Post by johnloony on Mar 10, 2021 2:32:45 GMT
The only AMS systems that are intended to keep extremists out are ones with threshold restrictions for list seats (which only works if the extremists are sufficiently unpopular), and the GLA's system doesn't include thresholds. It does - 5%. This rule has stopped the Christian People's Alliance (in 2000), the BNP (in 2004) and the Women's Equality Party (in 2016) from taking a seat they would otherwise have had. 5% election wide is a pretty low threshold. On the bontrary, the results listed above demonstrate that 5% is a ludicrously, spectacularly, abominably and grotesquely far-too-high threshold. I think that in list systems and in AMS systems, the only threshold should be the natural threshold which is inherent in the magnitude of the election itself. The GLA having only 25 members means that the natural threshold is about 3% to 3.5%, which in my opinion is completely reasonable. The artificial threshold of 5% is an abomination. Similarly, the natural threshold in the Scottish Parliament elections is about 6%, which is reasonable. It would only become a practical problem if there is a very large district magnitude, like in the national list systems of Netherlands or Israel, where an explicit and artificial threshold of 2% or 3% would be reasonable and understandable. The Israeli threshold of 3.25% is too high IMHO.
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,253
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Mar 12, 2021 5:49:08 GMT
Johnloony's proposal for a very particular form of STV would lead to record numbers of invalid ballot papers. He surely didn't mean his flowery posting totally serious.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 12, 2021 18:15:58 GMT
Johnloony's proposal for a very particular form of STV would lead to record numbers of invalid ballot papers. He surely didn't mean his flowery posting totally serious. Whether I meant it totally serious or not is irrelevant to the question of whether it would or would not lead to lots of invalid ballot papers.
|
|
Toylyyev
Mebyon Kernow
CJ Fox avatar
Posts: 1,067
|
Post by Toylyyev on Mar 12, 2021 20:43:12 GMT
It does - 5%. This rule has stopped the Christian People's Alliance (in 2000), the BNP (in 2004) and the Women's Equality Party (in 2016) from taking a seat they would otherwise have had. 5% election wide is a pretty low threshold. On the bontrary, the results listed above demonstrate that 5% is a ludicrously, spectacularly, abominably and grotesquely far-too-high threshold. I think that in list systems and in AMS systems, the only threshold should be the natural threshold which is inherent in the magnitude of the election itself. The GLA having only 25 members means that the natural threshold is about 3% to 3.5%, which in my opinion is completely reasonable. The artificial threshold of 5% is an abomination. Similarly, the natural threshold in the Scottish Parliament elections is about 6%, which is reasonable. It would only become a practical problem if there is a very large district magnitude, like in the national list systems of Netherlands or Israel, where an explicit and artificial threshold of 2% or 3% would be reasonable and understandable. The Israeli threshold of 3.25% is too high IMHO. One i have never seen being mentioned is optional STV for threshold systems with lowest first transfers from results that stay below threshold only. Seems too simple a solution that will fail to keep the loony parties at bay and drive the impatient nuts. And Viscount Craigavon's proportional representation speech has gone offline now. stormontpapers.ahds.ac.uk/
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 13, 2021 12:13:32 GMT
On the bontrary, the results listed above demonstrate that 5% is a ludicrously, spectacularly, abominably and grotesquely far-too-high threshold. I think that in list systems and in AMS systems, the only threshold should be the natural threshold which is inherent in the magnitude of the election itself. The GLA having only 25 members means that the natural threshold is about 3% to 3.5%, which in my opinion is completely reasonable. The artificial threshold of 5% is an abomination. Similarly, the natural threshold in the Scottish Parliament elections is about 6%, which is reasonable. It would only become a practical problem if there is a very large district magnitude, like in the national list systems of Netherlands or Israel, where an explicit and artificial threshold of 2% or 3% would be reasonable and understandable. The Israeli threshold of 3.25% is too high IMHO. One i have never seen being mentioned is optional STV for threshold systems with lowest first transfers from results that stay below threshold only. Seems too simple a solution that will fail to keep the loony parties at bay and drive the impatient nuts. Trying to fit a threshold rule into an STV system would be boctangularly dilioolious, and completely missing the point. Keeping tiny parties out (which I presume is what you meant by "keeping loony parties at bay") is done in STV by the district magnitude and thus the quota. Candidates with tiny numbers of votes are eliminated anyway. Trying to have STV with a threshold would be like trying to have a hummingbird wearing hob-nailed boots and scuba-diving equipment.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Mar 13, 2021 13:35:30 GMT
One i have never seen being mentioned is optional STV for threshold systems with lowest first transfers from results that stay below threshold only. Seems too simple a solution that will fail to keep the loony parties at bay and drive the impatient nuts. Trying to fit a threshold rule into an STV system would be boctangularly dilioolious, and completely missing the point. Keeping tiny parties out (which I presume is what you meant by "keeping loony parties at bay") is done in STV by the district magnitude and thus the quota. Candidates with tiny numbers of votes are eliminated anyway. Trying to have STV with a threshold would be like trying to have a hummingbird wearing hob-nailed boots and scuba-diving equipment. Are you aware of the Italian voting system of 2005-15? Ignoring its bonus for the winning coalition for a moment, this attempted to square the circle by keeping tiny parties out of parliament but (provided they joined an electoral alliance) not ignoring their votes altogether, giving them to their partners instead. The idea outlined here seems to be similar except giving the choice to voters. The terminology used is a little muddled.
|
|
Toylyyev
Mebyon Kernow
CJ Fox avatar
Posts: 1,067
|
Post by Toylyyev on Mar 13, 2021 18:50:00 GMT
Trying to fit a threshold rule into an STV system would be boctangularly dilioolious, and completely missing the point. Keeping tiny parties out (which I presume is what you meant by "keeping loony parties at bay") is done in STV by the district magnitude and thus the quota. Candidates with tiny numbers of votes are eliminated anyway. Trying to have STV with a threshold would be like trying to have a hummingbird wearing hob-nailed boots and scuba-diving equipment. Are you aware of the Italian voting system of 2005-15? Ignoring its bonus for the winning coalition for a moment, this attempted to square the circle by keeping tiny parties out of parliament but (provided they joined an electoral alliance) not ignoring their votes altogether, giving them to their partners instead. The idea outlined here seems to be similar except giving the choice to voters. The terminology used is a little muddled_(my underscore). Yes.
|
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by ColinJ on Mar 14, 2021 7:47:42 GMT
In May 2019 three Green Party candidates were elected for the Rickmansworth Town ward of Batchworth Community Council. Their names were Emma Brading, Peter Loader and Paul Dawson. The fourth successful candidate in the ward was Conservative Di Barber. In July 2020 Dawson resigned from the Council. The Returning Officer received 10 valid signatures of electors of the ward, requesting that a poll take place to fill the vacancy. Due to the provisions of section 57 of the Coronavirus Act 2020, the by-election to fill the casual vacancy has been delayed until May 2021. On 28 February 2021 Ms. Brading resigned from the Council, and one day later Loader also resigned. The Returning Officer did not receive 10 signatures from electors of the ward requesting a by-election to fill the vacancies; therefore they are due to be filled by co-option. This appears to present a "difficult" situation for anyone wishing to be a councillor. Do they submit their CV to the remaining Batchworth Community councillors in the hope of securing co-option, or do they concentrate on contesting the by-election, or both? The next meeting of the Council is due on 12 April, while nominations close on 8 April. I take it that the Returning Officer does not have the discretion to conduct a 3-vacancy by-election, which would seem to me to be the obvious route out of the impasse, even if it might lead to "under-nomination". I would be interested in the opinions of forum members.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 14, 2021 10:12:47 GMT
In May 2019 three Green Party candidates were elected for the Rickmansworth Town ward of Batchworth Community Council. Their names were Emma Brading, Peter Loader and Paul Dawson. The fourth successful candidate in the ward was Conservative Di Barber. In July 2020 Dawson resigned from the Council. The Returning Officer received 10 valid signatures of electors of the ward, requesting that a poll take place to fill the vacancy. Due to the provisions of section 57 of the Coronavirus Act 2020, the by-election to fill the casual vacancy has been delayed until May 2021. On 28 February 2021 Ms. Brading resigned from the Council, and one day later Loader also resigned. The Returning Officer did not receive 10 signatures from electors of the ward requesting a by-election to fill the vacancies; therefore they are due to be filled by co-option. This appears to present a "difficult" situation for anyone wishing to be a councillor. Do they submit their CV to the remaining Batchworth Community councillors in the hope of securing co-option, or do they concentrate on contesting the by-election, or both? The next meeting of the Council is due on 12 April, while nominations close on 8 April. I take it that the Returning Officer does not have the discretion to conduct a 3-vacancy by-election, which would seem to me to be the obvious route out of the impasse, even if it might lead to "under-nomination". I would be interested in the opinions of forum members. I take it then from what you're saying that it is now too late for 10 electors to request a poll?
|
|
peterl
Green
Monarchic Technocratic Localist
Posts: 8,254
|
Post by peterl on Mar 14, 2021 10:45:28 GMT
As the 14 days to request a by election exclude weekends, there should actually still just be enough time.
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Mar 14, 2021 12:20:56 GMT
By-election slogan - "Only the Greens can resign here"
|
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by ColinJ on Mar 14, 2021 12:36:29 GMT
In May 2019 three Green Party candidates were elected for the Rickmansworth Town ward of Batchworth Community Council. Their names were Emma Brading, Peter Loader and Paul Dawson. The fourth successful candidate in the ward was Conservative Di Barber. In July 2020 Dawson resigned from the Council. The Returning Officer received 10 valid signatures of electors of the ward, requesting that a poll take place to fill the vacancy. Due to the provisions of section 57 of the Coronavirus Act 2020, the by-election to fill the casual vacancy has been delayed until May 2021. On 28 February 2021 Ms. Brading resigned from the Council, and one day later Loader also resigned. The Returning Officer did not receive 10 signatures from electors of the ward requesting a by-election to fill the vacancies; therefore they are due to be filled by co-option. This appears to present a "difficult" situation for anyone wishing to be a councillor. Do they submit their CV to the remaining Batchworth Community councillors in the hope of securing co-option, or do they concentrate on contesting the by-election, or both? The next meeting of the Council is due on 12 April, while nominations close on 8 April. I take it that the Returning Officer does not have the discretion to conduct a 3-vacancy by-election, which would seem to me to be the obvious route out of the impasse, even if it might lead to "under-nomination". I would be interested in the opinions of forum members. I take it then from what you're saying that it is now too late for 10 electors to request a poll? Yes. www.threerivers.gov.uk/egcl-page/local-elections
|
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by ColinJ on Mar 14, 2021 12:41:26 GMT
By-election slogan - "Only the Greens can resign here" Although, to be fair, Nigel Stewart (Con, Moor Park and Eastbury ward) also resigned from the Council on 28 February. Currently the council is operating with 50% elected members and 50% vacancies!
|
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by ColinJ on Mar 14, 2021 12:42:56 GMT
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,043
|
Post by maxque on Mar 14, 2021 16:38:53 GMT
It is very possible the Clerk did not interpret the law properly.
|
|
peterl
Green
Monarchic Technocratic Localist
Posts: 8,254
|
Post by peterl on Mar 14, 2021 17:20:51 GMT
My advice, get the signatures pdq, and point out that the time has not yet elapsed. If there is a disagreement, contact the electoral services manager and make the case. This is statutory (someone else may know the exact provision) and must be followed. This can be resolved if prompt action is taken.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Mar 14, 2021 17:30:06 GMT
It is very possible the Clerk did not interpret the law properly. Perhaps the Clerk took advice from their county association. They're the experts on correct procedure aren't they @boogieeck ?
|
|
peterl
Green
Monarchic Technocratic Localist
Posts: 8,254
|
Post by peterl on Mar 15, 2021 18:18:23 GMT
Quick question, I have a candidate (town council) who has inadvertently filled in her address on Form 1b for two qualifications, but only one in fact applies. Can she simply strike through the incorrect one, or will a new form be needed?
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,686
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Mar 15, 2021 18:49:05 GMT
Quick question, I have a candidate (town council) who has inadvertently filled in her address on Form 1b for two qualifications, but only one in fact applies. Can she simply strike through the incorrect one, or will a new form be needed? Phone the Election Office PDQ. Very likely they can email the forms if it needs to be replaced, and you can print out the required page. If a new form is needed, at least it's only that page, you don't need to go getting the (two) signitures again. For co-options we're happy to take crossings-out, but for co-options we the town council are the arbiters, not the Election Office.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Mar 15, 2021 20:05:56 GMT
Quick question, I have a candidate (town council) who has inadvertently filled in her address on Form 1b for two qualifications, but only one in fact applies. Can she simply strike through the incorrect one, or will a new form be needed? Whether it's needed or not (which is probably at the discretion of the elections office) you can redo that page again easily enough. It's easily available for download on the Parish council elections page of the Electoral Commission site.
|
|