By-elections - October 6th

[afleitch]

Oct 7, 2016 16:41:42 GMT ntyuk1707 said:

Oct 7, 2016 16:18:58 GMT afleitch said:

The effects of STV is different when it's multi party remember. However don't be suprised to see Unionist parties tag team their way to unexpected wins on the final counts for the 3rd or 4th seat next year. And a crazy number of Labour-Tory coalitions which Labour are too damned stupid for their own good to know that's going to be bad for them in the long run.

But if this election were for all four seats in Culloden & Ardersier the result still would've been 1 SNP 1 LIB 1 CON 1 IND even if the SNP stood two candidates...

Which is the point I was making in my post...

[Tony Otim]

And worth remembering that next year there will be an incumbent independent whose vote will likely distort things in not very predictable ways.

With regard to a local by-election, I would totally and utterly reject a distinction of independents based on unionist-nationalism and rather look at their stance on more local matters.My ranking of SNP-LD-Lab (who would usually have spots 2-4 in the absence of a good indy (or perhaps a pirate ) would also depend on the individual candidate, where exactly in Scotland I was and the parties local policies.

[East Anglian Lefty]

I don't generally see the point of preferencing all the candidates, because in an STV election (especially a three-seater) it's usually relatively easy to work out which candidates have precisely no chance.

[gwynthegriff]

Oct 7, 2016 13:33:45 GMT MeirionGwril said:

And just think, they'll soon Have Tony Blair for their new leader

'Bye.

[Lord Twaddleford]

Oct 7, 2016 16:22:45 GMT Pimpernal said:

Oct 7, 2016 14:14:57 GMT Lord Twaddleford said:

From what I can tell, Scottish local elections seem to use optional preferencing, so in that case why even give out any preferences below 6?

Possibly because he's putting a post on a political forum for general interest and not actually filling in a real ballot paper?

In fact, why bother to post anything at all as it's not going to count in an election?

Because it's fun to discuss hypotheticals, that's why!

This is a discussion forum afterall, you know, for discussing things. In this case I was curious about why he decided to think up preferences down to the 9th place.

[Deleted]

Oct 7, 2016 14:14:57 GMT Lord Twaddleford said:

Oct 7, 2016 14:09:29 GMT ntyuk1707 said:

For the record in this by-election I would've gone:
1. Liberal Democrat
2. Conservative
3. Labour
4. UKIP
5. Unionist Independents (possibly ahead of UKIP depending on their policies) 
6. Neutral Independents
7. Green
8. Nationalist Independents
9. SNP

From what I can tell, Scottish local elections seem to use optional preferencing, so in that case why even give out any preferences below 6?

Voted in the Glasgow by-election yesterday

Preferenced UKIP 1 Conservative 2 i knew neither was going to win but was fairly sure UKIP would be eliminated first as they were albeit narrowly, encouraging Conservative performance in Scotland they seem to be carrying on the momenteum from May's holyrood Election,the issue in an all-out election with multiple candidates will be how transfer friendly they can become.

[andrewteale]

The two-party preferred vote in Garscadden/Scotstounhill was SNP 2321 Lab 2204.

[The Bishop]

Oct 8, 2016 9:36:02 GMT andrewteale said:

The two-party preferred vote in Garscadden/Scotstounhill was SNP 2321 Lab 2204.

Drat and double drat.

[Lord Twaddleford]

Oct 8, 2016 12:56:20 GMT The Bishop said:

Oct 8, 2016 9:36:02 GMT andrewteale said:

The two-party preferred vote in Garscadden/Scotstounhill was SNP 2321 Lab 2204.

Drat and double drat.

Whilst obviously a disappointing result for your party, it's not quite a complete meltdown either.

[lancastrian]

Oct 8, 2016 14:21:51 GMT Lord Twaddleford said:

Oct 8, 2016 12:56:20 GMT The Bishop said:

Drat and double drat.

Whilst obviously a disappointing result for your party, it's not quite a complete meltdown either.

In 2012 this was Labour's second best ward in Glasgow.

[Lord Twaddleford]

Oct 8, 2016 14:34:59 GMT lancastrian said:

Oct 8, 2016 14:21:51 GMT Lord Twaddleford said:

Whilst obviously a disappointing result for your party, it's not quite a complete meltdown either.

In 2012 this was Labour's second best ward in Glasgow.

Ah, well, knowing that, that changes things a bit.

[The Bishop]

About double the swing compared to the recent Coatbridge vacancy, which is pretty similar demographically. Suggests there is a specific "Glasgow factor" as well.

[Sibboleth]

Well. Similar in certain respects. Not others. I'm honestly not surprised.

[middleenglander]

Two observations about Thursday's elections.

East Devon, Brixington

There were by-elections for both the District and Town Council contested on identical boundaries.  There were three candidates for the District seat - Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Independent East Devon Alliance - but just Conservative and Liberal Democrat for the Town election, both of whom were also their respective parties' candidates in the District election.  In this circumstance it is reasonable to assume the vast bulk of supporters voted for them in both elections.

The results can be summarised by:

	District election	Town election	Difference	Independent       allocation
Conservative	425	551	+126	39%
Independent EDA	324		-324
Liberal Democrat	286	454	+168	52%
Total valid votes	1,035	1,005	-30	9%
Invalid votes	7	24	-17
Total ballot papers	1,042	1,029	-13

It looks as though possibly around 9% of the Independent voters in the District election did not vote in the Town election whilst just over 50% voted Liberal Democrat and just under 40% Conservative.

Highland, Culloden & Ardersier

The Liberal Democrat won this seat narrowly against SNP having had only some 62% of the SNP's first preference votes.

The votes can be summarised by:

	First Preferences	After stage seven	Conservative allocation	Final stage
SNP	753	+217	+31	1,001
Liberal Democrat	463	+330	+233	1,026
Conservative	439	+150
Other 6 candidates	1,113
Total votes	2,768			2,027
Not transferred		+416	+325	741
Not transferred		37%	55%	48%

* The winning candidate secured support of just 37% of those voting
* The winning candidate's first preference votes were just 45% of their total vote after all transfers
   - compared to 75% for the runner up.
* Only 52% of the first preference votes of the 7 lowest candidates were transferred to the final stage with 48% not being
* Only 45% of the stage 7 votes for the 3rd candidate (in this case Conservative) were transferred to the final stage with 55% not being transferred
   - with 88% of those transferred being to the eventual winner and only 12% to the candidate leading until the final stage
* The stage 6 third party vote comprised 439 first preferences and 150 lower preferences with 325 votes not transferred to the final stage
   - a minimum of 26% and a maximum of 60% first preference third party votes were transferred at the final stage
*  A majority of 25 is arrived at after 811 lower preference votes have been transferred, or 3% of those transferred
   - are we really sure this particular result reflects the will of the people or is it the mechanistic outcome of the random selection of a relatively few people.

[andrewteale]

In both Exmouth and Culloden the leader at the first stage didn't have an absolute majority of the vote (41% Conservative in Exmouth, 27% SNP in Culloden). It's reasonable to ask whether those leads are due to genuine majority support or whether there was in fact an anti-Conservative or anti-SNP majority which had been split among multiple candidates. The evidence from the Exmouth town council election suggests there was genuine majority support for the Conservatives; the evidence from the Culloden transfers suggests there was not genuine majority support for the SNP and they would have been beaten by a unity unionist candidate.

As afleitch pointed out above, it's becoming clear that the unionist parties in Scotland are going to transfer strongly to each other in the 2017 local elections, which will probably lead to some extra seats for the unionist parties at the expense of the SNP.

[andrew111]

The Culloden vote reflects the will of the people far more than the 2015 General Election.. Or many many 2015 parliamentary constituency votes. Where I live a council seat was won this May with 26% of the votes!

What more do you want??

[Foggy]

Oct 9, 2016 0:14:40 GMT andrew111 said:

The Culloden vote reflects the will of the people far more than the 2015 General Election.. Or many many 2015 parliamentary constituency votes. Where I live a council seat was won this May with 26% of the votes!

What more do you want??

Well, since you ask, I'd rather have AMS than STV/AV or SV, thanks, at least above parish/community level. I wouldn't mind that if local councillor were elected on 26% of the vote (it's more the low turnout that's worrying) so long as the overall composition of the council were proportionately balanced. Look at recent elections to some German Landtage. That's essentially what's happening there and it seems to work well enough.

[tim13]

As Lib Dem agent in Exmouth, perhaps I can comment on our result, which was disappointing. I have to say, Andrew I have never seen Exmouth mentioned in the same sentence as Culloden before - must be a first!!
The circumstances of the byelection were quite contradictory, in a way. On the one hand, the Tory controlled ( since 1974!) East Devon District Council are trying to impose a very commercial solution on modernisation of our seafront, which has been pretty unpopular with many residents, both elderly and younger. Both we and the East Devon Alliance (EDA) have campaigned against the apparent lack of independent consultation on that. On the other hand, the Tory candidate was a returning Mayor of Exmouth (at the time youngest Mayor in the country) - well-known popular and local in Brixington Ward. Brixington at District and Town level has over the last few years been represented by Tory councillors from a limited number of activist families, including the winner here. The deceased councillor was also in this group, and his wife still represents the ward, so there was a substantial sympathy vote around, which the winner fully communicated to the public.

So I think Andrew may be right that "there was a Tory majority", but that that was so only with this candidate and in these circumstances. The ward was held by Lib DEms over the period 1995 - 2007 (on different boundaries in the earlier part of that time), and I viewed it that we had very good chances after encouraging results in other wards in Exmouth in 2016. We had a terrific, youngish - but new - candidate, a campaign which was easily more active than either of the other two, and some powerful local issues. In the circumstances I was disappointed that the turnout remained at 20% roughly the same as the other byelections this year, and that in particular, the younger electorate did not turn out.

[tim13]

I might also add that we did add vote share, and pulled the Lib Dem performance out of the trough of 2015 and 2011.

[Adam in Stroud]

Oct 9, 2016 11:58:31 GMT tim13 said:

I might also add that we did add vote share, and pulled the Lib Dem performance out of the trough of 2015 and 2011.

Quite right too.

I have to say, watching from a distance, I was rather hoping for a win here, partly through optimism imparted from other by-elections.  But getting back in the game is the first step and you can't always expect to leapfrog into first place every time.  It looked a creditable if unspectacular effort from here, and should be seen as a stepping stone to the next eelction you have.

Anyway, we got our statutory weekly by-election gain in Culloden, so let's not get downhearted, eh?