|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on May 30, 2018 19:17:48 GMT
I explained it before to my 13-year-old nephew as follows. You stick 100 people in a room and they have to choose 4 representatives. They line up behind the candidates they support. Some of them see that their candidate has no chance of success and move to another candidate. Some of them see that their candidate has more support than necessary and move to their second choice. You end with 4 people chosen and far more of the voters influencing the process. He had no difficulty understanding that. Now explain the surplus mechanisms. On the previous incarnation of this forum I did that and the response from several people was that they'd gone off STV. Well, under the Irish system, those people in the queues longer than necessary would take part in a quick lottery and the lucky surplus voters would join the queue of their next choice. |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on May 30, 2018 19:37:11 GMT
I explained it before to my 13-year-old nephew as follows. You stick 100 people in a room and they have to choose 4 representatives. They line up behind the candidates they support. Some of them see that their candidate has no chance of success and move to another candidate. Some of them see that their candidate has more support than necessary and move to their second choice. You end with 4 people chosen and far more of the voters influencing the process. He had no difficulty understanding that. Now explain the surplus mechanisms. On the previous incarnation of this forum I did that and the response from several people was that they'd gone off STV. Joe Bloggs has 1100 votes. He needs 1000 to be elected. That gives him a surplus of 100. 1000 of his ballot papers express a further preference. Each is transferred at a value of 0.1 (100/1000.) Primary school mathematics. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 30, 2018 20:12:42 GMT
Now explain the surplus mechanisms. On the previous incarnation of this forum I did that and the response from several people was that they'd gone off STV. Joe Bloggs has 1100 votes. He needs 1000 to be elected. That gives him a surplus of 100. 1000 of his ballot papers express a further preference. Each is transferred at a value of 0.1 (100/1000.) Primary school mathematics. There is so much you left out in that but let's let the thread get back on topic. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 30, 2018 20:15:17 GMT
Now explain the surplus mechanisms. On the previous incarnation of this forum I did that and the response from several people was that they'd gone off STV. Joe Bloggs has 1100 votes. He needs 1000 to be elected. That gives him a surplus of 100. 1000 of his ballot papers express a further preference. Each is transferred at a value of 0.1 (100/1000.) Primary school mathematics. AV is an even more simple system but if you remember the 2011 referendum, that bloody Rik Mayall advert managed to make it sound impenetrably complex. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 30, 2018 20:18:20 GMT
I think the official booklet, signed off by the minister in charge (Nick Clegg), did that on its own when it took 357 words to explain it and it still didn't answer all the questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on May 30, 2018 20:24:06 GMT
Back on thread.
The poll question was asked in December 2016 when the government had a majority.
I answered "Yes" then.
Today I would answer "No".
This government is just paralysed and incapable of making decisions, except to preserve its own existence.
They will kick this can, along with all the others, down the road.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 30, 2018 20:31:25 GMT
I hope this review will be blocked, given the inevitability of large numbers of awful constituencies appearing due to quotas being too tight.
We need electoral reform not tighter boundaries!
|
|
ftmu
Non-Aligned
Posts: 29
|
Post by ftmu on May 30, 2018 22:40:36 GMT
normally a PM would use the offer of peerages to buy off the votes of MPs who were likely to lose their seats.
but if the PM has committed to restricted appointments to the HoL, then that ties her hands somewhat.
and if MPs aren't confident that the PM will be the PM after the following election, the promise of a peerage becomes less attractive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on May 30, 2018 23:18:57 GMT
I hope this review will be blocked, given the inevitability of large numbers of awful constituencies appearing due to quotas being too tight.We need electoral reform not tighter boundaries! I'm with you on the bolded (and the non-bolded too, for that matter), though to answer the question posed in the thread title: Sodomy non sapiens, to quote the writings of the late, great Sir Terry Pratchett. When I first answered the poll, I voted "Yes", then I later changed my vote to "No" when the DUP voiced their "concerns", possibly a little while before, but admittedly when rumours began to fly around that they might allow the review to go through, I removed my vote from the poll and that's how it is right now. As of present, it seems to me that the government doesn't know whether or not it's coming or going on this issue, and I don't want to predict where they'll go next with it. That said, if one were to hold a gun to my head, I might possibly say "No" again, because I wouldn't put is past this lot in charge to just put it off and kick things down the road... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 5:59:45 GMT
I explained it before to my 13-year-old nephew as follows. You stick 100 people in a room and they have to choose 4 representatives. They line up behind the candidates they support. Some of them see that their candidate has no chance of success and move to another candidate. Some of them see that their candidate has more support than necessary and move to their second choice. You end with 4 people chosen and far more of the voters influencing the process. He had no difficulty understanding that. Now explain the surplus mechanisms. On the previous incarnation of this forum I did that and the response from several people was that they'd gone off STV. I remember you trying this trick before. It really doesn't matter. D'Hondt has been used in the UK without a full education programme on mathematics. STV could as well. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 7:51:56 GMT
Now explain the surplus mechanisms. On the previous incarnation of this forum I did that and the response from several people was that they'd gone off STV. I remember you trying this trick before. It really doesn't matter. D'Hondt has been used in the UK without a full education programme on mathematics. STV could as well. D’Hondt is a matter of simple division, and is admittedly one of the better PR systems, despite the aforementioned issues I have with it. The surplus system of STV is highly difficult to understand even for those well informed in politics, let alone the general public. This is why there are so many spoilt ballots with the system. I’m sure in Scotland even a large number of Councillors don’t understand the system used to elect them. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 31, 2018 9:38:12 GMT
I hope this review will be blocked, given the inevitability of large numbers of awful constituencies appearing due to quotas being too tight. I live in one of the largest mainland electorates in the whole UK - I think the second largest of all and it's growing all the time. Why should it continue to be underrepresented? There are voters alive today who weren't even born on the last enumeration date. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,843 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on May 31, 2018 11:01:18 GMT
I remember you trying this trick before. It really doesn't matter. D'Hondt has been used in the UK without a full education programme on mathematics. STV could as well. D’Hondt is a matter of simple division, and is admittedly one of the better PR systems, despite the aforementioned issues I have with it. The surplus system of STV is highly difficult to understand even for those well informed in politics, let alone the general public. This is why there are so many spoilt ballots with the system. I’m sure in Scotland even a large number of Councillors don’t understand the system used to elect them. All this talk about surpluses, and I'm wondering if I appointed the wrong people to the cabinet years ago.
All my experience with STV was for selecting a single person - so AV, eliminate loser, distribute lower preferences, repeat until a winner, so no surplus to transfer as once there's a winner the counting is done. Years ago I was the returning officer for the group AGM and balloting for 8 cabinet members out of 10 applicants. You're making me wonder if anybody had a surplus to transfer and if I did it correctly, or if it was just two rounds of eliminating losers, and whether I allocated their lower preferences correctly, and if that would have changed anything.
I think the surplus and fractional votes thing is the most confusing thing about STV. If the count was simply: take the loser's ballots and add them to the other's candidate's piles according to their lower preferences, repeat until you have a number of winners to match the number of vacancies, it would be a lot easier to understand, and to count, and to observe.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 31, 2018 12:20:52 GMT
I hope this review will be blocked, given the inevitability of large numbers of awful constituencies appearing due to quotas being too tight. I live in one of the largest mainland electorates in the whole UK - I think the second largest of all and it's growing all the time. Why should it continue to be underrepresented? There are voters alive today who weren't even born on the last enumeration date. Why is that relevant? There's definitely a need for a parliamentary review. That doesn't mean this one is any good. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 31, 2018 13:07:32 GMT
All we seem to get is endless energy on reviews that go nowhere and seats getting ridiculously out of date. At some point we need to stop the endless blockage and get more up to date boundaries in, rather than constantly waiting for a better set.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on May 31, 2018 13:17:43 GMT
All we seem to get is endless energy on reviews that go nowhere and seats getting ridiculously out of date. At some point we need to stop the endless blockage and get more up to date boundaries in, rather than constantly waiting for a better set. Well, the issue is that many people including all the opposition parties think that reducing the number of seats is a very bad idea. Some imbalances in the electorate are not as important as that (and imbalances in the electorate are such a tiny issue compared to the lack of proportionality in FPTP anyway). So blame Cameron for pushing through a daft change for blatant political advantage, coupled with a knee jerk response to the expenses scandal - it is no surprise it has been resisted. And all the arguments about cutting costs through cutting the number of MPs have been destroyed by the same Party stuffing the Lords |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on May 31, 2018 13:26:59 GMT
D’Hondt is a matter of simple division, and is admittedly one of the better PR systems, despite the aforementioned issues I have with it. The surplus system of STV is highly difficult to understand even for those well informed in politics, let alone the general public. This is why there are so many spoilt ballots with the system. I’m sure in Scotland even a large number of Councillors don’t understand the system used to elect them. All this talk about surpluses, and I'm wondering if I appointed the wrong people to the cabinet years ago.
All my experience with STV was for selecting a single person - so AV, eliminate loser, distribute lower preferences, repeat until a winner, so no surplus to transfer as once there's a winner the counting is done. Years ago I was the returning officer for the group AGM and balloting for 8 cabinet members out of 10 applicants. You're making me wonder if anybody had a surplus to transfer and if I did it correctly, or if it was just two rounds of eliminating losers, and whether I allocated their lower preferences correctly, and if that would have changed anything.
I think the surplus and fractional votes thing is the most confusing thing about STV. If the count was simply: take the loser's ballots and add them to the other's candidate's piles according to their lower preferences, repeat until you have a number of winners to match the number of vacancies, it would be a lot easier to understand, and to count, and to observe.
The calculations involved in STV surpluses are no more complicated than working out vote share in 3 person FPTP seats! (Discussed at some length elsewhere on here). They do involve using decimal points though, which some seem to find confusing.. |
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,634
|
Post by ricmk on May 31, 2018 16:03:42 GMT
All we seem to get is endless energy on reviews that go nowhere and seats getting ridiculously out of date. At some point we need to stop the endless blockage and get more up to date boundaries in, rather than constantly waiting for a better set. That's why these things should be done on a consensus basis. We used to have parliamentary boundary reviews which might have produced some controversial outcomes, but all parties agreed with the rules of the game, so there was no real chance of the Boundary Commission being challenged. The Tories changed this in 2010 when they changed the rules without this consent; my party thankfully saw sense after signing up to them in the coalition agreement. A bit rich for the Tories to complain about other parties not supporting them when they went out of their way to impose rules against the consensus, and even now refusing any cross-party compromise by blocking the private members bill trying to get some agreement. If they lose the whole thing they'll have no-one else to blame, and just maybe will have to agree some rules cross-party, as they always should have done. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 31, 2018 16:26:21 GMT
I recall quite a bit of change pushed through in the Labour years without consensus and even Jack Straw conceded this once in opposition. It's strange how the expectations are one thing for Labour and another for Conservatives.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 17:17:05 GMT
If this review is stopped, there won't be time to conduct a new one with the public consultation period Labour always demand happen before the next election.
Best to get the 600 seats in place, get them fought in 2022, then start a new process.
|
|
