Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2017 7:53:23 GMT
My other idea of using STV in local elections would be a life support system for Tories in northern cities. They'd likely pick up seats in Dore & Totley and Stocksbridge & Upper Don with such a system. You're talking as if the ward boundaries would be unchanged under STV. Well let's assume for argument's sake that they would be. Whatever the boundaries I don't think they'd make much difference. |
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,844 
|
Post by Crimson King on Feb 9, 2017 8:25:13 GMT
then you would need 3, 4 or 5 times as many councillors
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Feb 9, 2017 8:46:00 GMT
Pitiful how moribund the Conservatives are in Sheffield really, ditto Oxford (where I live now). I left Oxford ten years ago. The Tories have been moribund there for a long old time. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Feb 9, 2017 13:14:29 GMT
Living in a 'split' ward (one Tory, one LD and one Lab councillor, election by thirds) I'd much prefer one councillor elected by plurality every four years. The current situation in my ward (which STV would replicate) has not led to better representation, less partisanship nor a stronger voice in the council chamber.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Feb 9, 2017 21:29:03 GMT
then you would need 3, 4 or 5 times as many councillors Tory activist advocates ballooning cost of local government. Living in a 'split' ward (one Tory, one LD and one Lab councillor, election by thirds) I'd much prefer one councillor elected by plurality every four years. The current situation in my ward (which STV would replicate) has not led to better representation, less partisanship nor a stronger voice in the council chamber. The only advantages to STV that I can see are that for us psephological nerds, it would provide masses more electoral data due to preference transfers, and that it could engender better intra-party competition than multi-member FPTP. I'm not sure that the latter is really all that important, though. The results in your ward would also be replicated by list PR. I agree that single-member wards elected every 4 years are preferable... so long as there is still a way for the composition of the council as a whole to be reasonably proportional. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Feb 9, 2017 22:38:39 GMT
Pitiful how moribund the Conservatives are in Sheffield really, ditto Oxford (where I live now). I left Oxford ten years ago. The Tories have been moribund there for a long old time. In both cities the Liberal Democrats have replaced them at a local level in the long-term (although some reliable Conservative wards have gone Labour as well a la the constituency of Brent North) |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 10, 2017 14:02:40 GMT
Putting a "none of the above" option on ballot papers is a classic solution-in-search-of-a-problem. It's also impossible to conceive of what might be the problem that it would cure.
|
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,779
|
Post by right on Feb 10, 2017 14:22:39 GMT
Putting a "none of the above" option on ballot papers is a classic solution-in-search-of-a-problem. It's also impossible to conceive of what might be the problem that it would cure. what happens if non of the above wins the election!! 😆 You would declare the election void and re open nominations. The problem would be one caused by compulsory voting as there is a view that a lot of non voters don't vote because they dislike the system and that non-voting is itself a valuable sign of the health of politics. Why we need to ban people from staying at home during an election but not ban them from the use of even heavily regulated heroin does escape me. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 10, 2017 14:24:13 GMT
No - if we have compulsory voting (and I'm not sold on it), then there must absolutely not be a "none of the above" option. It defeats the whole point of compulsory voting.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Feb 10, 2017 14:41:07 GMT
Putting a "none of the above" option on ballot papers is a classic solution-in-search-of-a-problem. It's also impossible to conceive of what might be the problem that it would cure. what happens if non of the above wins the election!! 😆 In Nevada the option "none of these candidates" is on the ballot for all elections. If it receives the most votes, as it did in the 2014 Democratic Primary for Governor, the actual candidate with the most votes still wins the election. |
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,690
|
Post by Jack on Feb 10, 2017 14:48:21 GMT
Compulsory voting! (Sorry if already mentioned) No no. Absolutely not. I have a couple of friends who have zero interest in politics and don't want anything to do with it. They didn't even vote in the referendum. I've tried to persuade them into voting, but it's a lost cause.  Why should we force those people to go out on polling day to vote for something that they couldn't give a toss about? Those of us on here would all like more people to vote, but forcing people to do so is not the way to go about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 10, 2017 14:55:27 GMT
No - if we have compulsory voting (and I'm not sold on it), then there must absolutely not be a "none of the above" option. It defeats the whole point of compulsory voting. Not really... if you're forcing people to vote then None of the Above is a valid choice: it represents support for the system but not the candidates. No it doesn't. It undermines the system. The principle of democracy is that people who make government decisions are accountable to the people, and the people can choose who to put in power. The principle of compulsory voting is to go a stage further and say that the people have a collective and individual duty to decide who should be in power. If you then provide voters with a null option it nullifies the principle. |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,779
|
Post by right on Feb 10, 2017 14:55:57 GMT
Compulsory voting! (Sorry if already mentioned) No no. Absolutely not. I have a couple of friends who have zero interest in politics and don't want anything to do with it. They didn't even vote in the referendum. I've tried to persuade them into voting, but it's a lost cause. Why should we force those people to go out on polling day to vote for something that they couldn't give a toss about? Those of us on here would all like more people to vote, but forcing people to do so is not the way to go about it. To be fair Remain would never win if there was compulsory voting. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Feb 10, 2017 15:18:37 GMT
I'm in favour of compulsory voting because it's a civic duty. Many is the time I've spoiled my ballot - much more satisfying than putting a cross in "none of the above", although I have no objection to the latter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2017 15:23:40 GMT
Compulsory voting! (Sorry if already mentioned) No no. Absolutely not. I have a couple of friends who have zero interest in politics and don't want anything to do with it. They didn't even vote in the referendum. I've tried to persuade them into voting, but it's a lost cause. Why should we force those people to go out on polling day to vote for something that they couldn't give a toss about? Those of us on here would all like more people to vote, but forcing people to do so is not the way to go about it. The status quo - a universal, but non-compulsory, franchise - is the least bad available option. Forcing people to cast meaningless votes when they are not interested or engaged is futile. There are particular demographics - such as young people - who are hard to reach politically, but that tends to be remedied as they get older and spontaneously start to acquire opinions and economic interests of their own. Though it may be regarded as impolite to mention it, about 15% of the population have an IQ below 85, and a high proportion of these (and some at higher IQ levels) do not vote because they feel they simply lack the intellectual capacity or knowledge to grapple with political issues, which are inherently complicated and where authority-figures are all saying different things. It should also not be forgotten that electoral registers include a certain number of people who are dead or have moved (or at least are ill, on holiday, or unable to vote for temporary but unforeseeable reasons), which artificially depresses election turnouts. The impact of FPTP in elections probably has a mildly depressing effect on turnout because a high proportion of people live in constituencies or wards where it really does make no difference what they, as individuals, do. All things considered, I think that the 72.2% turnout in the EU referendum represented a pretty good proportion of the electorate who were alive, available, and interested, in a democratic exercise where there were no wasted votes. |
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,690
|
Post by Jack on Feb 10, 2017 15:23:58 GMT
I think I feel a poll coming on...
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 10, 2017 15:41:10 GMT
No - if we have compulsory voting (and I'm not sold on it), then there must absolutely not be a "none of the above" option. It defeats the whole point of compulsory voting. better than donkey voting? I don't think donkeys should vote. Same for all other species in the equus genus really. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Feb 10, 2017 18:02:34 GMT
Those of us on here would all like more people to vote Not all of us. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 11, 2017 12:37:13 GMT
The only people who advocate compulsory voting are the anoraks and geeks who are unable to understand or accept that there are some people who are not as fanatically interested in politics and elections as we psephologists are. They regard it as an act of rebellion or impertinence or provocation or insult or malevolence that such people might not necessarily be able to make a meaningful decision about which of candidate A and candidate B to prefer over the other.
The idea of a "None of the Above" option, supposedly making it acceptable to force such people to go and vote when they don't want to, is like having a Compulsory Attendance At Football Matches law, with a neutral option. If I don't care about football, and if I don't give a toss about whether Crystal Palace wins or whether Somewhere Else United wins, I don't take kindly to politicians who tell me that I must nevertheless got to Selhurst Park every Saturday afternoon just to queue up to sign the "I'm not interested" form as a way of avoiding prosecution for non-attendance.
I spoiled my ballot paper once, but I have since changed my mind. If I didn't like any of the candidates, I would probably not bother to vote. Why? Simply because the adjudication of spoilt ballot papers is a tedious job which takes up a large amount of staff time (especially in the Greater London Authority elections, where there are thousands of doubtful papers which have been rejected by the scanners and need to be adjudicated by humans).
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 11, 2017 12:39:17 GMT
The idea of a "None of the Above" option, supposedly making it acceptable to force such people to go and vote when they don't want to, is like having a Compulsory Attendance At Football Matches law, with a neutral option. If I don't care about football, and if I don't give a toss about whether Crystal Palace wins or whether Somewhere Else United wins, I don't take kindly to politicians who tell me that I must nevertheless got to Selhurst Park every Saturday afternoon just to queue up to sign the "I'm not interested" form as a way of avoiding prosecution for non-attendance. I think being forced to go to Selhurst Park at the moment might constitute "cruel and unusual punishment". Palace originally took over their ground from a team called Croydon Common btw. |
|
