Scottlish Elections

[Woodstock Jag]

Steven, the ARE recounted. That's just a fact!

 

Edit: who you prefer is linked to who you agree with the most. AV is an intelligent vote: it works out who you agree with most in any given head-to-head match-up.

 

In the example you provide, the result would be exactly the same under First Past the Post as AV.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Woodstock Jag

[twinny]

They are re-counted! The second preferences of the people who voted for the eliminated candidate(s) are ADDED to the first preferences, not counted in isolation.

[Steven H]

Steven, the ARE recounted. That's just a fact!

 

Edit: who you prefer is linked to who you agree with the most. AV is an intelligent vote: it works out who you agree with most in any given head-to-head match-up.

 

In the example you provide, the result would be exactly the same under First Past the Post as AV.

 

 

They are re-counted! The second preferences of the people who voted for the eliminated candidate(s) are ADDED to the first preferences, not counted in isolation.

 

After round 1 the figures are W for one party, X for another, Y for another and Z for another. Say the W party are eliminated as they have the least 1st choice votes, X, Y & Z parties maintain their original votes and they are added to by the W party's voters second choices right? Say my first choice party are the Y's, my vote stands in round 2 but is not added to the total number of votes the Y party get....any increase in the Y party votes come from the W party voters second choices. Tell me I am right here coz if I aint then I am totally baffled.

[Steven H]

Steven, the ARE recounted. That's just a fact!

 

Edit: who you prefer is linked to who you agree with the most. AV is an intelligent vote: it works out who you agree with most in any given head-to-head match-up.

 

In the example you provide, the result would be exactly the same under First Past the Post as AV.

 

The example regarding me, the wifey and the neighbours? No second choices have been put into that example, deliberately.

 

Like I said earlier in the discussion, I'm aware that my view is narrow-minded. In terms of representativeness there are very few politicians who can claim to represent the majority of the people in their constituency anyway because most politicians are elected based on a percentage far lower than the percentage of voters who choose not to vote. I don't believe they choose not to vote because of the election system, I believe they choose not to vote because they see one politician/party being just as bad as the other...and that is the major problem with politics in Scotland today imo.

[Woodstock Jag]

The example regarding me, the wifey and the neighbours? No second choices have been put into that example, deliberately.

 

Uh, no.

 

You said that there were 4 people in the constituency. You prefer SNP, Your wife prefers Labour, neighbour one prefers Lib Dems and neighbour 2 prefers Labour.

 

Under First Past the Post, that would give Labour 50% of the vote. They win. End. Under AV, that would give Labour enough to win. End.

 

Like I said earlier in the discussion, I'm aware that my view is narrow-minded. In terms of representativeness there are very few politicians who can claim to represent the majority of the people in their constituency anyway because most politicians are elected based on a percentage far lower than the percentage of voters who choose not to vote. I don't believe they choose not to vote because of the election system, I believe they choose not to vote because they see one politician/party being just as bad as the other...and that is the major problem with politics in Scotland today imo.

 

But the two problems are separate. What we're saying is that it is fundamentally wrong, whether the turnout is 2% or 100%, for someone to be elected without at least half of the votes in that single-seat constituency expressed, in some way, in their favour. AV almost always guarantees that, whereas FPTP does not.

[1 John Lambie]

I have the same views at Steven, we appear to be in the minority (on here anyway), but I suppose we'll see come tomorrow what the winner is!

 

You may call it narrow minded, or indeed wrong, but people have differing opinions.

[Steven H]

Uh, no.

 

You said that there were 4 people in the constituency. You prefer SNP, Your wife prefers Labour, neighbour one prefers Lib Dems and neighbour 2 prefers Labour.

 

Under First Past the Post, that would give Labour 50% of the vote. They win. End. Under AV, that would give Labour enough to win. End.

 

Ok now we're being pedantic, I offered a small snap-shot of our constituency based on discussions with the people I refer to. Throw in 2nd, 3rd and 4th choices and things get a bit mirkier. let me add another neighbour who is an SNP voter. We now have 2 for SNP and 2 for Labour and one for Lib Dems...Lib Dems are out via the AV system, but Lib Dems 2nd preference is the Greens, 3rd choice is SNP. So SNP win? Just seems a bit too contrived for me.

 

 

 

But the two problems are separate. What we're saying is that it is fundamentally wrong, whether the turnout is 2% or 100%, for someone to be elected without at least half of the votes in that single-seat constituency expressed, in some way, in their favour. AV almost always guarantees that, whereas FPTP does not.

 

So half of the voting population in a constituency don't vote, and of the half that do we expect to bring in a system that allows for a candidate to get at least 51% of the votes (over X amount of rounds using AV). Again, seems very contrived to me and still can't claim representation because half the voting population do not vote. Representation is one aspect of a politicians job but who are they representing then, the 50% who dont't vote? The 35% who voted for them? The 35% that voted for them + the 16% they managed to squeeze out through the AV system even though that 16% wanted to be represented by someone else in the 1st instance? Or are they representing 100% of the constituency oven tho 65% didnt vote for them in the first place?

 

Sorry, not buying it, and that's coming from someone who has no inclination to support Tory policy at all, especially given their hypocrisy on this matter. I'm basing my views on exactly that, my views, not on what the Tories might have to say on the subject, nor for that matter on what the SNP have to say on it either.

[Allan Heron]

Ok now we're being pedantic, I offered a small snap-shot of our constituency based on discussions with the people I refer to. Throw in 2nd, 3rd and 4th choices and things get a bit mirkier. let me add another neighbour who is an SNP voter. We now have 2 for SNP and 2 for Labour and one for Lib Dems...Lib Dems are out via the AV system, but Lib Dems 2nd preference is the Greens, 3rd choice is SNP. So SNP win? Just seems a bit too contrived for me.

 

In those circumstances (and it's the limited numbers that makes it contrived) how else would you determine who is going to win given that two parties have the same number of votes? If this happened in an FPTP election, the winner would be selected by the drawing of lots - surely using expressed preferences of the other voters is a more objective means of reaching a conclusion?

 

So half of the voting population in a constituency don't vote, and of the half that do we expect to bring in a system that allows for a candidate to get at least 51% of the votes (over X amount of rounds using AV). Again, seems very contrived to me and still can't claim representation because half the voting population do not vote. Representation is one aspect of a politicians job but who are they representing then, the 50% who dont't vote? The 35% who voted for them? The 35% that voted for them + the 16% they managed to squeeze out through the AV system even though that 16% wanted to be represented by someone else in the 1st instance? Or are they representing 100% of the constituency oven tho 65% didnt vote for them in the first place?

 

Sorry, not buying it, and that's coming from someone who has no inclination to support Tory policy at all, especially given their hypocrisy on this matter. I'm basing my views on exactly that, my views, not on what the Tories might have to say on the subject, nor for that matter on what the SNP have to say on it either.

 

The level of turnout is irrelevant regardless of which voting system you use - a high turnout will cement the validity of the result but a unfair voting system remains just that. Anyone elected is there to represent 100% of their constituents including those who voted for other parties and those who didn't vote at all. The fundamental point is to find a system which produces an outcome which will most favourably produce a representative with the broadest level of support within the constituency of those who vote. FPTP does not do this. AV does it better. STV in multi-member constituencies would ensure that ALL ranges of significant opinion/support can be represented (AV is STV in a single member constituency)

Edited May 5, 2011 by Allan Heron

[jaggybunnet]

Exactly. This doesn't seem to have been especially well explained to people though. Under AV you could, if you really wanted, still just put an X in the box of your first preference and leave it there. It would just mean that you'd have no influence on any instant-run-off if your candidate has already been eliminated. If you like, it simulates a situation where your candidate never stood. If you truly didn't have a second preference, then under FPTP you wouldn't have even gone to the polling booth.

 

 

so in truth a party that no one realy wanted to win could win because people just put them down as there second vote so the parties they didnt want wouldnt get there vote.. def fair and democratic

[jaggybunnet]

AV is still one person, one vote. That it's not is a myth peddled by the No campaign. If, in a multi-party society you consider a candidate who is only able to obtain 29.83% winning an election campaign to be ok (that's the lowest winning % in the current House Of Commons) then it's certainly not my idea of any kind of democracy.

 

All that is needed for a valid ballot is that you have shown a clear preference. So any mark that is clearly placed will count.

 

A couple of leadership elections ago in the Scottish Liberal Democrats, I voted for Nicol Stephen but very carefully placed the word "RELUCTANTLY" in the box against his name. The vote counted because the returning officer of that campaign was telling people about it later!! I gleefully confessed!

 

 

How so, if i picked the party that eventualy came second as my first vote then only that vote counts, if on the other hand my first vote is knocked out in the first round then my second vote counts therfore multipul votes .

 

of course you can call them prefrences and that sorts it all out

[Allan Heron]

so in truth a party that no one realy wanted to win could win because people just put them down as there second vote so the parties they didnt want wouldnt get there vote.. def fair and democratic

 

Hardly likely as the scenario you outline suggests a party that wouldn't have even first preferences to stay in the count. In practice, most candidates with the most first preferences will continue to win. Some candidates with the second largest first preferences may win and in some extreme cases (i.e. where the first three candidates are almost level pegging) the third placed candidate after first preferences are counted many win. It's probably impossible for anyone below that to win - and probably impossible for a candidate that's not in a competitive position after the first round (and, by definition, with a very healthy amount of first preferences) to win

[Allan Heron]

How so, if i picked the party that eventualy came second as my first vote then only that vote counts, if on the other hand my first vote is knocked out in the first round then my second vote counts therfore multipul votes .

 

of course you can call them prefrences and that sorts it all out

 

There are multiple counts until there's a winner. If the party/candidate you voted for is still included than that is counted again. You have a multiple vote just as much as someone who voted for a discarded candidate

[jaggybunnet]

Hardly likely as the scenario you outline suggests a party that wouldn't have even first preferences to stay in the count. In practice, most candidates with the most first preferences will continue to win. Some candidates with the second largest first preferences may win and in some extreme cases (i.e. where the first three candidates are almost level pegging) the third placed candidate after first preferences are counted many win. It's probably impossible for anyone below that to win - and probably impossible for a candidate that's not in a competitive position after the first round (and, by definition, with a very healthy amount of first preferences) to win

 

 

not as unlikey as you think, IMO all that party has to do is not come last and have a higer % of the second and third votes

[The Devil's Point]

not as unlikey as you think, IMO all that party has to do is not come last and have a higer % of the second and third votes

 

That could let the raving loonies win seats if it were at all likely.

 

Although, to be fair, the Tories are probably still a bit underepresented in Scotland

[Allan Heron]

Just noticed the title of this thread and am a bit worried that we're well off topic.

 

What is a Scottlish Election?

[jaggybunnet]

Just noticed the title of this thread and am a bit worried that we're well off topic.

 

What is a Scottlish Election?

 

 

good point, excuse me for my ignorance on scottish voting but i thought that it was done useing pr and why two papers both with the main parties and one with all the parties?

[jaggybunnet]

That could let the raving loonies win seats if it were at all likely.

 

Although, to be fair, the Tories are probably still a bit underepresented in Scotland

 

 

still got time to vote them

[The Devil's Point]

still got time to vote them

 

No chance.

 

Anyway, I've already voted................for their coalition partners :head_ball:

[jaggybunnet]

No chance.

 

Anyway, I've already voted................for their coalition partners :head_ball:

 

 

now that WAS a wasted vote

[yoda-jag]

SNP

 

Yaaaaaaaaassssssssssssssssss !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[yoda-jag]

Its a bloodbath of historic epic proportions, as the SNP slay allcomers.

 

Alex Salmond wins his own seat with a mighty 64% of vote.

 

Iain Gray retains his own seat by a piddling 151 seats.

 

Andy Kerr and 8 other Labour MSPs who have held their seats since 1999, all lose their seats after being roundly kicked out by the electorate.

 

61 out of 73 constituency results have been declared.

SNP have won 42, Labour 14, Conservatives 3, Lib Dems 2.

 

There have been declarations at three of the eight regional list counts. Labour has 9, SNP 7, Tory 4, Scottish Greens 1.

 

With more votes to be counted and seats declared, the SNP are currently up 22, Labour down 12, Conservatives down 3 and Lib Dems down 7.

 

The Lib Dems have also failed to retain their deposits in at least 20 seats.

 

There are 35 regional seats and 12 constituency seats still to declare.

 

The SNP's share of the first-past-the-post constituency votes currently stands at 45.1% - up 12.3% on the last election.

 

A final SNP tally of possibly as many as 68 seats is being predicted, which would give the SNP an overall majority at the 129 seat parliament in Holyrood.

 

 

 

This could be a Great and Historic day for Scottish Politics.

[Jaggernaut]

Phenomenal result for the SNP, and for Scotland.

[crazy davie]

Absolutely elated.

 

Bring on independence. Let's rise up and be a Nation again.

[yoda-jag]

Phenomenal result for the SNP, and for Scotland.

 

Indeed.

 

Strangely, the Labour and LibDem voices have gone very quiet on this forum.

 

Latest count: SNP 56, Labour 23, Conservatives 9, Lib Dems 3, Scottish Greens 1.

 

The SNP needs 9 more seats for an overall majority, something which the electoral system designed by Labour was meant to make impossible.

 

The SNP won all 10 first-past-the-post seats in the north east and still managed to pick up an additional regional list seat after amassing more than 140,000 votes.

 

The Lib Dem leader, Tavish Scott, also just managed to hold on to his seat, despite losing 20% of his constituency vote in Shetland.

 

It's looking like Labour are to have its poorest performance in Scotland for at least 80 years.

 

Results for Argyll & Bute expected in next 90 minutes or so, looking like another SNP win. Stirling has just declared - SNP take it from Labour.

 

So make that SNP 57, Labour 23, Conservatives 9, Lib Dems 3, Scottish Greens 1.

 

Edited to add: The redrawn Stirling seat was supposed to be a marginal between the SNP and Labour. The SNP's Bruce Crawford was returned with a majority of more than 5,600. Mr Crawford got 48.9% of the votes cast - up 16.1%. Labour mauled yet again. Iain Gray to resign before end of the day as leader of Scottish Labour?

Edited May 6, 2011 by yoda-jag

[Dunfermline Jag]

The primary motivation of the Scottish electorate is to be anti-Tory so the Lib Dems are getting the kicking that I, for one, always expected. However, the scale of the kicking - and that of Labour, which no-one was really expecting - is truly historic.

 

Independence aside, however, all the parties in the Scottish Parliament other than the Tories consider themselves to be left of centre and out and out differences are actually quite rare so things will change less than you might think.