Scottlish Elections

[Steven H]

And it'll remain a safe seat under FPTP. I assume it's Glasgow North you're referring to - if so, Labour won it comfortably last time round. AV would make that a marginal seat - indeed, it's the only seat in Glasgow that would move from safe to marginal under AV - but will remain resolutely safe under FPTP

 

No it's Airdrie and Shotts Allan, Karen Whitehead (Labour) was run very close by Sofia Coyle (SNP) last time out but the latter has been replaced by Alex Neil this time. My response to Jaggernaut sets out my thinking re the NO vote for AV.

[Allan Heron]

Ah, you spot the flaw I had already considered. Who I want to represent my constituency has not been considered in relation to the AV/FPTP vote at all (bit like not allowing my political views re Partick Thistle influence whether or not I was going to the game on any particular matchday). My reason for the NO vote is because I believe it should be one person one vote, the candidate with the most votes in any one constituency wins. I know, it maintains the status quo for seats that have been relatively safe for years but AV has so many flaws (and admittedly advantages). If my 1st choice candidate is eliminated in round one, 2nd choice out in round two then my 4th choice could effectively be elected and I couldn't say "well I never voted for him/her".

 

Narrow-minded view perhaps, but my thoughts on the AV/FPTP refurendum in terms of preference are so marginal it was always gona be a narrow-minded, what works for my value base consideration that decided which way I was gona go.

 

You don't need to express a preference for all candidates. If there's only (say) three out of five that you can stomach then you only need to use 1,2 and 3 as you wish and leave the other two blank.

[Woodstock Jag]

You don't need to express a preference for all candidates. If there's only (say) three out of five that you can stomach then you only need to use 1,2 and 3 as you wish and leave the other two blank.

 

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.

[1 John Lambie]

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.

 

The fact that you don't need to put 2,3,4 etc isn't particulalry relevant if your belief is that 1 vote, most votes wins.

[Steven H]

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.

 

Ok I never fully understood this, but wouldn't an X in the box with the others left blank simply go down as a spoiled ballot paper? I vaguely remember voting before and putting numbers in the boxes rather than an X in one box (think it was the election that saw the SSP do reasonably well).

 

Anyway, as 1JL says, it doesn't really matter if my belief is 1 person 1 vote...with the most votes winning (even if that limits the chances of my prefered candidate getting the seat). I think that's the most democratic way of electing politicians, and I doubt we would be having this debate if enough people went out to vote in the first place. IMO majority rules, even if that is only a majority of 1.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Steven H

[Allan Heron]

Ok I never fully understood this, but wouldn't an X in the box with the others left blank simply go down as a spoiled ballot paper? I vaguely remember voting before and putting numbers in the boxes rather than an X in one box (think it was the election that saw the SSP do reasonably well).

 

Any, as IJL says, it doesn't really matter if my belief is 1 person 1 vote...with the most votes winning (even if that limits the chances of my prefered candidate getting the seat). I think that's the most democratic way of electing politicians, and I doubt we would be having this debate if enough people went out to vote in the first place. IMO majority rules, even if that is only a majority of 1.

 

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!

Edited May 5, 2011 by Allan Heron

[Woodstock Jag]

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!

 

Who were the other candidates?

 

Nicol Stephen is an alumnus of my old school. He gave a speech at Founder's Day in my S1 and asides the Second World War veteran who spent half an hour talking about trips on his "cycle" he was the most boring out of the 6 in my time there.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Woodstock Jag

[twinny]

Ok I never fully understood this, but wouldn't an X in the box with the others left blank simply go down as a spoiled ballot paper? I vaguely remember voting before and putting numbers in the boxes rather than an X in one box (think it was the election that saw the SSP do reasonably well).

 

Anyway, as 1JL says, it doesn't really matter if my belief is 1 person 1 vote...with the most votes winning (even if that limits the chances of my prefered candidate getting the seat). I think that's the most democratic way of electing politicians, and I doubt we would be having this debate if enough people went out to vote in the first place. IMO majority rules, even if that is only a majority of 1.

 

Yes, was it not the council election held in 2007? Many people placed an X in the box when it was supposed to be numerical and those votes were spoiled.

 

I turned up at my polling station and was given three voting cards, one for the referendum, one for the council ward and one for the parish council. I had no idea there was one for the parish council and looking down the list they were all residents in the village with no party affiliation. I felt that since I didn't have a clue who any of them were I just stuck it in the box blank.

 

I've just read that there were 11 councillors who won their seats uncontested in 2007, and today there were 11 candidates on the card, so there is probably no loss by not voting in that one.

[Allan Heron]

Yes, was it not the council election held in 2007? Many people placed an X in the box when it was supposed to be numerical and those votes were spoiled.

 

They won't have been spoiled - they'd have been rejected by the counting machine but would have been re-entered into the system as first preferences. (Or should have - it was how they were dealt with in Renfrewshire last time around)

 

For all the problems reported in 2007 the council elections which were being run on STV (the BEST voting system) went very smoothly. It was the attempt to use the machines for the Holyrood elections (which by their nature are not suitable for an automated count) that buggered things up.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Allan Heron

[Woodstock Jag]

They won't have been spoiled - they'd have been rejected by the counting machine but would have been re-entered into the system as first preferences. (Or should have - it was how they were dealt with in Renfrewshire last time around)

 

For all the problems reported in 2007 the council elections which were being run on STV (the BEST voting system) went very smoothly. It was the attempt to use the machines for the Holyrood elections (which by their nature are not suitable for an automated count) that buggered things up.

 

Why was this the case? I'd have thought that machines trying to work out which number had been put down ought to be a lot more difficult for a machine to compute than to work out which box has a mark in it?

[Steven H]

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!

 

nice one

 

It's unlikely that 29.83% would have been the winning percentage if more people actually voted tho, what was the turnout rate for that constituency? Even if it was still the case with a 80/90% turnout then it simply highlights a close run election with numerous candidates doing reasonably well does it not?

 

AV is not 1 person 1 vote because you are effectively voting numerous times...unless you just stick a 1 or X in the only candidate you want to vote for. By discounting the first choice candidate (if he/she is eliminated in the first round), they then count your second choice so to my mind that is a second vote.

[Allan Heron]

Who were the other candidates?

 

Mike Rumbles!

 

Talk about devil and the deep blue sea

[Woodstock Jag]

AV is not 1 person 1 vote because you are effectively voting numerous times...unless you just stick a 1 or X in the only candidate you want to vote for. By discounting the first choice candidate (if he/she is eliminated in the first round), they then count your second choice so to my mind that is a second vote.

 

No you're not. A transferable vote is not a multiple vote. If you regard the second preference as a "second vote" then the first preferences which are not eliminated must, by definition, also be a second vote.

[twinny]

Ah, you spot the flaw I had already considered. Who I want to represent my constituency has not been considered in relation to the AV/FPTP vote at all (bit like not allowing my political views re Partick Thistle influence whether or not I was going to the game on any particular matchday). My reason for the NO vote is because I believe it should be one person one vote, the candidate with the most votes in any one constituency wins. I know, it maintains the status quo for seats that have been relatively safe for years but AV has so many flaws (and admittedly advantages). If my 1st choice candidate is eliminated in round one, 2nd choice out in round two then my 4th choice could effectively be elected and I couldn't say "well I never voted for him/her".

 

1. What flaws does AV have that FPTP doesn't? Under FPTP a candidate could potentially lose in a head to head against every other candidate (i.e.in WJ's earlier example, a Conservative MP could win a seat despite the possibility that they would lose if they were only against onoe of the three other parties, instead of all three) and AV ensures this doesn't happen. It doesn't ensure the winner would win a head to head against every candidate, but it is much more likely than FPTP to do so. It effectively prevents a candidate/party from losing an election just because there is an identical candidate/party standing that would split the vote.

 

2. WJ has already addressed this point, but you could leave it at 1, 2 or 3 and could leave the 4th etc candidates alone. You only need to vote for the ones you prefer. The arguement of '1 person 1 vote' (which you claim is the reason you made this point in a later post) really irks me as your vote means MORE under AV than it does under FPTP. If you support the green party or the SSP for example, there is a good chance they are going to be eliminated, and your vote is still allowed to count (if you want it to) between two candidates, as you may still prefer one of the leading candidates to their main opponent. This does not mean their vote counts more than someone who only votes for one candidate, as if you voted for one of the leading candidates then your vote is still in the count, and if you didn't then not enough people shared your view and you lose out just as you would in FPTP.

[Allan Heron]

Why was this the case? I'd have thought that machines trying to work out which number had been put down ought to be a lot more difficult for a machine to compute than to work out which box has a mark in it?

 

I'm not sure that the number of rejections that happened were out of the ordinary but it's all a function of time. With the need to validate the total number of ballot papers against the counts from each polling station before you start the actual counting of votes, there's not much time to be gained by automating what amounts to FPTP-style counts. In 2007 these counts would have been completed (and had been in the past) long before the computerised method. I think the main difference is that this count can be done incrementally by hand, but the automated systems waits for all issues to be resolved before it can proceed.

 

For the STV count, the validation was still the largest part of the exercise, but once this was done the system was able to do the multiple iterations pretty quickly

[Woodstock Jag]

Mike Rumbles!

 

Talk about devil and the deep blue sea

 

I think you're doing a disservice. The devil has charisma and the deep blue sea isn't a complete push-over.

[Allan Heron]

nice one

 

It's unlikely that 29.83% would have been the winning percentage if more people actually voted tho, what was the turnout rate for that constituency? Even if it was still the case with a 80/90% turnout then it simply highlights a close run election with numerous candidates doing reasonably well does it not?

 

AV is not 1 person 1 vote because you are effectively voting numerous times...unless you just stick a 1 or X in the only candidate you want to vote for. By discounting the first choice candidate (if he/she is eliminated in the first round), they then count your second choice so to my mind that is a second vote.

 

Turnouts not a factor unless the split in the additional voters between the candidates is substantially different. You could end up with 100% but still have a winner with only 30% of that vote - that's still unsatisfactory.

 

No, you vote once - the count may have a number of iterations but every one has a vote in each count unless and until they have stopped expressing a preference at which point they would drop out. But looking it at from your perspective, EVERYONE has a second vote so there's no advantage to the redistribution of the bottom candidate's second preference as the No campaign would have you believe.

 

You really ought to look at who you're bedfellows are on the No side of things. Not a pleasant bunch.

[twinny]

They won't have been spoiled - they'd have been rejected by the counting machine but would have been re-entered into the system as first preferences. (Or should have - it was how they were dealt with in Renfrewshire last time around)

 

For all the problems reported in 2007 the council elections which were being run on STV (the BEST voting system) went very smoothly. It was the attempt to use the machines for the Holyrood elections (which by their nature are not suitable for an automated count) that buggered things up.

 

Fair enough, that makes sense. Also good to know I didn't completely **** up

 

nice one

 

It's unlikely that 29.83% would have been the winning percentage if more people actually voted tho, what was the turnout rate for that constituency? Even if it was still the case with a 80/90% turnout then it simply highlights a close run election with numerous candidates doing reasonably well does it not?

 

Why not? There is no reason why this wouldn't happen. The winning 29.83% are of those who voted, not those who were eligible to vote.

 

AV is not 1 person 1 vote because you are effectively voting numerous times...unless you just stick a 1 or X in the only candidate you want to vote for. By discounting the first choice candidate (if he/she is eliminated in the first round), they then count your second choice so to my mind that is a second vote.

 

It isn't a 'second vote', it just means your opinion is still considered despite your preferred candidate no longer being in the running. A second vote would be grabbing two voting cards and voting 1 or x for two people (or the same person twice!). They'll only count your second preference after your first preference is eliminated, therefore you only ever have one vote.

[Steven H]

No you're not. A transferable vote is not a multiple vote. If you regard the second preference as a "second vote" then the first preferences which are not eliminated must, by definition, also be a second vote.

 

No, because my first vote would not be re-counted in the second round and would not influence the figures....those who have put 'my candidate' down as their second choice would influence the figures. We're talking individual understandings of the 'extra' votes. I say it's multiple you say it's transferable.

 

Take the upcoming POTY, say I vote for Rowser but he has the least votes and aint gona win, I can't then change my preference to Fox or Boyle and if I did it would count as a second vote. I know, the two systems are different...but it's in the indivdual understanding of the word 'alternative'. To me alternative means different and different means other, ergo all mean 'more than 1'.

 

Again though, I take a narrow-minded view but it is how I choose to understand the complex world of politics...by basing it on my understanding and measuring that again my own personal value base. Always prepared to try to increase my understanding tho, so enjoying the debate

[Woodstock Jag]

No, because my first vote would not be re-counted in the second round and would not influence the figures....those who have put 'my candidate' down as their second choice would influence the figures. We're talking individual understandings of the 'extra' votes. I say it's multiple you say it's transferable.

 

No, first preferences count again. Indeed theoretically they count more: they have guaranteed that the candidate even has a right to participate in the second round of the instant-run-off.

 

Take the upcoming POTY, say I vote for Rowser but he has the least votes and aint gona win, I can't then change my preference to Fox or Boyle and if I did it would count as a second vote. I know, the two systems are different...but it's in the individual understanding of the word 'alternative'. To me alternative means different and different means other, ergo all mean 'more than 1'.

 

Again though, I take a narrow-minded view but it is how I choose to understand the complex world of politics...by basing it on my understanding and measuring that again my own personal value base. Always prepared to try to increase my understanding tho, so enjoying the debate

 

That's a stupid way to run POTY voting though. If you have 3 people who love Fox but think Doolan is shite and Erskine is a "good shout", 2 people who quite like Doolan but think Fox is shite and think Erskine is a "good shout" and 2 people who think Erskine is the ******* business and don't care about any other players, clearly the best consensus is that Erskine should win player of the year (indeed he would be the second preference of Doolan voters to give him a majority over Fox. But under FPTP, Fox wins the POTY even though more than half of the fans either think he's rubbish or otherwise don't especially rate him.

[Steven H]

AAArghh....being ganged up on Serves me right for getting involved, sod the lot of ye

 

In terms of the turnout versus percentage of the vote gained, I realise one is unlikely to influence the other too much, but if for example there is a 100% turnout in my constituency and the winning candidate gets 29.83% of the vote then I'd be ok with that because that's what the people have decided. Most votes wins (a slight change from majority rules but effectively the same outlook). In a consituency where only 49% of voters actually turn up to vote that to me is a more important factor than the voting system we have in place. FPTP would be far more credible IF more people voted. Over simplifying it perhaps?

 

If we had higher turnouts at the polls then I dont believe this would even be being debated.

 

Let me put it another way, again in football terms. Im not gona start next season hoping Thistle win the league but with Hamiton, Falkirk and Dundee as my 'back-up' options. Again, a crude way of explaining it but the only way I can think of to do so.

[Woodstock Jag]

AAArghh....being ganged up on Serves me right for getting involved, sod the lot of ye

 

In terms of the turnout versus percentage of the vote gained, I realise one is unlikely to influence the other too much, but if for example there is a 100% turnout in my constituency and the winning candidate gets 29.83% of the vote then I'd be ok with that because that's what the people have decided. Most votes wins (a slight change from majority rules but effectively the same outlook). In a consituency where only 49% of voters actually turn up to vote that to me is a more important factor than the voting system we have in place. FPTP would be far more credible IF more people voted. Over simplifying it perhaps?

 

If we had higher turnouts at the polls then I dont believe this would even be being debated.

 

Let me put it another way, again in football terms. Im not gona start next season hoping Thistle win the league but with Hamiton, Falkirk and Dundee as my 'back-up' options. Again, a crude way of explaining it but the only way I can think of to do so.

 

But all of these sporting analogies are simply not credible. An election is not just a competition. It is about representation. That's why a plurality isn't enough. A party can win a seat not because they have appealed to as many people in their constituency as possible (which is an MPs... job) but because there is a big core vote they've latched onto that does not, in any way, represent the constituency as a whole, but which beats the views of the mainstream majority because their vote splits among a number of candidates.

[Blackpool Jags]

FPTP incorporating the NVT protocol is the way to go.

[Allan Heron]

AAArghh....being ganged up on Serves me right for getting involved, sod the lot of ye

 

In terms of the turnout versus percentage of the vote gained, I realise one is unlikely to influence the other too much, but if for example there is a 100% turnout in my constituency and the winning candidate gets 29.83% of the vote then I'd be ok with that because that's what the people have decided. Most votes wins (a slight change from majority rules but effectively the same outlook). In a consituency where only 49% of voters actually turn up to vote that to me is a more important factor than the voting system we have in place. FPTP would be far more credible IF more people voted. Over simplifying it perhaps?

 

If we had higher turnouts at the polls then I dont believe this would even be being debated.

 

Let me put it another way, again in football terms. Im not gona start next season hoping Thistle win the league but with Hamiton, Falkirk and Dundee as my 'back-up' options. Again, a crude way of explaining it but the only way I can think of to do so.

 

I suspect I could sustain an argument that the existence of FPTP and the fact that it makes so many votes meaningless is a significant factor in holding turnout down. If you don't think your vote will count, then why bother voting at all?

 

Beyond that, I don't think turnout is a factor in arguing for electoral reform. Any candidate elected on a minority vote even with 1005 turnout remains an unsatisfactory outcome.

 

And it's alwasy worth reminding people that David Cameron is leader of the Conservative Party because they use AV for this. Had they used FPTP then David Davies would be the leader as he came on top after the first round of voting.

 

The Tories also want to use AV for the locally elected Police Boards they are proposing.

 

And some old codger was suggesting that a Union strike ballot should only be valid if over 50% of people voted.

 

So from their perspective, theses sort of things are perfectly good for others - just not for them

[Steven H]

No, first preferences count again. Indeed theoretically they count more: they have guaranteed that the candidate even has a right to participate in the second round of the instant-run-off.

 

But they are not re-counted, that's what I mean.

 

 

 

That's a stupid way to run POTY voting though. If you have 3 people who love Fox but think Doolan is shite and Erskine is a "good shout", 2 people who quite like Doolan but think Fox is shite and think Erskine is a "good shout" and 2 people who think Erskine is the ******* business and don't care about any other players, clearly the best consensus is that Erskine should win player of the year (indeed he would be the second preference of Doolan voters to give him a majority over Fox. But under FPTP, Fox wins the POTY even though more than half of the fans either think he's rubbish or otherwise don't especially rate him.

 

So we vote for who we prefer not who we don't agree with/like the most. I prefer the SNP, my wife prefers Labour, our neighbour prefers the Lib Dems and her neighbour prefers Labour. Labour win even tho 50% prefer other candidates/parties...I have no issue with that at all (even tho I voted SNP).

Edited May 5, 2011 by Steven H