UKIP a one trick Pony

[Rolfe]

AV doesn't return a number of representatives that relates directly to the number of votes cast nationally, true. But it's still a way of improving our system while retaining the constituency system and without massive upheaval. It's a no-brainer that it's better than the current FPTP, because it keeps all the benefits while becoming more proportional and more representative. It also has the handy knock-on effect of encouraging more engagement and more attempts to communicate beyond the narrow confines of a few swing voters, because in all but the safest of seats, you need those second/third/fourth preferences.

I voted for it in 2011, but I'm not entirely sure the benefits are what they're cracked up to be. I believe it has been worked out that in terms of how people actually vote it would entrench the two-party system, not alleviate it

I'd love a properly proportional system, but party lists are a real problem, and so is the constituency issue. I see the Scottish system as an ugly fudge rather than a proper solution, although it's better than the Westminster system.

There are ways round the party list thing, in variations of the d'Hondt system. That may be a way the Scottish system could be improved. However, even as it stands it works very well, so thank you for one thing anyway Labour.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

What is special about by-elections in this regard?

Consider a ward in a district council. Three councillors are to be elected by STV. The split of party alliegiance is that each of the three main parties is very likely to get a councillor elected, but within that group of three support varies somewhat.

At the election one candidate from each of the three main parties is elected. Reasonably fair. However, one of these councillors dies or resigns. There is only one seat available for the by-election, which is now in effect being run as an AV election.

No matter who has resigned/died, the most popular party is almost certainly going to get that seat. The proportionality has been destroyed.

Rolfe.

 

[ddt]

Consider a ward in a district council. Three councillors are to be elected by STV. The split of party alliegiance is that each of the three main parties is very likely to get a councillor elected, but within that group of three support varies somewhat.

At the election one candidate from each of the three main parties is elected. Reasonably fair. However, one of these councillors dies or resigns. There is only one seat available for the by-election, which is now in effect being run as an AV election.

No matter who has resigned/died, the most popular party is almost certainly going to get that seat. The proportionality has been destroyed.

Rolfe.

Thank you, I hadn't thought of that scenario.

What happens in Scotland when an MSP dies or resigns? A list-MSP is replaced by the next on the list, I presume? And for a constituency-MSP, a by-election is called? The latter may break proportionality too, but to a much lesser extent than in the above scenario.

 

[ddt]

There are ways round the party list thing, in variations of the d'Hondt system. That may be a way the Scottish system could be improved. However, even as it stands it works very well, so thank you for one thing anyway Labour.

One way to break the party list thing is the Dutch election system, which is PR with d'Hondt with the whole country as one district (1). You cannot, however, just vote for a party: you have to elect a specific candidate. People who are indifferent to the candidates by convention tick the box of the top candidate.

For the results, in the first stage, the seats are divided between the parties: it doesn't matter if a vote was for nr. 1 or for nr. 45, they all count to the votes for that party.

In the second stage, the seats for a party are divided between the candidates of that party. Every candidate who got enough "preference votes", first gets a seat (2)(3), and then the remaining seats are allocated along list order. The threshold for the number of preference votes is fairly low. If we define

quota = total number of votes cast / total number of seats

which is the threshold for a party to get a seat, the threshold for an individual candidate is one fourth of the quota with the national parliament (150 seats), and only one tenth of the quota with the European Parliament (26 seats). With the recent European elections, four out of the 26 new MEPs were elected due to preference votes. (link to result; "lijsttrekker" means top candidate; "voorkeursstemmen" means preference votes). That's a fairly extreme number; at national elections, a handful of MPs elected that way is normal, and with increased volatily of the electorate, lower-placed candidates increasingly run their own mini-campaign to personally get elected.

My gut feeling is, though, that a system with "preference votes" for a list along with the separate constituency vote that Scotland and Wales have, would be overly complicated, at least for the average voter.

(1) Technically, Dutch elections have 20 districts, but they only serve that parties can make a different list of candidates in each district. In practice, various parties do that but then have lists that are identical in the top-25 candidates.

(2) In theory, there could thus be more candidates with enough preference votes than seats for the party. They're elected in order of number of votes. See also footnote (3).

(3) Technically, thus the top candidate is elected on "preference votes", and always as the first. There's one exception: in 2006, Rita Verdonk who had narrowly been beated by current PM Mark Rutte for the VVD leadership, received more votes than Rutte in the elections and could not stop crowing that she was actually the first elected MP of her party and tried to obtain the leadership of the parliamentary party.

 

[Rolfe]

Thank you, I hadn't thought of that scenario.

In STV, a by-election more or less hands the seat over to the most popular party, even if it was the only seat a party with less support actually had.

It didn't actually happen in our by-election, where the resigning councillor was from the second most popular party, but the party managed to hold on to the seat at the by-election partly because the most popular party fielded a candidate who wasn't particularly well-liked locally. So in fact justice was reasonably served and the overall balance of the council wasn't changed. But it has the potential to disadvantage a minor party very severely.

What happens in Scotland when an MSP dies or resigns? A list-MSP is replaced by the next on the list, I presume? And for a constituency-MSP, a by-election is called? The latter may break proportionality too, but to a much lesser extent than in the above scenario.

Yes, that's how it works. The question of whether or not there is a by-election seems a bit abitrary, but in practice it's certainly not outrageous. (Unfortunately Bill Walker, serial wife-beater, was a constituency MSP. So that seat went at the resulting by-election.)

If an independent list member goes, the seat remains vacant till the next election. Thus Margo's seat is being held vacant. A fitting tribute, many believe.

Rolfe.

 

[jimbob]

I really don't like list-based systems because the voters don't have a way of voting directly against a particular candidate, just the party they represent.

I'm not too much a fan of FPTP as it is still difficult for voters to get rid of an obviously bad candidate - although it did happen in Tatton. I think I was about the only person in favour of AV as a system as opposed to thinking it was a messy compromise.

As far as I can see, - that system ensures that the least unpopular candidate is elected, as opposed to the one with the most support. To me, that seems the one with the most checks and balances.

 

[Mojo]

It seems that the party you mention was trying to steal UKIP votes by getting its listing first on the ballot paper, alphabetically. They didn't campaign or do anything at all really. It's highly likely the votes they got were from people who thought they were voting for UKIP.

Someone did this to the LibDems in a pariamentary election once. He stood as a "Literal Democrat" and as his surname was higher in the alphabet than the real LibDem candidate he was nearer the top of the ballot. He did no campaigning and got enough votes (several thousand) to prevent the actual LibDem winning the seat. It was challenged in the courts but the challenge was rejected.

See Sanders v Chichester.

 

[Rolfe]

Thanks for the source, Mojo.

Was it on this thread there was a discussion about writing rude things on your ballot paper?

http://imgur.com/2D4fw95

Rolfe.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I'd like to see a "None of the above" box on all voting papers- and a legal requirement to vote, with "Nota" as an acceptable choice.The numbers might be interesting.

 

[Dcdrac]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/02/five-myths-ukip-conservatives-farage-newark

Five myths about Ukip … that should make the Conservatives happy

If Nigel Farage's party wins Newark it will be a game changer. But our polling suggests its support has actually faded in the past five years

 

[Rolfe]

I'd like to see a "None of the above" box on all voting papers- and a legal requirement to vote, with "Nota" as an acceptable choice.The numbers might be interesting.

I know what you mean, but on the other hand the number of people declaring that none of those who offer themselves for election are acceptable to them but at the same time declining to offer themselves for election is somewhat depressing.

Rolfe.

 

[malicus]

Interesting results from the Newark by-election. Cons held the seat, albeit with a reduced share of the vote (53% down to 45%). UKIP, that flash in the pan one trick mule had it's share of the vote increase from 3.8% to just under 23%, and came in second.

This seems to be heavily at the expense of the Lib Dems (remember them?) who had their vote share reduce tumble decimated from 20% to erm........2.6%. An dropped to sixth place.

The lib dems are well and truly run through. Vote swings are to UKIP. What price UKIP as kingmakers come May.

My my my.

 

[MikeG]

......... I think I was about the only person in favour of AV as a system as opposed to thinking it was a messy compromise......

No, you weren't. In potentially reducing the number of safe seats it had a lot going for it, and I voted for it in the referendum.

 

[Rolfe]

Did you see that rather scary article on Wings that pointed out that just as Scotland's vote (unusually) influenced the makeup of the Westminster government in 2010 to force the Conservatives into coalition with the LibDems rather than being able to form a government themselves, Scotland's vote in 2015 could in exactly the same way turn a majority Conservative government into a Conservative/UKIP coalition.

Vote Yes and save England from UKIP!

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

Interesting results from the Newark by-election. Cons held the seat, albeit with a reduced share of the vote (53% down to 45%). UKIP, that flash in the pan one trick mule had it's share of the vote increase from 3.8% to just under 23%, and came in second.

This seems to be heavily at the expense of the Lib Dems (remember them?) who had their vote share reduce tumble decimated from 20% to erm........2.6%. An dropped to sixth place.

The lib dems are well and truly run through. Vote swings are to UKIP. What price UKIP as kingmakers come May.

My my my.

I think the LibDems would be ecstatic if their result was only decimated!

 

[The Don]

Did you see that rather scary article on Wings that pointed out that just as Scotland's vote (unusually) influenced the makeup of the Westminster government in 2010 to force the Conservatives into coalition with the LibDems rather than being able to form a government themselves, Scotland's vote in 2015 could in exactly the same way turn a majority Conservative government into a Conservative/UKIP coalition.

Vote Yes and save England from UKIP!

Rolfe.

I think having UKIP in power is something I'd rather get out of the way sooner rather than later. Once it's happened I don't think it'll happen again but while they're on the sidelines the Conservatives will have to continue to pander to UKIP voters.

 

[Rolfe]

I see where you're coming from there. But it could be a very nasty time to be alive. Don't be old, sick, disabled, out of work or poor, that's all.

Rolfe.

 

[Dissolution]

What were the LibDems expecting, following their ludicrous decision to jump into bed with the Tories?
That was the last thing that many of their core voters would've wanted and the exact opposite of what virtually all of their floating votes were trying to achieve.
An almost unbelievable short-term move which has done immense damage to them.

 

[Rolfe]

They were thinking it was worth it for five years of being in cabinet posts and in government. Obviously. For these individuals, it probably was.

Rolfe.

 

[The Don]

I see where you're coming from there. But it could be a very nasty time to be alive. Don't be old, sick, disabled, out of work or poor, that's all.

Rolfe.

I agree but with a UKIP hand on the tiller, the Conservative ship may be veering rapidly to starboard. I'd rather get it over and done with rather than, say, 5, 10, 15 years of proto-UKIP followed by 5 years of "proper" UKIP.

I don't think the old have too much to fear from UKIP (after all, the golf club set are a key demographic for them) but the rest really, really do.