UKIP a one trick Pony

[ddt]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/26/european-elections-2014-r_n_5391365.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

I'm a bit curious about how this works.

A party that got 7.9% of the vote got 3 seats, and one that got 6.9% got one.
Another that got 0.7% also got one, and a party that got 2.4% got 2.

A party called "An Independence From Europe" got 1.5% of the vote. Isn't that UKIP's issue? Why two different parties? There's even a "NO2EU" party. Same thing?

The EU prescribes that European Elections are to be conducted with some form of Proportional Representation (PR). To that end, the UK has decided to divide the country into 11 multi-seat electoral districts. Depending on population size, in a district there are between 3 (e.g., North East) and 10 (South East) seats to be divided. So, what matters is how you perform in each district, not nation-wide.

A party that has a strong regional showing thus can easily grab seats: e.g., the SNP which only stood in Scotland, got 2 of the 6 seats there, but on a national scale only has 2.4% of the vote. Likewise with Plaid Cymru in Wales, or Sinn Fein in NI. A party that has 6% of the vote spread all over the country, falls out in every district.

The LibDem vote is spread out quite evenly over the country; that's why they only got a seat in the SouthEast, which has the most seats to divide. The Greens performed better in the South of England than in the rest of the country, that's why they were able to pick up seats there.

ETA:
Here is the BBC page with the results. You can click on the names of the electoral districts in the table to the right to see the result per district. It's not so much that the Green vote is much more concentrated than the LibDem vote; they actually nowhere had enough votes for a whole seat either. But they did outperform the LibDems in all those districts, and so they were earlier in line to pick up rest seats. See D'Hondt method for the method used for allocation of seats (exceptfor Northern Ireland which used STV). That method favours bigger parties; to give a concrete example, for picking up a rest seat, a party that polled just over 3 seats will win out in picking up a 4th seat over a party that polled 0.75 seat, to get its first seat.

 

[ddt]

A party called "An Independence From Europe" got 1.5% of the vote. Isn't that UKIP's issue? Why two different parties? There's even a "NO2EU" party. Same thing?

The No2EU party is far-left.

 

[Rolfe]

A party called "An Independence From Europe" got 1.5% of the vote. Isn't that UKIP's issue? Why two different parties?

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.

Rolfe.

 

[The Don]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/26/european-elections-2014-r_n_5391365.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

I'm a bit curious about how this works.

A party that got 7.9% of the vote got 3 seats, and one that got 6.9% got one.
Another that got 0.7% also got one, and a party that got 2.4% got 2.

A party called "An Independence From Europe" got 1.5% of the vote. Isn't that UKIP's issue? Why two different parties? There's even a "NO2EU" party. Same thing?

It's proportional representation but on a regional basis. If a party gets a uniform proportion of the vote across the country it may not be enough in any one region to get an MEP but one which gets the same national proportion of the vote but where the support is unevenly distributed could get enough to get one or more MEPs in an individual region.

Party A scores 1% of the vote in all regions, 1% overall gets no seats

Party B scores 10% of the vote in one region, 0% in the remaining 9 regions, 1% overall gets some seats. This is the case for parties like Plaid Cymru, the SNP, and the Northern Irish parties which have high levels of support in a single region.

With respect to the various anti-EU parties, some have genuine differences in policy, others are just "splitters" in the Life of Brian sense. So...

- UKIP is the original racism-lite
- An Independence from Europe was founded by someone who left UKIP in a huff - tolerates LBGT more than UKIP
- English Democrats are like UKIP but even more anglo-centric
- BNP is proper racism
- Britain First is for people who think the BNP isn't racist enough
- No2EU is a left wing eurosceptic party

It's very confusing I agree.


Edited again to add..... I also found from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)

- 4 Freedoms Party (UK EPP) - UKIP/conservative splitters in London
- We Demand a Referendum Now - UKIP in a hurry ?
- Yorkshire First - freedom for Yorkshire, or at least devolution

 

[angrysoba]

Especially in the pronunciation. If he was a proper Englishman he'd pronounce it "Farridge" rather than "Farahge"

Ill Ducky Farridge.

 

[ddt]

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.

Their wiki page has some interesting info.

It was founded by Mike Nattrass, a former UKIP MEP since 2004, who was not selected in August 2013 for the new list, and thus decided to run on his own. It's a bit hard to track down, but it seems that Nattrass, to his credit, was not very pleased that UKIP shared a political group in Brussels with the Italian racists of Lega Nord.

Another UKIP MEP, Nikki Sinclaire, left the party for a similar reason and founded "We Demand a Referendum Now".

One of the candidates of the party was Laurence Stassen, a Dutch MEP who left Wilders' PVV 2 months ago after he had the crowd at an election meeting shout "Fewer Moroccans".

Finally, it seems that "An Independence from Europe" actually cost UKIP a seat, in SouthWest England. If you add their votes to the UKIP vote, UKIP would have gotten a third seat instead of the Greens. The wiki pages speaks of possibly more seats, but I haven't found any (yet).

It always warms my heart to see how this kind of politicians lose themselves in infighting and in the process hurt themselves.

 

[zooterkin]

The LibDem vote is spread out quite evenly over the country; that's why they only got a seat in the SouthEast, which has the most seats to divide.

That's been one of their problems, historically, with the first past the post system, too, and why they are in favour of proportional representation. Labour and Conservative support tends to be more concentrated, and the Lib Dems typically come second (or used to) in most seats.

 

[The Don]

Ill Ducky Farridge.

AFAIK they're not too fond of LBGT in UKIP so "Ducky" might not be the best name.

 

[malicus]

AFAIK they're not too fond of LBGT in UKIP so "Ducky" might not be the best name.

I'm not really sure where they truly stand (like most of their drivel). Scotland's UKIP MEP, David Coburn, is gay - but does not favour same sex marriage. His view is that it breeds homophobia.

 

[ddt]

That's been one of their problems, historically, with the first past the post system, too, and why they are in favour of proportional representation. Labour and Conservative support tends to be more concentrated, and the Lib Dems typically come second (or used to) in most seats.

Indeed, and before the Gang of Four split off Labour to form the SDP and ally with the Liberals, the Liberals had the same problem and seemed relegated to the dustbin of history, even though at times they even polled 20% nation-wide - but only got a few percent of the seats.

According to wiki, the LibDems favour Single Transferable Vote, which is still stupid as it still underrepresents third parties (though less than FPTP, see Ireland).

And that's why in the coalition agreement, they agreed to another system, Alternative Vote, which is only slightly more favourable to them than FPTP, and then only to hold a poorly-phrased (*) referendum about it, and allowed their coalition partner to actively campaign against it. That's not how coalitions work, certainly not when it comes to a core issue for the long-term survival of your party. And it's some very poor bargaining.

(*) I wonder how many people didn't even quite grasp what AV was, and I wonder how many people voted against AV because they thought it was only a piss-poor improvement over FPTP...

 

[Rolfe]

Oddly enough the LibDems in Scotland were in the opposite position, with great strength in a few constituencies and poor performence elsewhere. However they were the ones who gifted us the d'Hondt system for the Scottish parliament because it was their national party policy and they leaned on Labour to do it.

After the first results were in, when they got a lot of FPTP seats and very few list seats, while the SNP with even spread of support was in the opposite position, they immediately started to bad-mouth the list MSPs as second-class representatives.

Of course they only have four or five MSPs now and only one of them is FPTP. How are the mighty fallen.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Oh, and the more I see of STV, the less I like it. d'Hondt works well so thanks for that if nothing else LibDems. (And thanks for not going into coalition in 2007 as well.)

Rolfe.

 

[ddt]

Oddly enough the LibDems in Scotland were in the opposite position, with great strength in a few constituencies and poor performence elsewhere. However they were the ones who gifted us the d'Hondt system for the Scottish parliament because it was their national party policy and they leaned on Labour to do it.

After the first results were in, when they got a lot of FPTP seats and very few list seats, while the SNP with even spread of support was in the opposite position, they immediately started to bad-mouth the list MSPs as second-class representatives.

Of course they only have four or five MSPs now and only one of them is FPTP. How are the mighty fallen.

Rolfe.

Five MSPs in total, two of them from constituencies. But by far the smallest constituencies: Orkneys and Shetland Islands.

Oh, and the more I see of STV, the less I like it. d'Hondt works well so thanks for that if nothing else LibDems. (And thanks for not going into coalition in 2007 as well.)

Rolfe.

The Scottish election system is, IMHO, a nice combination of PR and having a "local" MP. (this page of the Welsh Assembly explains how it works).

You do realize that with pure FPTP, the SNP would have gotten ca. 20 seats more in 2011?

As to STV, there's one problem that I find fundamentally unsatisfactory.

The idea is that you use STV with multi-seat constituencies. The voter marks on their ballot a first-choice candidate, a second-choice candidate, etc. There is a certain threshold of votes to get a seat, say 10,000. Then the following process is repeated:
1) When a candidate receives more votes than the threshold, say 14,000, the candidate is elected, and the 4,000 surplus votes are distributed among the next-choice candidates marked on the ballots.
2) If no candidate is past the threshold, the candidate with the fewest votes is discarded and their ballots are distributed to the next-choice candidate marked on the ballots.
This process is repeated until all seats are distributed or there are as many candidates as remaining seats.

But in step (1), which 4,000 ballots are distributed? There are a myriad ways to fill in a ballot, especially when you give people the option to vote for individual candidates rather than vote for party lists. The actual outcome of the election thus depends on the choice of which 4,000 ballots out of the 14,000 total are distributed to other candidates. This is fundamentally unfair.

The only way to do it fairly would be to punch in each ballot into a computer and let it run a simulation for all possible selections, and see if they agree. Or, to say that you transfer all ballots to the next candidate, but then with the appropriate weight (4,000/14,000 in this case) - something you also need a computer for, in practical terms.

During the last Irish elections for the Dail, which use STV, it took some constituencies five whole days to do the counting and recounting and recounting.

So, the process of counting votes wtih STV is fundamentally unfair, and it's cumbersome. To a lesser extent, AV (Instant Runoff) is also cumbersome as you also have to distribute discarded ballots to next-choice candidates.

By comparison, PR and FPTP are a breeze to count.

 

[Rolfe]

Ah, I forgot they split Orkney and Shetland. That was a sweetener to the LibDems to get them on board at the start as it gives them an extra MSP. Population-wise, the Northern Isles only rate one constituency member.

I entirely agree with you about d'Hondt. (And yes, we all know where the SNP would be now on FPTP!) It takes a wee while to get to grips with the way it works, and there is maybe a temptation not to take the list vote (which determines the actual make-up of the parliament and which is the largest party) seriously enough. There can be a temptation to cast your constituency vote for you favoured party and then, even if it is a safe seat for someone else, consider your duty done and go for a maverick on the list. Or we had the problem of some people thinking it was a second preference vote and they should pick their second-preference party (the Greens encouraged this and some said that was dishonest).

But the results tell us this wasn't a major problem. And the thing that really sold it for me was hearing Labour constituency MSPs complaining about the SNP list MSPs in their regions working hard for the constituents to gain favour with them, in the hope of "stealing" the constituency vote next time. My immediate reaction was, that's not a bug, it's a feature. (And it might actually have worked, too.)

I have stood in a local council by-election under STV. It's a pain in the neck and it doesn't handle by-elections well at all.

Rolfe.

 

[The Don]

By comparison, PR and FPTP are a breeze to count.

Makes me think that FPTP for elections is like BMI for assessing whether someone is overweight, it may not give the right answer but at least it's unambiguous and easy to calculate.

W.r.t. different voting systems, it depends on how people cast their votes. If people merely vote for a party then I can see that PR makes sense. If people vote for the best candidate regardless of party then FPTP makes sense, you yet the guy you want. In my constituency I'm tempted to vote for the man because he is a very effective constituency MP and on a personal note he has helped considerably in my dealings with BTOpenreach. Unfortunately I cannot get past his party affiliation.

The transferable vote schemes and "top up" schemes based on proportion of the vote seem like a bit of a fudge to me. Either we care about the individual who represents our constituency (in which case we should keep FPTP for all its myriad flaws) or we don't (in which case PR seems the fairest approach). Of course PR means you could end up with a particularly incompetent local representative but then again that also happens in FPTP where the local electorate would vote for anything with a blue/yellow/red rosette.

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

Makes me think that FPTP for elections is like BMI for assessing whether someone is overweight, it may not give the right answer but at least it's unambiguous and easy to calculate.

W.r.t. different voting systems, it depends on how people cast their votes. If people merely vote for a party then I can see that PR makes sense. If people vote for the best candidate regardless of party then FPTP makes sense, you yet the guy you want. In my constituency I'm tempted to vote for the man because he is a very effective constituency MP and on a personal note he has helped considerably in my dealings with BTOpenreach. Unfortunately I cannot get past his party affiliation.

The transferable vote schemes and "top up" schemes based on proportion of the vote seem like a bit of a fudge to me. Either we care about the individual who represents our constituency (in which case we should keep FPTP for all its myriad flaws) or we don't (in which case PR seems the fairest approach). Of course PR means you could end up with a particularly incompetent local representative but then again that also happens in FPTP where the local electorate would vote for anything with a blue/yellow/red rosette.

Which is why I like AV, as proposed in the referendum. It keeps the constituency MP, avoids the toxic party list system which inevitably results in people who can't realistically be removed or held to account by the public, and returns a fairer reflection of the balance of views in the constituency, as well as doing away with tactical voting almost entirely.

 

[Rolfe]

Nah. It's still extremely non-proportional.

Rolfe.

 

[ddt]

Ah, I forgot they split Orkney and Shetland. That was a sweetener to the LibDems to get them on board at the start as it gives them an extra MSP. Population-wise, the Northern Isles only rate one constituency member.

Ah, that's why it was split compared to the Westminster constituencies.

I entirely agree with you about d'Hondt.

Of course, I'm biased towards PR as I was born and raised in a country which only uses PR. (though with the real possibility for lower-placed candidates to get elected through preference votes).

(And yes, we all know where the SNP would be now on FPTP!) It takes a wee while to get to grips with the way it works,

Any change of voting system does require to get to grips with it; which is one reason why I think the UK 2011 referendum was not a good idea.

and there is maybe a temptation not to take the list vote <snip>

But the results tell us this wasn't a major problem.

Judging from the numbers, indeed, it seems not.

And the thing that really sold it for me was hearing Labour constituency MSPs complaining about the SNP list MSPs in their regions working hard for the constituents to gain favour with them, in the hope of "stealing" the constituency vote next time. My immediate reaction was, that's not a bug, it's a feature. (And it might actually have worked, too.)

LOL. Why would list-MSPs not be allowed to campaign for their fellow MSP candidates? Moreover, I assume that many of them also stand candidate in a constituency.

That brings me to another feature of PR: under FPTP or AV, a bit of bad luck can mean that your party is beheaded because the leader is not elected in his/her constituency; or someone else whom you think is important for the party's performance. In the Scottish/Welsh/German system, they then get elected through the list vote.

I have stood in a local council by-election under STV. It's a pain in the neck and it doesn't handle by-elections well at all.

What is special about by-elections in this regard?

Makes me think that FPTP for elections is like BMI for assessing whether someone is overweight, it may not give the right answer but at least it's unambiguous and easy to calculate.

You can say the same thing about pure PR. Only, IMHO, the difference is that FPTP vastly distorts the political will. Third parties hardly stand a chance when their voter base is spread. FPTP tends to a two party-system, see Duverger's law.

W.r.t. different voting systems, it depends on how people cast their votes. If people merely vote for a party then I can see that PR makes sense. If people vote for the best candidate regardless of party then FPTP makes sense, you yet the guy you want. In my constituency I'm tempted to vote for the man because he is a very effective constituency MP and on a personal note he has helped considerably in my dealings with BTOpenreach. Unfortunately I cannot get past his party affiliation.

Why not? Let's say this man X, of party A, stood for the Welsh Assembly instead of Westminster. Then you can give him your vote and know there's someone in Cardiff who does his best for his constitency (and for you personally). You give your list vote to party B, the party of your preference, and that ultimately decides the number of delegates per party. Party A probably hasn't gotten more seats because you voted X, but now there is someone of party A in the Assembly whom you like.

What's there not to like about the system?

The transferable vote schemes and "top up" schemes based on proportion of the vote seem like a bit of a fudge to me. Either we care about the individual who represents our constituency (in which case we should keep FPTP for all its myriad flaws) or we don't (in which case PR seems the fairest approach).

Why couldn't you care about both, actually, as laid out above?

Moreover, the mixed system used in Scotland and Wales still means that local independents stand a chance of going to parliament, without having to make a national campaign or party apparatus.

Of course PR means you could end up with a particularly incompetent local representative but then again that also happens in FPTP where the local electorate would vote for anything with a blue/yellow/red rosette.

In a pure PR system, there is no such thing as a local representative.

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

Nah. It's still extremely non-proportional.

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'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.

 

[The Don]

You can say the same thing about pure PR. Only, IMHO, the difference is that FPTP vastly distorts the political will. Third parties hardly stand a chance when their voter base is spread. FPTP tends to a two party-system, see Duverger's law.

I was considering the benefits of FPTP in isolation.

Why not? Let's say this man X, of party A, stood for the Welsh Assembly instead of Westminster. Then you can give him your vote and know there's someone in Cardiff who does his best for his constitency (and for you personally). You give your list vote to party B, the party of your preference, and that ultimately decides the number of delegates per party. Party A probably hasn't gotten more seats because you voted X, but now there is someone of party A in the Assembly whom you like.

What's there not to like about the system?

I suppose it relates to the way in which things play out in UK politics and in particular the whip system. If I vote for an effective local MP who who belongs to a party whose platform I largely oppose sooner or later a vote will come up where he will will be whipped to vote along with party policy even if this runs counter to the best interests of his constituents.

The fault here lies with the whip system rather than the electoral system but in the Welsh assembly there's no indication that the whip system is being abandoned.

As for party lists, from what I've seen in the UK both in terms of the Welsh assembly and for candidate selection, the people highest on the party list are those most likely to do whatever is necessary to keep high on the list. These are not the kind of people I want to represent me.

Why couldn't you care about both, actually, as laid out above?

I could but then I'm left with the problems relating to the whip system and party lists. Neither of these relate directly to the electoral system but rather to the residual effects of the two party system in the UK but I don't see them being fixed any time soon.

Moreover, the mixed system used in Scotland and Wales still means that local independents stand a chance of going to parliament, without having to make a national campaign or party apparatus.

It's unlikely, but even if they get there they are almost entirely ineffective because they aren't linked into the party apparatus which allows them to actually get stuff done. Again, not a problem with the electoral system.

Currently there are no independent members of the Welsh Assembly and in the Scottish Parliament there are two independent members, both of whom resigned from the SNP after being elected over differences in NATO policy.

In a pure PR system, there is no such thing as a local representative.

And this is something I'm wrestling in my own mind over. For almost everyone almost all the time it makes absolutely no difference who their local representative is. Most people have no interaction with their MP and in matters of great importance the MP must vote along with party policy or risk having the whip withdrawn. In the party-driven UK, is there any point to having local representation ?

My gut tells me that yes, a great local MP can do good for their constituents, but in the 80% of seats where the party affiliation of the MP directly elected would never be in doubt then it's the luck of the draw.