Before I began I must admit to taking the information fro Britain Votes and Better Nation. I hope they will forgive me for borrowing their info.
On Thursday there was an by-lection for Edinburgh City Council, City Centre . The last election which was held under STV resulted in the following 1st round preference votes.
SNP 20.4%
Con 20.2%
LD 19.9%
Lab 18%
Grn 17%
SSP 1.8%
Ind) 1.6%
Lib) 1%
After the Elimination counts with he Lib Dem Charles Dundas being elected first (taking most of the Green votes) – with the SNP’s David Beckett elected next, and the Tories’ Joanna Mowat only returned once Labour were eliminated in the last round.
So Thursday byelection was also under the same rules as STV though you can argue it co responded to an Election under AV. The SNP who had hekd the seat were somewhat at a disadvantage because the former councillor David Beckett had done a Adam Price and resigned his council seat to attend a course at Harvard (prehaps they will meet up?) and there might have been a bit of resentment from a electorate who felt they had been snubbed.
Any way the voting went as follows turn out was 23.4%
Round 1
Con 837 (24.2% + 4.0)
SNP 797 (23.1 +2.6)
Lab 682 (19.7 +1.7)
Green 494 (14.3 -2.7)
Ind 394 (11.4 +9.8)
LD 251 (eliminated) (251 -12.6)
Round 2
Con 904 (67 votes from LDs)
SNP 825 (28 votes from LDs)
Lab 716 (34 votes from LDs)
Green 576 (82 votes from LDs)
Ind 402 (8 votes from LDs) (eliminated
)
Round 3
Con 1043 (139 votes from Ind)
SNP 893 (68 votes from Ind)
Lab 745 (29 votes from Ind)
Green 635 (59 votes from Ind) (eliminated)
Round 4
Con 1110 (67 votes from Greens)
SNP 1084 (191 votes from Greens)
Lab 968 (223 votes from Greens) (eliminated)
Round 5
SNP 1368 (284 votes from Labour) – ELECTED
Con 1264 (154 votes from Labour)
So the Tories has led in most of the counts and had received more second preference votes from the Independent . Failed to win the seat at the last hurdle . When the majority Labour prefernce voter went to the SNP.
What can we read from this not to much .
That the Libdem vote collapsed is clear and the fact that the majority of twhat must be a hardcore of Liberl Democrat loyalist second preference went to the Greens. Which may result in some gains for the latter next may.
A surprising large percentage of Labours preferences went to the Tories.
It would have been intresting to see what the SNP second preferences were?
But the real question might be can the Tories win a election under these rules (ie virtual AV)? and could it be the reason why they where so vehement against AV. Whould the anybody but a Tory (ABAT) result in them being wiped out particularly at local level?
National Left - Wales needs a progressive left future.
Showing posts with label AV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AV. Show all posts
Saturday, 20 August 2011
Monday, 9 May 2011
STV for Wales in 2016.
You don't have to be a Conservative supporter to think that it is patently absurd that their leader lost his seat because his party had won an extra constituency seat.
The current method of Constituency and Regions which Top up parties is plainly not working.
Firstly there was the original spectacle of rejected candidates at a constituency level being elected on the regional list. Although this was clearly not particularly democratic. It was somewhat even more undemocratic for Labour through Peter Hain.to unilaterally change the rules in Wales to prevent candidates for standing in constituencies from also standing on the regional list. a situation which did not affect Labour because of its strong showing at consistency level. Though strangely (or not) they did do so so in Scotland where Labour candidates who were defeated at constituency level were more likely needing the regional list option to get elected.
Labour also changed the rules for the recent election to simplify the ballot paper for the regional list by not placing the candidates names. We were told that the names would be displayed at the polling station, but at the one I voted in there was no display of the list candidates and when I queried this, I was only shown the list of people who signed the nomination papers. The political parties did not help us by failing to tell us who was on the list in their election communications. So unless you were like myself a political junkie you may not have known who you were voting for
Then we had the case of .parties like the Greens and UKIP contesting only the regional list. This meant that the concept of Top Up did not apply to them . Nevertheless the possibility of Parties getting AM's from the regional list and yet not standing in any constituency was there, which despite the fact I would have liked to see a Green AM (But not UKIP) this somewhat goes against the intention of the two ballot system.
In a true "British Democracy" manner this does not happen in Northern Ireland where STV is used.
As a supporter of STV . I rejected the AV choice last week because it was in reality no better than FPTP and whilst I accept out current system is better than FPTP it is hardly the best option especially when we consider that.
It was introduced in Scotland to ensure that the SNP could't get a majority and use this as mandate for independence. Well that hasn't worked.
It was introduced in Wales to placate Non -Labour voters who were afraid of a huge Labour majority whilst ensuring Labour remained the dominant party.
It seems that Labour had considered STV but had rejected it because Ron Davies is quoted that......
Taking in to account the inadequacies of our current system, any understanding that either Plaid or the LibDems have with Labour government without a overall majority should include the introduction of STV for the 5th Welsh Assembly in 2016.
The current method of Constituency and Regions which Top up parties is plainly not working.
Firstly there was the original spectacle of rejected candidates at a constituency level being elected on the regional list. Although this was clearly not particularly democratic. It was somewhat even more undemocratic for Labour through Peter Hain.to unilaterally change the rules in Wales to prevent candidates for standing in constituencies from also standing on the regional list. a situation which did not affect Labour because of its strong showing at consistency level. Though strangely (or not) they did do so so in Scotland where Labour candidates who were defeated at constituency level were more likely needing the regional list option to get elected.
Labour also changed the rules for the recent election to simplify the ballot paper for the regional list by not placing the candidates names. We were told that the names would be displayed at the polling station, but at the one I voted in there was no display of the list candidates and when I queried this, I was only shown the list of people who signed the nomination papers. The political parties did not help us by failing to tell us who was on the list in their election communications. So unless you were like myself a political junkie you may not have known who you were voting for
Then we had the case of .parties like the Greens and UKIP contesting only the regional list. This meant that the concept of Top Up did not apply to them . Nevertheless the possibility of Parties getting AM's from the regional list and yet not standing in any constituency was there, which despite the fact I would have liked to see a Green AM (But not UKIP) this somewhat goes against the intention of the two ballot system.
In a true "British Democracy" manner this does not happen in Northern Ireland where STV is used.
As a supporter of STV . I rejected the AV choice last week because it was in reality no better than FPTP and whilst I accept out current system is better than FPTP it is hardly the best option especially when we consider that.
It was introduced in Scotland to ensure that the SNP could't get a majority and use this as mandate for independence. Well that hasn't worked.
It was introduced in Wales to placate Non -Labour voters who were afraid of a huge Labour majority whilst ensuring Labour remained the dominant party.
It seems that Labour had considered STV but had rejected it because Ron Davies is quoted that......
We have 5 years before the next Assembly elections.In the meantime the Westminster Constituencies will be considerably redrawn despite the rejection of AV and the number of Welsh seats will be reduced. So by 20166 the Welsh Assembly Constituencies will no longer be the same as those at Westminster. So the boundary commission will be now obliged to redraw separate constituencies for the two legislators on a regular basis."Had we done that of course we would have had to have had a Boundary Commission and that process would have taken forever and a day and that would have frustrated our overall political timetable. So we had to settle on the existing constituency arrangements, parliamentary constituencies and European Constituencies"
Taking in to account the inadequacies of our current system, any understanding that either Plaid or the LibDems have with Labour government without a overall majority should include the introduction of STV for the 5th Welsh Assembly in 2016.
.
Saturday, 12 March 2011
SIX: S instead of X.
In May 2011 the British Government will be asking people in a referendum to vote whether they should replace the First Past the Post system (FTP) in British General Elections with the Alternative Vote AV.
Given that Nick Clegg described AV as a "miserable little compromise" of limited electoral reform as the price of propping up Labour in a hung parliament and now campaigns for it as part of propping up the Conservatives. We will have only one choice in this referendum this is not good enough.
What we need is a method of expressing our views,
I've started a facebook page to argue that people who support the Single Transferable Vote (STV) can make their preference by writing a S instead of a X in the Box provided
You can place a X in the Yes box if you want SYV but are willing to accept AV for now.You can place a X in the NO Box if you want STV but do not want AV.
This should not mean your vote will not be counted as a spoilt vote as you will have clearly made a preference.
If however significant numbers do place an S then we may well have a case for these to be individually counted.
What ever happens in the referendum we will be stuck with either AV or FPTP possibly for a generation. If we are to have a Voice I urge you to back SIX.
Tuesday, 18 January 2011
Will AV wipe out Plaid?
In today Western Mail Dr John Cox argues that the implication of AV could result in Plaid MPs be wiped out at Westminster especially when taking into account the proposals for larger consultancies in this I am in agreement it is of interest that the Lib-Dems could also lose their three seats and this also seems likely though on the current polls they would do so anyway.
Though I suspect that the Lib-Dems with some misgiving would sacrifice their 3 Welsh seats for the chance of ay 20 -40 more in England and perhaps wiping Plaid and the SNP out
Of course this should not be a reason to oppose AV if it resulted in a truly proportional representation but unless you looked at this from a purely UK angle in which the nationalist parties and all the Northern Ireland parties would probably not meet a percentage threshold then of about 5% giving them a nominal entitlement of 3 MP's then this will not be fair.
Of course in Northern Ireland the London parties do not largely stand so there may be a case that the introduction of AV would result in more proportionality. But the fact that they recognise the uniqueness of the Six counties is an Tacit acceptance by the London parties that "Regional " factors should be included in any assessment of whether a system is proportional or not.
My argument is that although in a minority when it comes to Westminster elections both Plaid and the SNP have enough support to claim seats in the Commons based on the idea of proportional representation. It would be a shame if the introduction of AV could result in them having less representation than they are entitled to under a proportional system based on the Welsh or Scottish percentage of votes,
At the moment Plaid's could claim that it was entitled to 4-5 of the 40 welsh seats based on its votes in Wales, where the SNP cou;ld claim 11-12 instead of the 3 and six they currently have.
I think Plaid's leadership should make a step of rejecting AV not because it threats theircurrent seats but because it is con masquerading as given us more democracy ,as Dr Cox points out this may well be far from the truth in Wales at least.
Though I suspect that the Lib-Dems with some misgiving would sacrifice their 3 Welsh seats for the chance of ay 20 -40 more in England and perhaps wiping Plaid and the SNP out
Of course this should not be a reason to oppose AV if it resulted in a truly proportional representation but unless you looked at this from a purely UK angle in which the nationalist parties and all the Northern Ireland parties would probably not meet a percentage threshold then of about 5% giving them a nominal entitlement of 3 MP's then this will not be fair.
Of course in Northern Ireland the London parties do not largely stand so there may be a case that the introduction of AV would result in more proportionality. But the fact that they recognise the uniqueness of the Six counties is an Tacit acceptance by the London parties that "Regional " factors should be included in any assessment of whether a system is proportional or not.
My argument is that although in a minority when it comes to Westminster elections both Plaid and the SNP have enough support to claim seats in the Commons based on the idea of proportional representation. It would be a shame if the introduction of AV could result in them having less representation than they are entitled to under a proportional system based on the Welsh or Scottish percentage of votes,
At the moment Plaid's could claim that it was entitled to 4-5 of the 40 welsh seats based on its votes in Wales, where the SNP cou;ld claim 11-12 instead of the 3 and six they currently have.
I think Plaid's leadership should make a step of rejecting AV not because it threats theircurrent seats but because it is con masquerading as given us more democracy ,as Dr Cox points out this may well be far from the truth in Wales at least.
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
AV is not the answer Kirsty and you know it.
Subordinate Central reports Welsh Liberal Democrat Leader, Kirsty Williams (La Pasionaria) has written to the First Minister seeking his agreement to setting up a cross-party campaign to fight for a ‘yes’ vote in Wales’ second referendum next year, on fair voting.
She does this in an effort to get support for a referendum on the Alternative Vote (AV).
The Winning candidate Russel Johnson received only 26% of the vote and the fourth place candidate was only 3.4% behind. If AV had been used would the result have been any "fairer". Would the electorate have been happy if the fourth pace candidate had eventually won I doubt it.
La Pasionaria claims in her letter to Carwyn Jones
• All MPs would have the support of a majority of their voters. Following the 2010 election 2/3 of MPs lacked majority support, the highest figure in British political history.
Not entirely trueI.In reality MP’s can at least claim that MP’s have the half hearted support of most of the electorate. However AV would not in reality have given anyone in the Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber elected under this system any more legitimacy.
• It penalises extremist parties, who are unlikely to gain many second-preference votes.
Yes but it will obviously penalise progressive parties such as the Greens and Meybyon Kernow and anyway where does fairness come in if in is the case it excludes a Party with a sizable vote.
• It eliminates the need for tactical voting. Electors can vote for their first-choice candidate without fear of wasting their vote.
Actually it just makes tactical voting more complex, as people have to work out who is likely to finish First ,Second or Third. In Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber it would have been a nightmare as people try and work out the possible result and how to vote,and of course it would mean the Lib-Dems still using thier little bar charts to convince people they were in a chance of winning a seat no matter how misleading.
• It encourages candidates to chase second- and third-preferences, which lessens the tendency for negative campaigning.
I doubt very much this will be the case it might be more subtle but if it were true it will lead to bland conservatism with candidates playing it safe and even more pandering to "Middle England".
What La Pasionaria is trying to do is to cover her Party tracks and hoping that if the referendum rejects AV then she can blame other Parties.
She knows full well that her Party should be supporting the Single Transferable Vote and AV is a Blind Alley that if it accepted or rejected would put back a fairer voting system back decades. Those Parties who truly support fairer votes should not endorse a Yes campaign but fight for a write in vote on the referendum ballot paper in order to give they support for a true affair system of voting not some piss poor Lib-Dem face saver.
She does this in an effort to get support for a referendum on the Alternative Vote (AV).
Before we look at la Pasionaria’s argument in favor of AV let us look at one result that shows the absurdity of the First past the post system . That of Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber 1n the 1992 election
La Pasionaria claims in her letter to Carwyn Jones
• All MPs would have the support of a majority of their voters. Following the 2010 election 2/3 of MPs lacked majority support, the highest figure in British political history.
Not entirely trueI.In reality MP’s can at least claim that MP’s have the half hearted support of most of the electorate. However AV would not in reality have given anyone in the Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber elected under this system any more legitimacy.
• It penalises extremist parties, who are unlikely to gain many second-preference votes.
Yes but it will obviously penalise progressive parties such as the Greens and Meybyon Kernow and anyway where does fairness come in if in is the case it excludes a Party with a sizable vote.
• It eliminates the need for tactical voting. Electors can vote for their first-choice candidate without fear of wasting their vote.
Actually it just makes tactical voting more complex, as people have to work out who is likely to finish First ,Second or Third. In Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber it would have been a nightmare as people try and work out the possible result and how to vote,and of course it would mean the Lib-Dems still using thier little bar charts to convince people they were in a chance of winning a seat no matter how misleading.
• It encourages candidates to chase second- and third-preferences, which lessens the tendency for negative campaigning.
I doubt very much this will be the case it might be more subtle but if it were true it will lead to bland conservatism with candidates playing it safe and even more pandering to "Middle England".
What La Pasionaria is trying to do is to cover her Party tracks and hoping that if the referendum rejects AV then she can blame other Parties.
She knows full well that her Party should be supporting the Single Transferable Vote and AV is a Blind Alley that if it accepted or rejected would put back a fairer voting system back decades. Those Parties who truly support fairer votes should not endorse a Yes campaign but fight for a write in vote on the referendum ballot paper in order to give they support for a true affair system of voting not some piss poor Lib-Dem face saver.
Tuesday, 7 September 2010
Mr Clegg's weasel words.
So the proposal to hold a referendum on the introduction of the Alternative Vote (AV) for UK elections has passed it’s first hurdle with an easy win for the coalition government on last night vote (6t Sept).
To read some Lib-Dem blogs you would have thought this was always their policy those at Aberavon and Neath Liberal Democrats claimed.
“Our two Parties have different views on the future of our voting system. But we both recognise that there are genuine concerns about the current system. And we emphatically agree that the decision is not, in any case, for government alone.
It should be taken by the people themselves That is why both our parties support putting this question to a referendum next May, just one example of the power shift we are determined to deliver. Fixing parliament also means tackling the unfairness in the geography of MPs' constituencies by making sure votes count equally wherever they are cast. The coalition also proposes to cut the number of MPs to 600”.
If as they claim that it should be taken to the people themselves , then why not have an open referendum and give those who support STV (including presumably themselves) the chance to vote for this option.
As for the “Fixing” parliaments with regards re forming constituency boundaries. Then they got that right, because its nothing but a move to give the Tories the opportunity to gerrymander the current set up.
I don’t often agree with Labour MP Kevin Brennan but when he asked .
“whether plans for constituency changes were included in the same bill as the price of Conservative support for the referendum. Mr Clegg replied that, as they were "two issues that relate to how we are elected to this House", it had been "natural to bring them together".
Mr Clegg defended plans to reduce the number of MPs and to redraw constituency boundaries so they each represented about 76,000 people each, saying it was "patently obvious that individuals' votes should carry the same weight".
But you don’t have to be a genius to work out that the Tories would clearly love to see AV fail at the referendum but see the cut in the number seats pass (which we will not be allowed to vote for) guaranteeing them a larger majority if the percentage votes for the Parties at the next General Election remained roughly the same.
How can you have two bills combined when only one goes to a referendum?
In their efforts to get their backsides on the seats of ministerial cars Nick Clegg and the Lib-Dems have sold parliamentary reform down the river and given their Tory bosses exactly the electoral advantage they are seeking.
Because the bboundary changes are guaranteed to pass but the AV referendum may well fail.
No amount of weasel words either from Lib-Dems at Westminster , or Aberavon and Neath will hide this.
To read some Lib-Dem blogs you would have thought this was always their policy those at Aberavon and Neath Liberal Democrats claimed.
“Our two Parties have different views on the future of our voting system. But we both recognise that there are genuine concerns about the current system. And we emphatically agree that the decision is not, in any case, for government alone.
It should be taken by the people themselves That is why both our parties support putting this question to a referendum next May, just one example of the power shift we are determined to deliver. Fixing parliament also means tackling the unfairness in the geography of MPs' constituencies by making sure votes count equally wherever they are cast. The coalition also proposes to cut the number of MPs to 600”.
If as they claim that it should be taken to the people themselves , then why not have an open referendum and give those who support STV (including presumably themselves) the chance to vote for this option.
As for the “Fixing” parliaments with regards re forming constituency boundaries. Then they got that right, because its nothing but a move to give the Tories the opportunity to gerrymander the current set up.
I don’t often agree with Labour MP Kevin Brennan but when he asked .
“whether plans for constituency changes were included in the same bill as the price of Conservative support for the referendum. Mr Clegg replied that, as they were "two issues that relate to how we are elected to this House", it had been "natural to bring them together".
Mr Clegg defended plans to reduce the number of MPs and to redraw constituency boundaries so they each represented about 76,000 people each, saying it was "patently obvious that individuals' votes should carry the same weight".
But you don’t have to be a genius to work out that the Tories would clearly love to see AV fail at the referendum but see the cut in the number seats pass (which we will not be allowed to vote for) guaranteeing them a larger majority if the percentage votes for the Parties at the next General Election remained roughly the same.
How can you have two bills combined when only one goes to a referendum?
In their efforts to get their backsides on the seats of ministerial cars Nick Clegg and the Lib-Dems have sold parliamentary reform down the river and given their Tory bosses exactly the electoral advantage they are seeking.
Because the bboundary changes are guaranteed to pass but the AV referendum may well fail.
No amount of weasel words either from Lib-Dems at Westminster , or Aberavon and Neath will hide this.
Monday, 12 July 2010
Super Thursday? Oh lets just give up now. (NO)
Dafydd Elis-Thomas has written to Cheryl Gillan yo state he has no "constitutional objections" to it taking place on 5 May when the assembly elections and UK voting referendum are held.
Cost was the "overriding issue", he said.
And at Welsh Home Daran Hill has lent his support he wrote
“that if the Rubicon was indeed to be crossed, then why not go the whole damn hog? Why not hold the Assembly powers referendum on the first Thursday in May too? If we are to have a referendum on Assembly election day, then why not make it one that is at least related to that election? Let’s have a Super Thursday in May 2011”.
This is a rather defeatist argument. I would agree that on balance a Super Thursday would be better that having two referendums within a few months. However, as I have argued in earlier posts there is absolutely no reason to hold a vote on AV next year. 2012 would give ample time to prepare for the next General Election.. I could see an argument that if it would be on STV then time would be needed to prepare the new constituencies: But by its very nature AV does not even need tweaking of the boundaries.
It is in the interest of democracy that the Assembly elections and referendum should not be overshadowed by a UK issue. What price does Dafydd Elis Thomas place on this? When does it become too expensive?
We should have been having the referendum on Assembly powers this Autumn.
Actually.Why are we have a referendum just to fix a constitutional mess, seeking to transfer powers via a complex and baffling system?
Perhaps the referendum ballot paper should read something like this.
Do we really need a referendum just to clean up an over complex system?
Cost was the "overriding issue", he said.
And at Welsh Home Daran Hill has lent his support he wrote
“that if the Rubicon was indeed to be crossed, then why not go the whole damn hog? Why not hold the Assembly powers referendum on the first Thursday in May too? If we are to have a referendum on Assembly election day, then why not make it one that is at least related to that election? Let’s have a Super Thursday in May 2011”.
This is a rather defeatist argument. I would agree that on balance a Super Thursday would be better that having two referendums within a few months. However, as I have argued in earlier posts there is absolutely no reason to hold a vote on AV next year. 2012 would give ample time to prepare for the next General Election.. I could see an argument that if it would be on STV then time would be needed to prepare the new constituencies: But by its very nature AV does not even need tweaking of the boundaries.
It is in the interest of democracy that the Assembly elections and referendum should not be overshadowed by a UK issue. What price does Dafydd Elis Thomas place on this? When does it become too expensive?
We should have been having the referendum on Assembly powers this Autumn.
Actually.Why are we have a referendum just to fix a constitutional mess, seeking to transfer powers via a complex and baffling system?
Perhaps the referendum ballot paper should read something like this.
Do we really need a referendum just to clean up an over complex system?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)