[News] Nigel Farage and Reform

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You've got to love a debate though, after all, we use to be able to do that ....

We probably agree on so much more, the vast majority of the country are decent people who look after one another, and NSC is no different. You'll always have the "Nigel's"

I am also particularly good at violently agreeing with people. Ask @Guinness Boy

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think we both know that in practice this doesn't happen so I don't think you can use it as a reason to keep FPTP.

a) FPTP encourages tactical voting - I will likely be voting who has the best chance of keeping out the Tory in my seat. That means Labour, and I really don't want to vote for them but would do so if it means keeping out the Tory.
b) Parties parachute unpopular-but-nevertheless-senior politicians into safe seats knowing that an area can be taken for granted.

This idea that fair representation shouldn't happen because you don't like their politics is for the birds. I hate Farage/Tice but if 20% vote for them, they deserve that representation. Let's see what a mess they make if they ever get a whiff of power. Would we prefer that he gets to make a merge deal with the Tories and those people who voted Tory then get a political position they didn't vote for?

1. I respect your opinion, but the very thought give me the heebeejeebees
2. With 'fair representation' the Tories don't need a merger, they can form a coalition with Farage. And the two parties can merge any time they like, too.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Representative of the proportion of all of the vote. No obviously not. Representative of the wishes of 660 or so sets of local people ? Yes, absolutely.

Personally I think the latter is better. In theory working class people get a representative who understands their needs, “woke” places like Brighton Pavilion or Hove & Portslade get a rep who “gets” them and, frankly, so might Clacton’s racists.

I like that system, you prefer PR and that’s fine. We’ve both got good reasons why I think.

We could have a Single Transferable Vote system, which allows you to vote for individual candidates in a constituency and minimises the number of wasted votes and roughly approximates proportionality

I will concede that selling a system with a flow chart at the top of its Wikipedia page might be a challenge, but as far as the individual voter's concerned you can even just put a cross next to your preferred candidate if you really can't be bothered to rank your preferences.

Single transferable vote - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This is the system supported by the Electoral Reform bods and the Lib Dems etc. Not actual PR or any other party list bullshit. Last time I looked before the election was called, the Greens supported a confusing hodgepodge of different systems in different elections and I gave up trying to understand what they actually wanted or why.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

We could have a Single Transferable Vote system, which allows you to vote for individual candidates in a constituency and minimises the number of wasted votes and roughly approximates proportionality

I will concede that selling a system with a flow chart at the top of its Wikipedia page might be a challenge, but as far as the individual voter's concerned you can even just put a cross next to your preferred candidate if you really can't be bothered to rank your preferences.

Single transferable vote - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This is the system supported by the Electoral Reform bods and the Lib Dems etc. Not actual PR or any other party list bullshit. Last time I looked before the election was called, the Greens supported a confusing hodgepodge of different systems in different elections and I gave up trying to understand what they actually wanted or why.

I stopped reading at "I will concede"

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

I stopped reading at "I will concede"

You're a scientist, you should love flow charts. All charts in fact.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You're a scientist, you should love flow charts. All charts in fact.

There are good charts and there are bad charts.

I think I learned about that from the current affairs programme, Brass Eye.

 

[beorhthelm]

We could have a Single Transferable Vote system, which allows you to vote for individual candidates in a constituency and minimises the number of wasted votes and roughly approximates proportionality

I will concede that selling a system with a flow chart at the top of its Wikipedia page might be a challenge, but as far as the individual voter's concerned you can even just put a cross next to your preferred candidate if you really can't be bothered to rank your preferences.

Single transferable vote - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This is the system supported by the Electoral Reform bods and the Lib Dems etc. Not actual PR or any other party list bullshit. Last time I looked before the election was called, the Greens supported a confusing hodgepodge of different systems in different elections and I gave up trying to understand what they actually wanted or why.

go full PR dont shilly around with half solutions, STV is the every-child-wins-a-prize route of elections.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

There are good charts and there are bad charts.

I think I learned about that from the current affairs programme, Brass Eye.

I just googled "bad charts", which is great fun.

This list (as a scientist you should also appreciate a good LIST) has some crackers, but this it my personal favourite.

The 27 Worst Charts Of All Time

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Zeberdi]

go full PR dont shilly around with half solutions, STV is the every-child-wins-a-prize route of elections.

Except your preferred candidate gets eliminated if they get the lowest number of votes ( although you vote gets pssed to your next preferred candidate.)

At least it would get rid of our ridiculous need for tactical voting under FPTP.

I’ve always thought it was the best form of PR with every vote counted.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

go full PR dont shilly around with half solutions, STV is the every-child-wins-a-prize route of elections.

Alternatively, it's a system that addresses legitimate concerns with both FPTP and PR while undoubtedly having some limitations of its own. The main point is to minimise the number of wasted votes, while the proportionality compared to FPTP is basically a convenient and generally positive side effect. (Edit: That's my view of it, not necessarily the intent of the people who came up with it).

I'm happy and interested to discuss any actual problems you have with it as a system, if you're willing to present some.

 

[Eric the meek]

And there are bad charts which identify as good charts, but all they really mean is that their creator just needs a good shag.

I just googled "bad charts", which is great fun.

This list (as a scientist you should also appreciate a good LIST) has some crackers, but this it my personal favourite.

The 27 Worst Charts Of All Time

www.businessinsider.com

Sid, you should give these people credit. All the creators of those bad charts, meant well. I know you can say that about anyone who fails, but hold this thought. They will have spent a lot of time studying those charts, putting the finishing touches to them, and proud of their output, triumphantly hit the send button, in a 'pick the bones out of that' kind of way. That's a special talent.

 

[beorhthelm]

Alternatively, it's a system that addresses legitimate concerns with both FPTP and PR while undoubtedly having some limitations of its own. The main point is to minimise the number of wasted votes, while the proportionality compared to FPTP is basically a convenient and generally positive side effect. (Edit: That's my view of it, not necessarily the intent of the people who came up with it).

I'm happy and interested to discuss any actual problems you have with it as a system, if you're willing to present some.

it's really about giving you multiple votes; first preference didn't get in, try again; and again; there you go, you voted for that person. no, you should have one vote, make a decision. if we are to overhaul the electoral process, have more conviction and go full PR.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

And there are bad charts which identify as good charts, but all they really mean is that their creator just needs a good shag.

Sid, you should give these people credit. All the creators of those bad charts, meant well. I know you can say that about anyone who fails, but hold this thought. They will have spent a lot of time studying those charts, putting the finishing touches to them, and proud of their output, triumphantly hit the send button, in a 'pick the bones out of that' kind of way. That's a special talent.

I've definitely failed while not meaning well. Or really trying.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

it's really about giving you multiple votes; first preference didn't get in, try again; and again; there you go, you voted for that person. no, you should have one vote, make a decision. if we are to overhaul the electoral process, have more conviction and go full PR.

You don't have multiple votes, you have one that's counted once, at best. It addresses the problem where a party can pile up 70% of votes in a constituency without that seeing any benefit over getting about 35% in another, as much as it addresses votes wasted voting for candidates who don't win.

Compared to FPTP where at most (and only in a highly theoretical situation where there are two candidates and margin is a single vote) only 50% of votes in a constituency can ever be reflected the outcome.

The fact is, most people have an opinion on matters that goes beyond "this single individual is the best person to represent my views", even before we get into tactical voting and rejecting specific extreme positions. I don't see how the ability to convey some sort of nuance over electing our representation to decide a whole range of complicated issues is a problem.

And I don't want PR. It's nothing to do with conviction, I don't want party lists and I don't want the barrier to entering parliament to be set that low.

 

[Motogull]

Farage is still an odious kunnt I take it?

 

[beorhthelm]

You don't have multiple votes, you have one that's counted once, at best. It addresses the problem where a party can pile up 70% of votes in a constituency without that seeing any benefit over getting about 35% in another, as much as it addresses votes wasted voting for candidates who don't win.

that's not a problem, candidate/party is very popular. the problems is thinking about votes as wasted. no vote cast is wasted, they've been counted and participated in the process

Compared to FPTP where at most (and only in a highly theoretical situation where there are two candidates and margin is a single vote) only 50% of votes in a constituency can ever be reflected the outcome.

thats just simple democracy in action. i can understand the argument where a seat is won on a simple majority/plurality, but if a seat wins on 50% that is the very essense of democratic process. and the only way to then reflect the other votes is in multi-member constituencies. you end up with a party block, which is slightly different from but very closely resembles a party list. may as well just go all in. at least with PR the system is based on representing the wider population/region accurately.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I think we both know that in practice this doesn't happen so I don't think you can use it as a reason to keep FPTP.

a) FPTP encourages tactical voting - I will likely be voting who has the best chance of keeping out the Tory in my seat. That means Labour, and I really don't want to vote for them but would do so if it means keeping out the Tory.
b) Parties parachute unpopular-but-nevertheless-senior politicians into safe seats knowing that an area can be taken for granted.

This idea that fair representation shouldn't happen because you don't like their politics is for the birds. I hate Farage/Tice but if 20% vote for them, they deserve that representation. Let's see what a mess they make if they ever get a whiff of power. Would we prefer that he gets to make a merge deal with the Tories and those people who voted Tory then get a political position they didn't vote for?

I think if you’re in the Labour Party and you don’t understand working class people you’re in the wrong job. As much as Emily Thornberry was vilified she was absolutely spot on about the effect Brexit would have on the poorest.

But I don’t have time for the country to recover from a Reform mess. It’s dangerously close to Macron’s thinking.

The mess they’d make would be much of my daughters education, my pension, our family’s LGBTQ friends, our family’s immigrant friends, my BAME step dad, the NHS, the armed forces and anyone dependant on our economy working.

So the pair of them can get in the sea.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I'd like to see the end of FPTP simply because it would see the end of the Labour and Conservative coalitions as they currently exist.

Kier Starmer, Jeremy Corbyn, Tony Blair, Michael Foot all claiming to represent the same party

Boris Johnson, Ken Clarke, Liz Truss, Rory Stewart all claiming to represent the same party

I know what I believe in and would like to be able to vote for a party that represents that, rather than having to choose the least worse coalition whose first priority is always getting absolute power and the rest becomes whatever 'their leader' thinks that day will get them absolute power

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

that's not a problem, candidate/party is very popular. the problems is thinking about votes as wasted. no vote cast is wasted, they've been counted and participated in the process



thats just simple democracy in action. i can understand the argument where a seat is won on a simple majority/plurality, but if a seat wins on 50% that is the very essense of democratic process. and the only way to then reflect the other votes is in multi-member constituencies. you end up with a party block, which is slightly different from but very closely resembles a party list. may as well just go all in. at least with PR the system is based on representing the wider population/region accurately.

The problem isn't in my thinking, it's in the system.

We have a system where, in any given constituency, a majority of votes can (realistically) never actually influence the outcome. You either vote for a party who loses or add to the pile for somebody who'd win anyway. Realistically in the majority of cases it simply doesn't matter if you vote or not. I write that as a strong believer in democratic responsibility who always encourages people to vote even if I know full well they won't vote the same way as me.

Played out over the country or regions, this has really significant effects. Think about the SNP getting pretty much all the seats in Scotland with only around 50% of the vote, or the Conservatives having just a single seat in Merseyside from about 20% of the vote. It's enormously distortive and plays into the "they're all the same"/"it doesn't matter" disengagement, as well as just leading to bad governance. The whole political discourse over the last few years would be significantly different if the SNP had peaked at about 50% of Scottish seats.

i can understand the argument where a seat is won on a simple majority/plurality, but if a seat wins on 50% that is the very essense of democratic process.

A majority and a plurality aren't the same thing.

If we were to turn this around, there's no way that anybody would seriously argue to switch to a FPTP system if we didn't already have it. When that happened for the Mayoral elections, it was done without any serious debate and was pretty much universally seen as a partisan move. I didn't see anybody seriously justify it on democratic grounds.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Farage is still an odious kunnt I take it?

And he’s just the acceptable face of Reform…