[News] Nigel Farage and Reform

[Machiavelli]

Cheers,

We number the candidates we like from 1 - how ever many there are. 1st preference, 2md preference, 3rd preference etc.

From the wiki

The system presently has a number of distinctive features including compulsory enrolment; compulsory voting; majority-preferential instant-runoff voting in single-member seats to elect the lower house, the House of Representatives; and the use of the single transferable vote proportional representation system to elect the upper house, the Senate.[1]

From here :https://www.ecanz.gov.au/electoral-systems/proportional

Proportional Representation in Australia​

Proportional representation electoral systems are used in Australia to elect candidates to the Senate, the upper houses of NSW, Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia, the Lower House of Tasmania, the ACT Legislative Assembly and many Local Government Councils.

So . . . . My understanding of PR was that we use it, however it seems that we don't

Difference Between First Past The Post and Proportional Representation

Discover disparities between First Past The Post (FPTP) and Proportional Representation (PR) electoral systems. Understand voting methods and representation models.

testbook.com

In FPTP, the candidate who wins the most votes in a constituency is elected, regardless of the total percentage of votes received.

In PR, seats in the legislature are distributed to political parties based on their share of the total votes, aiming to reflect the overall popular vote.

We use electorates with boundaries that send 1 representative to the government so we are not PR


But the electoral council Wesbite things says we use PR systems

Now I am even more confused.

Me again. I think STV can be used in both PR (partially?) and FPTP, and also candidate elections, but others can indicate where I'm wrong on that.

 

[BadFish]

Me again. I think STV can be used in both PR (partially?) and FPTP, and also candidate elections, but others can indicate where I'm wrong on that.

This would make sense.

 

[Baldseagull]

I know we have been over this time after time but having to direct an intelligent person to a Wiki page to explain how their own vote is processed says it all for me.

If you took part in electing the leader of the Labour Party, you used AV.
The Tories do similar, eliminate those with too few votes, and vote again, until you have someone with more than 50% of the vote, or you get down to a two horse race. AV is just stating who else would you choose if your first choice is eliminated, so you don't have to turn up and vote again.
It isn't that difficult, even Labour members manage it.

 

[dsr-burnley]

When Oakeshit appears on 'Politics Live' it is always described as a political journalist.

Never as Richard Tice's f*** buddy.

Yes, there is a school of thought in modern life that a woman is her own person, and not just an extension of her husband. Even Wimbledon would no longer refer to Chris Evert as "Mrs. J. Lloyd"

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Yes, there is a school of thought in modern life that a woman is her own person, and not just an extension of her husband. Even Wimbledon would no longer refer to Chris Evert as "Mrs. J. Lloyd"

That's all very well but Tice and Oakeshott are merely shacked up together. Living o'er brush as they say up your way.

 

[BadFish]

I know we have been over this time after time but having to direct an intelligent person to a Wiki page to explain how their own vote is processed says it all for me.

I take issue with this as clearly my intelligence is in question.

Anyway to clear it up

Lower house: fotp preferential voting

Upper house: PR using transferable voting.

Apparently I have not understood the two different voting systems, assuming they both used the lower house process.

You live and learn.

 

[Curious Orange]

Reform bingo card, anyone?

"Humans, always seeing patterns where there aren't any." The Doctor

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

If you took part in electing the leader of the Labour Party, you used AV.
The Tories do similar, eliminate those with too few votes, and vote again, until you have someone with more than 50% of the vote, or you get down to a two horse race. AV is just stating who else would you choose if your first choice is eliminated, so you don't have to turn up and vote again.
It isn't that difficult, even Labour members manage it.

Can you imagine a GE where every seat was contested like that? To avoid actually voting again (which is what the Tories do for leadership) you would need to have some sort of weighting for the other preferences when the once-only votes are cast. That way the person you want and voted for may get the highest number of votes, but be beaten because of unduly high weighting to second and thirst and so on preferences. You would then need a PhD to work out how to voter tactically. And I still can't get my head around the idea that the candidate who is first past the post is not declared the winner. It is like some sport competitions where you have a league then the top 4 (or more) go on to a knockout competition. Why? More TV money. In elections it strikes me as madness and wrong. The only sorts who seem to like it are those who support parties who struggle to get candidates first past the post. Maybe it's because I'm autistic that I would lose my tiny mind if we stopped using FPTP. I would be in a state of constant anger. And discriminated against.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I take issue with this as clearly my intelligence is in question.

Anyway to clear it up

Lower house: fotp preferential voting

Upper house: PR using transferable voting.

Apparently I have not understood the two different voting systems, assuming they both used the lower house process.

You live and learn.

It is not your intelligence. It is the needlessly complicated system that is at fault. You may deal with this phlegmatically. I just get annoyed

 

[nwgull]

So if it is unfair that Farage does not get dozens of seats, then boo f***ing hoo. I am delighted. Thrilled in fact. Sometimes 'fairness' is nothing more than stupidity. I am quite angry, in fact, that selfish people who can't get their Green or Liberal people into parliament want to change the system to one that will let in lunatics, racists and traitors. Absolute madness.

Would you be so happy in a subsequent GE if Farage became a little bit more popular and got 35% of the popular vote and that was enough for a MAJORITY of MPs giving him 5 years of hard-right rule, despite 65% of the electorate voting for moderate parties?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Would you be so happy in a subsequent GE if Farage became a little bit more popular and got 35% of the popular vote and that was enough for a MAJORITY of MPs giving him 5 years of hard-right rule, despite 65% of the electorate voting for moderate parties?

I'd be pissed off with the outcome but not the process. I really cannot justify changing a simple and unequivocal outcome system just to suit my own outcome preference. Without wishing to by cynical, the loudest supporters of FPTP alternatives are nearly always supporters of minority parties. Fancy that.

If the electorate has a collective spasm and gives Farage a majority then I would say, as I always do, that the people always get the governments they deserve.

 

[nwgull]

And indeed the anti-FPTP lobby have been crowing about stable governments in Europe. Alas, we are looking at a lurch to extremism in Europe, facilitated by PR.

Here's a sobering thought: If France had a similar FPTP system to us, then Le Pen's party would have a 15 seat majority in the French parliament (with only 34% of the popular vote). As it is, the centrist and left-of-centre parties should be able to form an alliance to prevent this happening in the 2nd round.

 

[nwgull]

I'd be pissed off with the outcome but not the process. I really cannot justify changing a simple and unequivocal outcome system just to suit my own outcome preference. Without wishing to by cynical, the loudest supporters of FPTP alternatives are nearly always supporters of minority parties. Fancy that.

And the parties that support FPTP are those that know they can win a commanding majority with popular vote in the mid-high 30s - fancy that.

 

[nwgull]

Can you imagine a GE where every seat was contested like that? To avoid actually voting again (which is what the Tories do for leadership) you would need to have some sort of weighting for the other preferences when the once-only votes are cast. That way the person you want and voted for may get the highest number of votes, but be beaten because of unduly high weighting to second and thirst and so on preferences. You would then need a PhD to work out how to voter tactically.

No you wouldn't; you just put your preferences in the box. You basically need to be able to count. We've voted this way in previous mayoral elections until the tories attempted to gerrymander the process by reverting to FPTP in a failed attempt to get Sadiq Khan out of office.

 

[Baldseagull]

Can you imagine a GE where every seat was contested like that? To avoid actually voting again (which is what the Tories do for leadership) you would need to have some sort of weighting for the other preferences when the once-only votes are cast. That way the person you want and voted for may get the highest number of votes, but be beaten because of unduly high weighting to second and thirst and so on preferences. You would then need a PhD to work out how to voter tactically. And I still can't get my head around the idea that the candidate who is first past the post is not declared the winner. It is like some sport competitions where you have a league then the top 4 (or more) go on to a knockout competition. Why? More TV money. In elections it strikes me as madness and wrong. The only sorts who seem to like it are those who support parties who struggle to get candidates first past the post. Maybe it's because I'm autistic that I would lose my tiny mind if we stopped using FPTP. I would be in a state of constant anger. And discriminated against.

The Labour Party likes it enough to elect their leader that way. You don't need a PhD, you need to be able to count, and know who you would prefer if your first, second or even 3rd choice can't win.
If you don't want to contemplate who else might be alright if your first choice isn't going to win, you don't have to choose anyone else, just put an x in the box, as you currently do.
You are right that it appeals to supporters of parties who can't win seats in FPTP, but it should appeal to anyone who supports democracy being as democratic as it can be.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

This would make sense.

Me again. I think STV can be used in both PR (partially?) and FPTP, and also candidate elections, but others can indicate where I'm wrong on that.

The result of an election under STV generally works out roughly proportional (assuming there's about 6 or more seats per constituency), so it's sometimes referred to as a form of proportional representation, or as weakly proportional.

The main point though is to minimise the number of wasted votes. Not to get the proportion of seats bang on. Which is why you only get a couple of nutcases in the Senate in Australia - a candidate still has to get a decent number of people in a constituency to vote for them specifically.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

It is not your intelligence. It is the needlessly complicated system that is at fault. You may deal with this phlegmatically. I just get annoyed

The alternative view of this, is that it can't be that complicated if even Australians can cope with it.

 

[schmunk]

The Labour Party likes it enough to elect their leader that way. You don't need a PhD, you need to be able to count, and know who you would prefer if your first, second or even 3rd choice can't win.
If you don't want to contemplate who else might be alright if your first choice isn't going to win, you don't have to choose anyone else, just put an x in the box, as you currently do.
You are right that it appeals to supporters of parties who can't win seats in FPTP, but it should appeal to anyone who supports democracy being as democratic as it can be.

Whilst it is important that we maintain enfranchisement of all adults*, do we really want people who cannot navigate themselves around this not-especially-complicated system to have a meaningful impact upon the democratic process?


*(other than convicted prisoners...)

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Can you imagine a GE where every seat was contested like that? To avoid actually voting again (which is what the Tories do for leadership) you would need to have some sort of weighting for the other preferences when the once-only votes are cast. That way the person you want and voted for may get the highest number of votes, but be beaten because of unduly high weighting to second and thirst and so on preferences. You would then need a PhD to work out how to voter tactically. And I still can't get my head around the idea that the candidate who is first past the post is not declared the winner. It is like some sport competitions where you have a league then the top 4 (or more) go on to a knockout competition. Why? More TV money. In elections it strikes me as madness and wrong. The only sorts who seem to like it are those who support parties who struggle to get candidates first past the post. Maybe it's because I'm autistic that I would lose my tiny mind if we stopped using FPTP. I would be in a state of constant anger. And discriminated against.

Genuine question (I'm not interested in having the actual argument about PR etc. with you because we've done that enough times), do you never find it difficult that "The Post" in FPTP is in a completely different place in any given election and constituency? That strikes me as exactly the sort of weird ambiguity that you'd find awkward given how you describe your autism.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

No you wouldn't; you just put your preferences in the box. You basically need to be able to count. We've voted this way in previous mayoral elections until the tories attempted to gerrymander the process by reverting to FPTP in a failed attempt to get Sadiq Khan out of office.

European elections were held this way, which is how Farage got elected as an MEP.