[News] Nigel Farage and Reform

[Sid and the Sharknados]

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.

STV does use multi-seat constituencies (as do most PR systems but that's by the by).

Party block is basically what you have in council elections if you cast all your votes for candidates from the same party, which causes even more distortion than FPTP. Crucially, it has nothing to do with STV and as far as I can tell is just another straw man thrown up to justify an indefensible system.

 

[Pevenseagull]

A human being failed Quality Control. Not, we don't want a 'disruptive influence', but a failed human being. When people show you what they are, believe them.

For those who don't know, Isabel Oakeshott is the partner of Richard Tice, part owner of Reform.

Extra shits and giggles, she was the ghost writer of Matt Hancock's 'How I saved the country' COVID diary biography bollocks... And then f***ed him over.


****s gotta ****.

 

[beorhthelm]

STV does use multi-seat constituencies (as do most PR systems but that's by the by).

not really by the by, it's the main point. if you accept multi-seat constituencies, go full PR.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

not really by the by, it's the main point. if you accept multi-seat constituencies, go full PR.

No. Multi seat constituencies are used in a whole variety of systems, including FPTP for council elections.

 

[Barnet Seagull]

I think the absolute slapping the Tories are about to get will be the start of a Five Year rebuild, the establishment won't want them to disappear and the planning for this started way before the election was called. They know what's going to happen and may, in a perverse way, encourage the narrative that their over, as it may galvanize what "was" the rank and file.

I said it before a fair while back. The ONLY way back for the Conservatives I can see is in 8 years time. In order to find a way back to power, they need to be centrist and pro-common market. Do not underestimate what they will do to regain power.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

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

Lovely stuff. Is that the filling in a Piglets Pie chart?

 

[BadFish]

I'm not sure if what we do in Australia is PR but I like it. It means I can simultaneously vote for a smaller party that represents my views (in the hope that the groundswell will make them a viable option one day (not happened yet)) and ensure that I put my preferred main party above the other one (no need for tactical voting, just put the one you like least at the bottom).

Bobs your uncle, and all totally pointless as I live in a safe labour seat that's been red since Noah was a boy.

We find the lower house over here is usually quite sensible and mainly occupied by the two main parties with a smattering of Greens and moderate independents. The upper house contains a few basket cases but then that happens with unelected peer nominated systems also (allegedly).

I'm not sure if it is due to the voting system but I much prefer the system over here as we don't tend to keep electing the same party for a decade which means they have to keep their game strong and stay accountable. A healthy disregard for the ruling classes is also a bit of a boon so we don't get a string of public school twats born to rule leading us. I believe the record for downing a yard of ale is still held by and ex prime minister.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

No. Multi seat constituencies are used in a whole variety of systems, including FPTP for council elections.

And you wonder why the only change I want is Labour in

It is hard enough to get semi-sensible people to register to vote, let alone expect them to work out how to vote, especially if they need to use a Venn diagram and quadric equations. And that.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I'm not sure if what we do in Australia is PR but I like it. It means I can simultaneously vote for a smaller party that represents my views (in the hope that the groundswell will make them a viable option one day (not happened yet)) and ensure that I put my preferred main party above the other one (no need for tactical voting, just put the one you like least at the bottom).

Bobs your uncle, and all totally pointless as I live in a safe labour seat that's been red since Noah was a boy.

We find the lower house over here is usually quite sensible and mainly occupied by the two main parties with a smattering of Greens and moderate independents. The upper house contains a few basket cases but then that happens with unelected peer nominated systems also (allegedly).

I'm not sure if it is due to the voting system but I much prefer the system over here as we don't tend to keep electing the same party for a decade which means they have to keep their game strong and stay accountable. A healthy disregard for the ruling classes is also a bit of a boon so we don't get a string of public school twats born to rule leading us. I believe the record for downing a yard of ale is still held by and ex prime minister.

That says it all. From a sensible person. Apologies for not reading on, but....

 

[BadFish]

That says it all. From a sensible person. Apologies for not reading on, but....

It really just means I don't know if PR is the same as Preferential Voting as I know the system here. My quick google suggested that Preferential Voting is a form of PR but like I say I am not sure.

I'm never very good with the names of stuff, a rose by any other name and all that.

 

[Pevenseagull]

A human being failed Quality Control. Not, we don't want a 'disruptive influence', but a failed human being. When people show you what they are, believe them.

For those who don't know, Isabel Oakeshott is the partner of Richard Tice, part owner of Reform.

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

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

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Reform bingo card, anyone?

 

[A1X]

Reform bingo card, anyone?

I doubt anyone who’s paid even five minutes notice to the UN would come to the conclusion it’s “China-dominated”…

 

[beorhthelm]

Reform bingo card, anyone?

holy batland... so a China-Bank of England conspriacy forced Budweiser to use a transperson in their advertising.

 

[BadFish]

Reform bingo card, anyone?

He looks angrier than he did in The Cure.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm not sure if what we do in Australia is PR but I like it. It means I can simultaneously vote for a smaller party that represents my views (in the hope that the groundswell will make them a viable option one day (not happened yet)) and ensure that I put my preferred main party above the other one (no need for tactical voting, just put the one you like least at the bottom).

Bobs your uncle, and all totally pointless as I live in a safe labour seat that's been red since Noah was a boy.

We find the lower house over here is usually quite sensible and mainly occupied by the two main parties with a smattering of Greens and moderate independents. The upper house contains a few basket cases but then that happens with unelected peer nominated systems also (allegedly).

I'm not sure if it is due to the voting system but I much prefer the system over here as we don't tend to keep electing the same party for a decade which means they have to keep their game strong and stay accountable. A healthy disregard for the ruling classes is also a bit of a boon so we don't get a string of public school twats born to rule leading us. I believe the record for downing a yard of ale is still held by and ex prime minister.

Sounds like you've got STV, Single Transferable Vote. If you're putting a '1' (and not a 'X') for your "smaller party that represents my views" and a '2' for your "preferred main party". Either way, try this:

Electoral system of Australia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Sounds like you've got STV, Single Transferable Vote. If you're putting a '1' (and not a 'X') for your "smaller party that represents my views" and a '2' for your "preferred main party". Either way, try this:

Electoral system of Australia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I doubt anyone who’s paid even five minutes notice to the UN would come to the conclusion it’s “China-dominated”…

I though the mad right thinks that China-dominated is a good thing? Oh, sorry, of course, Putin-dominated is a good thing. My bad.

 

[BadFish]

Sounds like you've got STV, Single Transferable Vote. If you're putting a '1' (and not a 'X') for your "smaller party that represents my views" and a '2' for your "preferred main party". Either way, try this:

Electoral system of Australia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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.

 

[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.

Forgive me for not looking through all of that! I also get confused by the myriad of voting systems around the world, and how they're classified. Ditto with the specific way in which the separation of powers operates around the world, and what constitutes the judiciary, legislature and executive. You need to be very precise in all this which isn't my strongest point.
All I'll say is that with PR, the purest form of it is that you put all the votes into one big pot which is equivalent of the country, eg Australia. In this pure form, you just add up all the votes and distribute seats in the house/s accordingly. Many (most?) variants of PR aren't that pure, however, and have some regional and/or candidate element incorporated. From reading on here, I think that @WATFORD zero might be the most gemmed up on such things -- apologies to others if they have specific expertise but, if so, please explain as succinctly and accurately as possible to assist those that are confused.