[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[Audax]

Interesting. The bit I can't work out from what you have written is that in a three cornered constituency if party A gets the largest %, but party B and C combined has a bigger %, which candidate goes up to Westminster? A, or (hand in hand, presumably) B and C?

You're not understanding how preferential voting works, then. Neither of your answers are correct. The answer depends on preference flows.

Let's assume:

Party A got 37%
Party B got 32%
Party C got 31%

Let's now assume that:

Party A is right-leaning
Party B is left-leaning
Party C is left-leaning

And that we use a simple preference voting system where voters rank each party 1 to 3. We can see from countries that use preference voting systems, the *vast* majority of preference flows will see voters give their 2nd, 3rd, etc preferences to the parties that are most close to their 1st preference. So in the example above, we'd get:

Party C is eliminated. The vast majority of their votes, when recounted on 2nd preference, would go to Party B. So the Party B candidate would be elected after overtaking Party A.

Now let's assume:

Party A is right-leaning
Party B is left-leaning
Party C is centrist with a slight-right bend

In this circumstance, you would expect slightly more of Party C's votes to go to Party A. That means Party B won't overtake on 2nd preference count, and Party A's candidate gets elected.

Last example, you could have:

Party A is right-leaning
Party B is left-leaning
Party C is centrist with a slight-left bend

In this instance, it would depend on how that centre-left vote splits on second preference. In order for Party B to overtake, they would need to receive a reasonable majority of the preferences from Party C. In this example, the split needed would be roughly 60 / 40 in favour of Party B.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Re: PR v FPTP.. the whole point of Democracy is that individual peoples choices are represented in Parliament, and secondly, importantly, that minority views are represented. All citizens are equal, therefore all our choices should count equally. If you prefer the Green party, or the SNP, or the Brexit party, or the Muslim extremist party, or the tories, your choice should receive equal representation, and if enough other people agree with you, a number of seats in Parliament that represent those views. Full PR is the only fair system for forming a fair, representative Parliament.

However there are two issues with this. 1. It is a good thing that an MP represents a constituency and van fight for the individual rights of their constituents. We have someone who individually represents us, and that's a good thing. Doesn't always work, local issues are used as currency in extracting votes, and cabinet MPs are less concerned with local issues. But in the whole good. Therefore a system that works would have a FPTP or preference vote system on a smaller number of larger constituencies, topped up by a party list- type system to get a PR based Parliament. However that does mean there are some MPs with constituencies and some without, a workload imbalance.

Secondly, and more problematic, the current system allows us to vote out corrupt or poorly performing MPs on an individual basis, like Hamilton in Tatton in 97. A party list system, unless very intricately designed (perhaps some kind of 'Primary' voting system like in the states) would not allow us to do that, they can choose anybody they like to go on that list and we can be stuck with them for ever. If done well, we might end up with talent in government, people with excellent skills who may individually not be good at the 'getting elected part. But done badly we end up with a load of cronies and failures in there.

Those two issues always give me pause when wanting a PR system, but it's hard to look at the number of votes that smaller parties get and their almost complete lack of representation, and not feel like a change is needed.

 

[CheeseRolls]

Re: PR v FPTP.. the whole point of Democracy is that individual peoples choices are represented in Parliament, and secondly, importantly, that minority views are represented. All citizens are equal, therefore all our choices should count equally. If you prefer the Green party, or the SNP, or the Brexit party, or the Muslim extremist party, or the tories, your choice should receive equal representation, and if enough other people agree with you, a number of seats in Parliament that represent those views. Full PR is the only fair system for forming a fair, representative Parliament.

However there are two issues with this. 1. It is a good thing that an MP represents a constituency and van fight for the individual rights of their constituents. We have someone who individually represents us, and that's a good thing. Doesn't always work, local issues are used as currency in extracting votes, and cabinet MPs are less concerned with local issues. But in the whole good. Therefore a system that works would have a FPTP or preference vote system on a smaller number of larger constituencies, topped up by a party list- type system to get a PR based Parliament. However that does mean there are some MPs with constituencies and some without, a workload imbalance.

Secondly, and more problematic, the current system allows us to vote out corrupt or poorly performing MPs on an individual basis, like Hamilton in Tatton in 97. A party list system, unless very intricately designed (perhaps some kind of 'Primary' voting system like in the states) would not allow us to do that, they can choose anybody they like to go on that list and we can be stuck with them for ever. If done well, we might end up with talent in government, people with excellent skills who may individually not be good at the 'getting elected part. But done badly we end up with a load of cronies and failures in there.

Those two issues always give me pause when wanting a PR system, but it's hard to look at the number of votes that smaller parties get and their almost complete lack of representation, and not feel like a change is needed.

There was a great clip on Youtube a while back of a Danish MP taking the piss out of first past the post elections. The most telling part for me was when they panned out and your saw, the diversity of their representatives. Far more women and young people than you would ever see in the British parliament. I always used to fear that PR would result in extremists being represented in parliament. Having seen some of the left and right win nutters we have been landed with over the last couple of decades, I am no longer concerned in the slightest.

 

[beorhthelm]

There was a great clip on Youtube a while back of a Danish MP taking the piss out of first past the post elections. The most telling part for me was when they panned out and your saw, the diversity of their representatives. Far more women and young people than you would ever see in the British parliament. I always used to fear that PR would result in extremists being represented in parliament. Having seen some of the left and right win nutters we have been landed with over the last couple of decades, I am no longer concerned in the slightest.

thats down to selection comittees, local and national, not a product of the voting system. no reason to believe they would change much under PR.

PR would have given us a large chunk of UKIPers the past decade, some might consider extreme (probably in government). certainly brings in some from far left and far right abroad.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You're not understanding how preferential voting works, then. Neither of your answers are correct. The answer depends on preference flows.

Let's assume:

Party A got 37%
Party B got 32%
Party C got 31%

Let's now assume that:

Party A is right-leaning
Party B is left-leaning
Party C is left-leaning

And that we use a simple preference voting system where voters rank each party 1 to 3. We can see from countries that use preference voting systems, the *vast* majority of preference flows will see voters give their 2nd, 3rd, etc preferences to the parties that are most close to their 1st preference. So in the example above, we'd get:

Party C is eliminated. The vast majority of their votes, when recounted on 2nd preference, would go to Party B. So the Party B candidate would be elected after overtaking Party A.

Now let's assume:

Party A is right-leaning
Party B is left-leaning
Party C is centrist with a slight-right bend

In this circumstance, you would expect slightly more of Party C's votes to go to Party A. That means Party B won't overtake on 2nd preference count, and Party A's candidate gets elected.

Last example, you could have:

Party A is right-leaning
Party B is left-leaning
Party C is centrist with a slight-left bend

In this instance, it would depend on how that centre-left vote splits on second preference. In order for Party B to overtake, they would need to receive a reasonable majority of the preferences from Party C. In this example, the split needed would be roughly 60 / 40 in favour of Party B.

I see. Thanks for explaining that. So to be clear, either party A, B or C wins the seat, but the outcome depends on a weighted total, allowing the left leaning parties to 'gang up' on the third candidate? So if there are two left candidates and only one right candidate, and there were a majority of left of centre voters, and they ranked the two left parties 1 and 2 (or 2 and 1) then a left candidate would win the seat according to a weighted formula? Doesn't seem very gair to me if the riht candidate has the single largest number of votes.....there must be a part of the process I'm missing...

 

[pb21]

I see. Thanks for explaining that. So to be clear, either party A, B or C wins the seat, but the outcome depends on a weighted total, allowing the left leaning parties to 'gang up' on the third candidate? So if there are two left candidates and only one right candidate, and there were a majority of left of centre voters, and they ranked the two left parties 1 and 2 (or 2 and 1) then a left candidate would win the seat according to a weighted formula? Doesn't seem very gair to me if the riht candidate has the single largest number of votes.....there must be a part of the process I'm missing...

I think a PR system isn’t designed to be necessarily fair to the candidate, its designed to be fair to the electorate. The candidate shouldn’t ‘win’, the electorate should.

If there was one right of centre candidate who gets 35% of the share, one left of centre candidate who gets 34% and one last left of centre candidate who gets 31%, then the RoC candidate got most votes. However I think its reasonable to conclude that the electorate would be better represented by one of the left of centre candidates, if that's how the vote panned out.

 

[beorhthelm]

I see. Thanks for explaining that. So to be clear, either party A, B or C wins the seat, but the outcome depends on a weighted total, allowing the left leaning parties to 'gang up' on the third candidate? So if there are two left candidates and only one right candidate, and there were a majority of left of centre voters, and they ranked the two left parties 1 and 2 (or 2 and 1) then a left candidate would win the seat according to a weighted formula? Doesn't seem very gair to me if the riht candidate has the single largest number of votes.....there must be a part of the process I'm missing...

yes, where its assumed more candidates lean one way than the other, it favours that way. also voters get multiple votes counted if their first prefernce is dropped, unless they select no one. if you vote for the largest or second largest in first round, your options are not counted.

 

[beorhthelm]

I think a PR system isn’t designed to be necessarily fair to the candidate, its designed to be fair to the electorate. The candidate shouldn’t ‘win’, the electorate should.

If there was one right of centre candidate who gets 35% of the share, one left of centre candidate who gets 34% and one last left of centre candidate who gets 31%, then the RoC candidate got most votes. However I think its reasonable to conclude that the electorate would be better represented by one of the left of centre candidates, if that's how the vote panned out.

this is seemingly sensible but assumes "left of centre" are equal. they are clearly different otherwise why are they different parties standing on different manifestos? we may as well mandate vote Left/Right options, be done with parties and pick candidates from a list according to their preferences.

its interesting to see the examples given always present right minority/left majority, seems to indicate the "problem" to be addressed. however the lowest majorities in last election were mostly Labour (8. presumbly this isnt a problem, and the Labour seat would still be Labour seat after counting the Liberal voters second choice.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

thats down to selection comittees, local and national, not a product of the voting system. no reason to believe they would change much under PR.

PR would have given us a large chunk of UKIPers the past decade, some might consider extreme (probably in government). certainly brings in some from far left and far right abroad.

We had UKIP as MEPs and would have had a handful in previous Parliaments. The Greens would have a lot more than one MP and LibDems about 40-50.
As it is now the Conservatives by fighting off UKIP have turned into UKIP.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I see. Thanks for explaining that. So to be clear, either party A, B or C wins the seat, but the outcome depends on a weighted total, allowing the left leaning parties to 'gang up' on the third candidate? So if there are two left candidates and only one right candidate, and there were a majority of left of centre voters, and they ranked the two left parties 1 and 2 (or 2 and 1) then a left candidate would win the seat according to a weighted formula? Doesn't seem very gair to me if the riht candidate has the single largest number of votes.....there must be a part of the process I'm missing...

It's perfectly fair and it's not weighted. It just means that a Brexit party supporter can vote for them free of worry that he might be splitting the right wing vote and allowing a libdem to win the seat. If brexit wins, great for him, but if they get a low vote share then his vote is switched to the Tories, if he chooses thus.

Ditto for Green Party supporters, a vast number of which Im sure don't vote Green because they don't believe they can win. This way you can vote Green in the knowledge that your vote will still eventually be counted for one of the parties that eventually come first and second.

Or in NI, if you're a unionist you can vote for either the DUP or UUP, putting the other second, relieved that you won't be splitting the unionist vote and allowing Sinn Fein to get a seat with less than 50%.

In the last election I didn't vote for my preferred party because I wanted to give the best chance of beating the Tory. That's not healthy democracy, and has the added problem of not allowing the smaller parties to strengthen for the future.

You get the picture.

 

[scamander]

No party is being bold about calling out the failed deal, its destroying our industries. Take farming, its in total crisis

When its gone its gone, there will be no return and our food security will be weakened further.

Meanwhile for EU agric importers its business as usual, the government are basically scared of implementing their own deal and not implementing import checks.

Throw in the threats new trade deals from AU / NZ and we're heading to a very bad place

Only hard working UK exporters are getting punished

Starmer can see the obviously large elephant shaped trap looking object on this. Boris has, a number of times, tried to reheat the Labour=remain narrative in that a Labour govt would want to take us back into Europe. He's shoehorned it in his responses at PMQs when it's been completely irrelevant to the question.

Boris needs Labour to start bringing up the deal and current criticisms because he can then use it to fuel the upcoming election campaign. It would be a gift.

The shine of getting Brexit done has waned, Starmer can, and should, focus on the isdues resulting from it without referring to Brexit specifically. It's notable that even some Tories are starting to get annoyed by it (e.g. the MP who suggested we apply for the single market).

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think a PR system isn’t designed to be necessarily fair to the candidate, its designed to be fair to the electorate. The candidate shouldn’t ‘win’, the electorate should.

If there was one right of centre candidate who gets 35% of the share, one left of centre candidate who gets 34% and one last left of centre candidate who gets 31%, then the RoC candidate got most votes. However I think its reasonable to conclude that the electorate would be better represented by one of the left of centre candidates, if that's how the vote panned out.

That's the problem for me. Some of the electorate will be happy with that. But what about the electorate that represent the single largest cohort? They have been swindled out of a win by all that jiggery pokery.

I am playing devil's advocate here. I appreciate that all these different permutations would swing everything back in favour of labour, and I am a labour member so I should support it. But.....it simply isn't fair. And as noted earlier, the tories won't bring it in until they see it as benefitting them.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

this is seemingly sensible but assumes "left of centre" are equal. they are clearly different otherwise why are they different parties standing on different manifestos? we may as well mandate vote Left/Right options, be done with parties and pick candidates from a list according to their preferences.

its interesting to see the examples given always present right minority/left majority, seems to indicate the "problem" to be addressed. however the lowest majorities in last election were mostly Labour (8. presumbly this isnt a problem, and the Labour seat would still be Labour seat after counting the Liberal voters second choice.

They're not equal, but expressing preference isn't a bad thing. If you want the Tories to win but they don't, you would still have a preference between the other options rather than automatically be lumbered with Labour because they're the only alternative under the current system.

 

[pb21]

this is seemingly sensible but assumes "left of centre" are equal. they are clearly different otherwise why are they different parties standing on different manifestos? we may as well mandate vote Left/Right options, be done with parties and pick candidates from a list according to their preferences.

its interesting to see the examples given always present right minority/left majority, seems to indicate the "problem" to be addressed. however the lowest majorities in last election were mostly left. presumbly this isnt a problem, and the Labour seat would still be Labour seat after counting the Liberal voters second choice.

The example I posted is clearly simple, but it would work equally true in areas with two RoC parties.

Ultimately its trying to better ensure the person, and manifesto they stand on, is most representative of the electorate, as a whole.

In cases where the person selected is the same with FPTP or PR, then all is good and there is no difference, PR doesn't have to provide a different result. However, I would say that many Lib Dem voters would have the Tory candidate as 2nd preference.

 

[pb21]

That's the problem for me. Some of the electorate will be happy with that. But what about the electorate that represent the single largest cohort? They have been swindled out of a win by all that jiggery pokery.

I am playing devil's advocate here. I appreciate that all these different permutations would swing everything back in favour of labour, and I am a labour member so I should support it. But.....it simply isn't fair. And as noted earlier, the tories won't bring it in until they see it as benefitting them.

I'm not sure it would necessarily benefit Labour, or any other party outright, certainly not in the medium to long term. Politics, GEs and how people vote would change, IMO everyone would benefit.

 

[Audax]

this is seemingly sensible but assumes "left of centre" are equal. they are clearly different otherwise why are they different parties standing on different manifestos? we may as well mandate vote Left/Right options, be done with parties and pick candidates from a list according to their preferences.

Just look at the political parties in the UK. You have the Greens and Labour. There's considerable overlap in their ideologies, but the Greens put a far higher emphasis on climate. They are differentiated, yet still reasonably aligned. A left-leaning voter who's not particularly concerned about climate in the short term chooses Labour, while strongly pro-climate voters will choose Green. The Green voter, if presented with a straight Tory vs Labour choice, would almost certainly choose Labour. But given the choice to vote Green, they go Green. In a FPTP system, that will more often than not result in that vote being wasted. In a preference voting system, they can put Labour 2nd and have their vote still influence the final outcome to be *closer* to what they wanted.

its interesting to see the examples given always present right minority/left majority, seems to indicate the "problem" to be addressed. however the lowest majorities in last election were mostly Labour (8. presumbly this isnt a problem, and the Labour seat would still be Labour seat after counting the Liberal voters second choice.

I actually provided a right majority / left minority example from right here in the UK as well (Hartlepool at the 2019 GE). It goes both ways, and the arguments I'm making here are irrespective of politics. I grew up with preference voting, so I'm probably a bit biased, but IMO any system that results in a "winner" being declared with less than 50% doesn't sit right. Hartlepool 2019 was wrong (and corrected at by-election). The Liberals winning the Brisbane seat in Australia would have been wrong.

Splitting of the vote can be a problem for both sides of politics. When it ends up delivering a massive landslide in seats, when the actual vote share was far less conclusive, I think there's a problem with the system.

 

[Mellotron]

we might even rejoin the EU.

I mean, whether it takes 5, 10 or 20 years, this is an inevitability, so don't really see it as a "strong, binary post".

If you look at demographics, and everything that's happened as the Brexit nightmare has slowly become a reality, I'd give a 0.1% chance that we aren't in some form of CM, SM, EEA etc within the next few years.

 

[pb21]

its interesting to see the examples given always present right minority/left majority, seems to indicate the "problem" to be addressed. however the lowest majorities in last election were mostly Labour (8. presumbly this isnt a problem, and the Labour seat would still be Labour seat after counting the Liberal voters second choice.

I actually provided a right majority / left minority example from right here in the UK as well (Hartlepool at the 2019 GE). It goes both ways, and the arguments I'm making here are irrespective of politics. I grew up with preference voting, so I'm probably a bit biased, but IMO any system that results in a "winner" being declared with less than 50% doesn't sit right. Hartlepool 2019 was wrong (and corrected at by-election). The Liberals winning the Brisbane seat in Australia would have been wrong.

Splitting of the vote can be a problem for both sides of politics. When it ends up delivering a massive landslide in seats, when the actual vote share was far less conclusive, I think there's a problem with the system.

I just looked at the North East Derbyshire constituency, as I will be moving there soon, and PR would not have changed the result of the last 2019 GE (over 50% Tory) and almost certainly not 2017 (49% Tory), but the 2015 GE I think would have seen the Tory candidate selected, rather than Labour (who was elected in 2017).

 

[Audax]

The example I posted is clearly simple, but it would work equally true in areas with two RoC parties.

Ultimately its trying to better ensure the person, and manifesto they stand on, is most representative of the electorate, as a whole.

In cases where the person selected is the same with FPTP or PR, then all is good and there is no difference, PR doesn't have to provide a different result. However, I would say that many Lib Dem voters would have the Tory candidate as 2nd preference.

The Lib Dems are an interesting one. IF we had preference voting in the UK, I suspect the psephologists would tear their hair out at each election trying to predict which way they go. For eg at the 2019 GE, I suspect Lib Dem voters would have mostly gone leftwards on 2nd preference. The campaign was so heavily Brexit-based, the next-closest option for pro-Remain Lib Dem voters were on the left. For the next GE I think it'd be the other way. Now that Brexit is "done" the agenda will shift. Lib Dems appear to have been picking up a lot of disaffected Tory voters, and they'll naturally head back right if given the choice.

I'm kinda hoping / expecting the Lib Dems to go into the next election with a strong pro-climate, pro-integrity, slightly right-of-centre fiscal policy position. As much as being pro-climate has been a lefty-monopoly historically, the recent Aussie election proved there's growing pro-climate feeling on the right side of the electorate as well. Lib Dems play it smart, they could hoover up a bunch of Tory seats.

 

[Audax]

I just looked at the North East Derbyshire constituency, as I will be moving there soon, and PR would not have changed the result of the last 2019 GE (over 50% Tory) and almost certainly not 2017 (49% Tory), but the 2015 GE I think would have seen the Tory candidate selected, rather than Labour (who was elected in 2017).

View attachment 148693

That's a really good example. The UKIP vote split the right in 2015, but collapsed in 2017 and you can see the Tory vote increasing by almost as much. Labour also increased vote share off the back of a decline in Green and Lib Dem votes (at the time, I would think Lib Dem voters were tactically voting against the Tory's - but there was far fewer votes for Labour to pick up).