Monday, March 24, 2008
Alternative voting?
Our Kingdom blog reports that the UK may be moving to the Alternative Vote for Westminster elections. The more observant amongst you will notice this is STV for a single seat, which we used in Northern Ireland quite recently.
If it had have been used at the last Westminster election, theres a fair chance David Burnside and perhaps even David Trimble would have held their seats. It would also probably make Fermanagh and South Tyrone impossible for a Unionist to win.
Michael Shilliday @ 02:13 PM
Glad to hear it - I’ve long thought, with the exception of three-year terms and compulsory down-the-list voting for Senate elections, the UK should adopt the Australian voting system almost wholesale.
Posted by on Mar 24, 2008 @ 03:09 PMWhy not compulsory and down the list voting?
Aside from 3 year terms I see little wrong with Australian election systems.
Posted by on Mar 24, 2008 @ 03:14 PMAs I understand it, John Denham was arguing this last year (when Brown boded well to take the country with a steamroller, so the usual Tory whinges should not wholly apply).
What is emerging is a proportional Upper House and a majority Commons (based on STV and single-member constituencies). Obviously, with the rest of the UK using PR, X-marks-the-spot for Westminster is unacceptable and indefensible in the mid-term.
If so, hooray!, say I.
In other words, what has applied in Australia for the last (what?) sixty years.
Or did I get that wrong?
Posted by on Mar 24, 2008 @ 03:16 PMHow is this different to PR?
It looks exactly the same.Posted by on Mar 24, 2008 @ 04:30 PMIt isn’t PR because it’s not proportional - it’s like a consensual preference thing. To get proportionality you need multi member constituencies or a combination of single member and multi mamber constituencies.
Posted by on Mar 24, 2008 @ 04:42 PMIts STV for single seat constituencies. I’m also nearly sure that the quota is not set by a formula, but set at 50%.
Posted by on Mar 24, 2008 @ 04:43 PMI see, thanks for that.
Posted by on Mar 24, 2008 @ 04:43 PM“It would also probably make Fermanagh and South Tyrone impossible for a Unionist to win.”
And presumably make North Belfast & Upper Bann impossible for Nationalists to gain (and South Belfast more difficult to retain)?
Posted by on Mar 24, 2008 @ 06:32 PMwould this have prevented the implosion of the UUP. both pro and anti powersharing UUP canditates could have run in the same constituency and unionist voters would have decided?
Similarly could pro and anti war labour canditates run in the same constituency without letting the conservatives win?
Posted by on Mar 24, 2008 @ 06:34 PMMichael,
I think the formula for calculating the quota under the Alternative Vote System is the same as under STV:Total valid poll/(number of seats + 1) plus 1
which gives you 50%+1 vote as the quotaAnalagously I think the quota for elections to the European Parliament from NI is 25% + 1 vote.
I often wish the NI Executive were elected directly from a Single Constituency. With 12 members (10 ministers + the First and Deputy First Ministers) the quota would only be 8.33% + 1 vote so power sharing would still be required but the center of gravity in any cabinet might just lie with the Alliance/SDLP/Unionists instead of with the two larger ethno-sectarian parties.
Posted by on Mar 24, 2008 @ 07:01 PMNice idea, but can’t see it coming to pass. As Greenflag says, power of inertia. There are a considerable number of places in England— the whole of the West County, just about— where the Liberals win 30% approx of the vote and Labour 25% but Conservatives get in with the remaining 45%. This system would give the Liberal party a chance of gaining a significant number of seats: certainly the balance of power.
And presumably make North Belfast & Upper Bann impossible for Nationalists to gain (and South Belfast more difficult to retain)?
No, actually, it would make them easier for Nationalists to gain. Nationalists as it stands have no chance of gaining these constituencies until the Nationalist vote is well over 50%: something that is eventually fated to happen due to changes in population perhaps. But under STV Nationalists could win them the very moment their population rises above 50%.
In South Belfast, we have to ask whether Alliance voters are going to give their second preference to the SDLP or DUP? I think I know the answer to this question. MacDonnell is not in any danger. The total Unionist vote has slipped, in the Assembly elections, to around 43%. It would require perfect transferring between Unionists, plus three quarters of the Alliance transfers to get a Unionist back in here under STV. No chance.
Posted by on Mar 24, 2008 @ 07:22 PMIn practice though, doesn’t AV produce results little different from FTTP?
Posted by on Mar 24, 2008 @ 07:23 PMIn practice though, doesn’t AV produce results little different from FPTP?
Hard to say. In a NI context, the answer is yes. But in England it could produce a radically different kind of society, with Conservatives a permanent minority.
Posted by on Mar 24, 2008 @ 08:05 PMPaddyReilly @ 08:05 PM:
Conservatives a permanent minority
When were they not?
Posted by on Mar 24, 2008 @ 08:17 PMMS
The Tories are linking Labour’s renewed interest in this idea with the Tory lead in the polls:
Link 1If true, Labour interest and Tory nerves are probably based on the assumption that Lib Dem voters would go to Labour with their AV. Although the latest polling in London would put that general assumption under some question:
Link 2Posted by on Mar 24, 2008 @ 08:18 PMWhen were they not?
Well I seem to recall vaguely that between 1979 and 1997 Conservatives held an absolute majority of seats in Parliament, something that would not have happened under AV.
Labour interest and Tory nerves are probably based on the assumption that Lib Dem voters would go to Labour with their AV.
No chance. Lib Dems will not back Labour candidates in any significant way. At least half of their transfers will go to the Conservatives. But Labour voters may enable Lib Dem candidates to win.
Posted by on Mar 24, 2008 @ 08:39 PMPaddyReilly @ 08:39 PM:
Conservatives in a “majority”? I fear not so.
See this graph, and draw whatever conclusions you choose.
Posted by on Mar 24, 2008 @ 09:03 PMFD,
Transfers from the last London Election show the big winners are the Lib Dems and Greens, but the electoral system there is designed to screw them by eliminating everyone but the top two candidates.
Bit difficult to see where Hughes’ transfers went, but its hard to see them going in any huge landslide to Labour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_mayoral_election,_2004Posted by on Mar 24, 2008 @ 09:06 PMMR your link does not work.
Conservatives were in an absolute majority in parliament, which is where it counts: and this on a vote of little more than 40%, I recall. Under AV this would not be the case. In 1997 there were only 12 constituencies in the country where the Conservative vote was over 50%, I seem to recall.
Posted by on Mar 24, 2008 @ 09:11 PMPaddyReilly @ 09:11PM
http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/percentvote.htm
Posted by on Mar 24, 2008 @ 09:39 PMThis also makes it impossible for a nationalist to win in S.Belfast
Unionist Tactical voting would secure durkan a seat in foyle
and sinn fein would suffer colateral damage as unionists despise sinn fein and will do anything to freeze them out. All in All sf will be left with 1 seat. Or 2 if they get lucky.
Posted by on Mar 24, 2008 @ 10:57 PM“Why not compulsory voting?”
You mean, I should be legally compelled to go spoil my vote....? Go figure…
Posted by on Mar 24, 2008 @ 11:17 PMThis also makes it impossible for a nationalist to win in S.Belfast. All in All sf will be left with 1 seat. Or 2 if they get lucky.
Wrong. If there had been AV in 2005, then we might have expected Kieran Deeney to win in West Tyrone, and the SDLP in Newry and Armagh. The SDLP would probably not have won South Belfast.
But as things stand at present in South Belfast, with the Unionist vote down to 43%, no Unionist, especially not a DUP candidate, has any serious prospect of unseating McDonnell, even with AV.
Posted by on Mar 24, 2008 @ 11:20 PM“and sinn fein would suffer colateral damage as unionists despise sinn fein and will do anything to freeze them out. All in All sf will be left with 1 seat. Or 2 if they get lucky.”
Somebody’s engaging in a little wishful thinking!
Posted by on Mar 24, 2008 @ 11:59 PMThe above mentioned South Belfast, which seems to be the Unionist equivalent of Aughrim or Wounded Knee, provides a cautionary example to all people who wish to cite the census returns as a demonstration of what the voters are going to do.
With 52.03% of the electorate found to be be Community Protestant or Other Christian, and only 41.36% Catholic, the Unionist belief appears to be that they have won the census. However, the SDLP won the Westminster Election, and Unionists only won 2 out of 6 of the Assembly Seats. So what has gone wrong?
Typically, Unionists seem to imagine that the electorate never changes. It could be that the census was taken in 2001, and Inner city areas change their population very rapidly. But even without that, my calculations are that the Unionist vote goes down by 0.5% per annum, so 52.03% in the census translates into 49.03% in 2007.
Equally, the census does not ask sufficient questions to determine which side a person is really on. A Protestant who is married to a Catholic is more likely to vote Alliance or SDLP than UUP or DUP. Persons who grew up in England or Sweden, while technically Protestant, are frequently unimpressed by the UUP or DUP. Those who claim to have no religion also seem to have plumped for Alliance or Nationalist. We all know which party the Taoists vote for.
Net result: Unionist vote = 43%. Alliance = 12.6%. Get used to it.
Somebody’s engaging in a little wishful thinking!
Well he’s partly right. Under AV SF would have won just 3 seats in 2005, instead of 5.
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 12:03 AM
