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 @ 03:13 PM
I’m all for changing to PR.... that is until i read that it might have aided David Burnside in any way!
As for McDonnell, his personal vote in the assembly went up at least 1500 since 2003 and brought his running mate home (the only party to do so in S/Belfast), what happened to Buck Alec’s vote? up 6 on 2003 and that was on a tide of significant increases for SF all over the place, that tells you what’s going on in South Belfast.
McDonnell will hold.
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 03:35 PMPaddy Reilly wrote: ‘my calculations are that the Unionist vote goes down by 0.5% per annum...’
Interesting. Is that a reference to South Belfast only, or does it hold more generally?
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 04:49 PMDoes it hold more generally?
It is calculated from the decline in the Unionist vote between the various 5 yearly European Parliament elections. On average it falls by 2.5% in each 5 year period. Whether this decline is city based or all over I do not know.
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 07:00 PMPaddyReilly @ 06:00 PM:
Remind me, someone: is there not research showing a consistent attrition against the incumbent party of 0.75% p.a.?
Does that apply here?
[Please, can the Administrator get rid of that offensive bit of spam @ 09:28PM]
Posted by on Mar 25, 2008 @ 11:16 PMRemind me, someone: is there not research showing a consistent attrition against the incumbent party of 0.75% p.a.?
This is something different: attrition against the UUP to the DUP may be 0.75% per annum, and now against the DUP back again. This is attrition against the Unionist block, caused not by voter disillusionment but change in the sectarian makeup of the population.
Posted by on Mar 26, 2008 @ 12:38 AMMichael
To answer your question in second post: because it’s a mess and has led to this “above the line” nonsense.
Besides, I prefer free will to compulsion!
Posted by on Mar 26, 2008 @ 03:09 AMRe: Demographic change - much more concentrated in Belfast South (and North) than in any other constituencies. The contrast between the age groups is astonishing. Both constituencies will be nationalist majority within 15 years.
Posted by on Mar 26, 2008 @ 07:43 AMWe’re talking about something different here. I’m talking about the Unionist (and Nationalist) vote in the European Parliament elections and Dewi is talking (I think) about the Catholic community section of the population in the census. Equating the two is subject to certain caveats.
Posted by on Mar 26, 2008 @ 10:08 AMHogan @ 02:35 PM
I wouldn’t worry too much about Burnside.
Recent history in South Antrim shows that McCrea beat Burnside in September 2000 by-election and a few months later at the full election the UUP vote went up, with significant reductions in Alliance and SDLP votes (3% less and 2% less than local government votes on same day) and Burnside won. It appears that seeing McCrea win scared some people into voting tactically.
Possibly unimpressed by their new ‘moderate’ MP, in 2005 many of those voters deserted Burnside. Alliance votes went up by 5% and SDLP held firm, with a 3% increase in Sinn Fein vote. McCrea won.
In 2007, for the Assembly, DUP established a 34% to 20% lead over UUP in South Antrim. Burnside was only elected fourth - well behind McLaughlin of Sinn Fein and McCrea and even beaten by Ford, with Alliance up a further 4%.
Even if some Alliance votes transferred to UUP (a big question), Burnside needs a number of SDLP votes too. So McCrea is probably safe (despite initial post by MS) as long as we can see.
Posted by on Mar 26, 2008 @ 02:49 PMrj,
So seem to be having trouble with what I said, I said that had AV been used in 2005, he probably would have held on.
Posted by on Mar 26, 2008 @ 02:51 PMSorry for coming to the party late…
AV is a terrible system; and it isn’t proportional representation in any sense. It tends to exaggerate the dominance of the largest party more than even FPTP does. So, if you think it would be a healthy thing for Labour to have had overall majorities of over 200 in the 1997 and 2001 British General elections, and for FF to be in permanent single party government, go ahead and support it but if that prospect doesn’t appeal then you need to look at another electoral system.
Why are Labour coming around to this idea? Because they think it might help them avoid having their asses handed to them in the 2010 General Election.
As for the Australian voting system.
Compulsory voting: personally I am not in favour but that’s a matter of personal taste and ideology.
Above the line voting: STV gives voters the power to thumb their nose at party machines; so Australian parties decided to make it very difficult for people to exercise that right and to allow them to concoct shady dealings behind closed doors with other parties. A bad idea, unless you’re an Australian party boss.
Informal voting: in Australia, votes that have less than three preferences marked are ‘informal’, which is a deceptive way of saying spoiled and not counted. Load of shite. Personally, I always vote the ticket but if people want to plump, that’s their business. An electoral system should try and reflect the will of the people, not second guess their business.
As far as election regulations go, the Aussies can cover their system in Vegemite and cook it on a beach barbie.
Posted by on Mar 27, 2008 @ 10:58 AMWell Sammy, I think you are assuming that the electorate would behave in exactly the same way under AV as they do with FPTP. IMHO, what would happen if people knew that they had more than one chance, is they would vote more often for parties that under FPTP would have been spoilt votes.
So the huge majorities for Labour in 1997 would not occur. Socialist Labour and Social Democrats would have eaten into those numbers. Another factor is that the Conservatives, prior to 1997, would not have had 18 years of unchalleged majority, and so would not have provoked the huge swing to get them out that we experienced in 1997.
Net result would be something a bit more like the 4/5/6 party system that obtains in NI, rather than the 2 alternating parties system of England.
Posted by on Mar 27, 2008 @ 01:03 PMMS
I accept you were looking back and I was looking forward.
I still think that those who had deserted Burnside in 2005 after voting tactically in 2001 would not have been rushing to give him later preferences if available in 2005.
It would have needed all of Ford’s 9% for Burnside to catch McCrea, or else a proportion of SDLP and/or SF transfers. Certainly possible that Burnside would have won, but not by any means certain. Perhaps that’s a “fair chance”.
Posted by on Mar 27, 2008 @ 03:26 PMNet result would be something a bit more like the 4/5/6 party system that obtains in NI
I am not convinced by this. That is certainly not the case in Australia.
Posted by on Mar 27, 2008 @ 04:18 PMA Protestant who is married to a Catholic is more likely to vote Alliance or SDLP than UUP or DUP.
On what evidence is this assertion based?
Posted by on Mar 27, 2008 @ 04:23 PMOn what evidence is this assertion based?
Anecdotal, combined with conjecture. But the decline of the Unionist vote in South Belfast is real, so I had to cast around for reasons to explain it. If you know of any DUP politicians with Papish wives and six Papish weans, I would be glad to hear about them.
Posted by on Mar 27, 2008 @ 04:30 PMI know many “Protestants who are married to Catholics”, including myself, and I doubt any vote for the SDLP. UUP, Alliance and DUP, is my personal assessment of those whom I know - with UUP the most likely I should think.
If you know of any DUP politicians with Papish wives and six Papish weans, I would be glad to hear about them.
You never mentioned DUP politicians: your assertion was in respect of “Protestants who are married to Catholics”, and you said such people were more likely to vote SDLP or Alliance than UUP or DUP.
Posted by on Mar 27, 2008 @ 05:23 PM
