tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post5499607822237908973..comments2024-03-04T17:54:32.559+00:00Comments on Iain Dale's Diary: How STV Weakens the Constituency LinkIain Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-24456320782440763962010-07-07T11:34:40.440+01:002010-07-07T11:34:40.440+01:00Iain, a late entry here to correct a point you mad...Iain, a late entry here to correct a point you made in your comment of 3rd July. You said: <br /><br />"Under virtually every form of STV and AV plus there is a list system in place. Getting on that list depends on how much you grease up to the central or regional party. In a multi member constituency that can determine whether you are at the top or bottom of the list."<br /><br />Getting onto the list is indeed a party matter, but under STV, the voters get to choose which candidate is selected. One of the side effects of STV is that candidates spend as much effort competing against other candidates within the party as they do fighting their official opposition.<br /><br />Take a hypothetical STV consitituency based on Luton. Labour, Conservatives and possibly Lib Dems are just about guaranteed one seat each. For the safe labour seat, consituents get to choose between Margaret "Dry Rot" Maran or honourable Kelvin Hopkins who claimed practically nothing off expenses.<br /><br />The link between individual MPs and voters is far stronger under STV than FPTP.<br /><br />I agree with you that AV is neither fish nor fowl. The consequences of coalition and compromise, I guess.FFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16627719160178595437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-45883915082243618902010-07-05T15:25:33.573+01:002010-07-05T15:25:33.573+01:00I'm still waiting for Iain to apologise for ge...I'm still waiting for Iain to apologise for getting his facts wrong and insulting me, given that he's big into apologies on another blog entry about the EU and eggs! But I might as well whistle in the wind. <br /><br />Thanks to Simon and numerous others, including three I think in Ireland, for speaking up.Cantstandcanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14483280267141596503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-81701245288921167742010-07-04T15:16:07.087+01:002010-07-04T15:16:07.087+01:00These bizarre claims about constituency link have ...These bizarre claims about constituency link have to be laid to rest. I have never had the slightest chance ever of influencing who my MP is. My MP has never been the slightest bit representative<br /><br />Compare and contrast the considerably more representative Irish system with its constituency link.<br /><br />And even more bizarre are your false claims about STV MPs or candidates being a tool of the party - completely the opposite of reality.<br /><br />You really need to find out what you are talking about before shooting your mouth off.Simon Gardnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17189501697856123305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-39820436928161472682010-07-03T23:15:45.969+01:002010-07-03T23:15:45.969+01:00The only reason no one knows their MEP is because ...The only reason no one knows their MEP is because no one really cares about the EU. It's too distant.<br /><br />As to whether STV (or AV or AV+) breaks the constituency link. Is there a constituency link in place at the moment. Current PPCs are flown in to areas where they have not been born and raised purely because they are a high flyer and are getting safe seat. I would argue that there is no constituency link in such cases. The high flyer, who is likely to be a career politician, cares more about their party and their rise up the greasy ladder than they care about their electorate.SadButMadLadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17836368722377421009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-63637445066732912482010-07-03T22:07:17.462+01:002010-07-03T22:07:17.462+01:00Just pick MPs at random. You automatically get a f...Just pick MPs at random. You automatically get a fair gender, ethnic and sexual orientation representation - along with any other group you can think of. It costs a lot less and it cannot be any worse than the present lot. It would be really interesting to set up a parallel chamber and see how it worked in practice. You could be damn sure there'd have been neither a poll tax nor an Iraq war.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13196592908360647734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-83959171174316523952010-07-03T21:36:42.812+01:002010-07-03T21:36:42.812+01:00I'm from Ireland and my constituency is a 5 se...I'm from Ireland and my constituency is a 5 seater. I know the names of all my TDs (MPs... but in Irish) and I know what order I would potentially go to them with a problem, depending on what the problem is based on a)where they live b) what their views on the given issue is or c) their party as applicable.<br />As for them not having a strong enough link to their constituencies.... a lot of politicos over here complain that the link is too strong leadin to people being elected based on local rather than national, good-of-the-country issues.<br /><br /><br />I really fail to understand the English problem with STV. It's easy, it's the fairest system I've heard of... on the downside it would ruin the drama of British election nights slightly....farneygirlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480646135510155222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-78714236532305289842010-07-03T21:28:32.841+01:002010-07-03T21:28:32.841+01:00Where are these STV systems with Party lists? Are ...Where are these STV systems with Party lists? Are you confusing STV with something like De'hondt?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09523255925908875475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-42574811926289756242010-07-03T21:23:56.553+01:002010-07-03T21:23:56.553+01:00Also Iain, I thought under STV the party has less ...Also Iain, I thought under STV the party has less control over candidate selection, as the electorate is free to choose a candidate from a number of competing people from one party. It'd be interesting to hear exactly how you think the Party would gain even more control under STV.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09523255925908875475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-17210832386728466942010-07-03T21:14:39.665+01:002010-07-03T21:14:39.665+01:00Can we also get rid of this idea of AV giving peop...Can we also get rid of this idea of AV giving people more than one vote being a change? At the moment how much a vote you have depends entirely on where you live - if you live in a safe seat you have much 'less' of a vote than if you live in a three way marginal. Anyone who says that everyone should have equal votes must surely be against a system of FPTP which inherinately gives different values to different votes.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02269981860251529130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-35572928066174649682010-07-03T20:58:42.373+01:002010-07-03T20:58:42.373+01:00Thank you Will for your explanation re: recounts. ...Thank you Will for your explanation re: recounts. Perhaps you are correct re: costs but the following from a report of the King County Elections Oversight Committee commenting on the experience of Pierce County implementing and administering Ranked Choice Voting is worth reading in this regard. <br /> http://www.kingcounty.gov/council/issues/public_trust/citizen_election_oversite_committee.aspx<br /><br />It is also perhaps instructive that of the handful (8 it appears) of American jurisdictions that instituted RCV in recent years, two, Burlington VT and Pierce County WA, have since repealed it. If the correct base is in fact 8, that means there has been a 25% reject rate among American jurisdictions who have tried it so far. Not an auspicious start and it strongly suggests that voters are finding things to dislike about the process.<br /><br />However, the damage to the political process is the greatest danger. Proponents (see the above report) view the incentive to stop contrast politics as a good thing. I regard it as an indisputable negative. Campaigns have an incentive to veer towards 'Up With People' messaging with RCV/AV. A recipe for electoral banality.Curlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17524528806616775692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-109015323893728612010-07-03T19:52:20.633+01:002010-07-03T19:52:20.633+01:00So Irish TDs don't have strong enough constitu...So Irish TDs don't have strong enough constituency links? Ireland? We're talking about the same place? Small island just to your left? Seriously?Jimmyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01542633492362670045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-78987406072113630192010-07-03T18:38:05.050+01:002010-07-03T18:38:05.050+01:00"Under virtually every form of STV and AV plu..."Under virtually every form of STV and AV plus there is a list system in place."<br /><br />the only two places using STV are Malta and Ireland. And in Ireland getting on the ballot for a party normally involves presenting yourself to a convention of party members, ordinary paid up members, the people who do most of the work for a party. I know, I've done it.<br /><br />FF in that last local elections of 2009 moved to an interview system, FG, Labour, the Greens, SF all have party conventions. Does HQ try and exert influence? Yes, is it normally successful if the party membership are opposed? Not a hope.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03238749613615582511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-300432520961173022010-07-03T18:14:33.582+01:002010-07-03T18:14:33.582+01:00Iain - it worries me that you are writing about so...Iain - it worries me that you are writing about something you don't appear to understand. I am not advocating list systems (hate them actually) and I am not advocating AV or Av plus. I am talking about stv, the system in operation in Ireland which does not have a list system any more than Fptp. Stv is what your post supposedly is about and I'm defending it. So why do you persist in claiming it is something it isn't? Voters can choose which candidate they like most across and within parties- which is not a list system where a party chooses who should be elected first, second and so on. Please take up the kind offer from the <br />poster in Dublin before you write about this again!Cantstandcanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14483280267141596503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-41215828868149814662010-07-03T18:09:28.989+01:002010-07-03T18:09:28.989+01:00"1) the time required to fill out ballots and..."1) the time required to fill out ballots and to compute results was nearly doubled leading to polling location troubles and delays in determining winners. Also, had there been a need for a recount rough estimates for one county alone were over $1 million in cost, an outrageous amount. How does one reliably recount an AV election?"<br /><br />I can answer this based on personal experience.<br /><br />The cruical thing about conducting any AV/STV count is that you keep the votes a candidate gains from each round of voting seperate. After each round you check that you have the correct number of votes and then you progress with the election. That way if a problem occurs with the counting of the votes in (say) round three then you only have to recount the transfers from round three not the entire election. <br /><br />An AV election is no more complicated to count than a FPTP election. Immediately STV is very complicated and usually requires the use of computer software.Will Coolinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08383314654983448230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-66409352796467490582010-07-03T16:50:01.893+01:002010-07-03T16:50:01.893+01:00Constituency link?!
There is a growing disconnect...Constituency link?!<br /><br />There is a growing disconnect between constituents and their MPs. We are no longer represented by these elected politicians, so the manner in which they get elected should no longer be our concern. <br />Besides, regardless of the arithmetic of the voting method, the calibre of the politicians who enter Parliament will be just the same.gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12852087594641044352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-21483554294476931102010-07-03T16:37:42.181+01:002010-07-03T16:37:42.181+01:00AV was tried in Pierce Co. Washington in '08 a...AV was tried in Pierce Co. Washington in '08 and was such a disaster it was ditched the following year and the public returned to a primary to general election system. Problems included:<br /><br />1) the time required to fill out ballots and to compute results was nearly doubled leading to polling location troubles and delays in determining winners. Also, had there been a need for a recount rough estimates for one county alone were over $1 million in cost, an outrageous amount. How does one reliably recount an AV election?<br /><br />2) It created a message vacuum. Rather than encouraging political discourse and the transmission of useful information (particularly useful negative information) because candidates were uncertain of where their second or third preferences would land. As a result, the county ended up with an Auditor who had a background that would have, under the previous system, been outed by his opponents but wasn't so exposed under AV due to fears of offending some second or third preference voter somewhere. Had this system not been binned immediately (the following year), it would, no doubt, have led to the expansion of proxy and shadow groups responsible for political messaging. Not a good result.<br /><br />3) It disenfranchised voters. Though proponents argued it would increase voter involvement, in fact there was such a drop off in terms of persons actually placing second and third preference votes that the universe of persons deciding on the final two candidates was much smaller than the previous primary to general system. <br /><br />This system has been tried and rejected. I hope the voters of the UK look at those jurisdictions like Pierce County Washington who learned the hard way.Curlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17524528806616775692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-49228838956571809692010-07-03T16:34:24.488+01:002010-07-03T16:34:24.488+01:00"Nothing wrong with that, you may say, but I ..."Nothing wrong with that, you may say, but I think it is a good thing that current MPs represent ALL their constituents"<br /><br />So do they now. If I contact my MSP asking them to voice my opposition to war crimes & she is from a party that supports them how exactly does she represent me?<br /><br />Supporters of parties who do well out of this always say how the constituency linkm is so much more important than the results represnting what people voted for but is there any evidence whatsoever that the public feel this way. <br /><br />This explanation could be justified if central party control was weak enough that when a party 3 line whip said one thing & the MPs voters said the opposite the MP would side with their voters. I don't think anybody would suggest that happens in one case in 1,000. If the MPs have already given up the constituency link they can hardly ethicly use it to maintain a system which is otherwise wholly corrupt.neil craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09157898238945726349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-22571911747556888472010-07-03T16:31:46.111+01:002010-07-03T16:31:46.111+01:00Cantstandcant, you have an appropriate name becaus...Cantstandcant, you have an appropriate name because what you have just written is pure cant.<br /><br />Under virtually every form of STV and AV plus there is a list system in place. Getting on that list depends on how much you grease up to the central or regional party. In a multi member constituency that can determine whether you are at the top or bottom of the list. There are of course ways round this, but in Germany for example, I think I am right in saying that the central party controls who gets on those lists.<br /><br />We hear a lot abour 'parachuting in'. That is actually quite difficult to do under our current system and where it does happen, it is pretty obvious it has happened. In a list system it can happen without it being obvious at all.Iain Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-91407222366745004182010-07-03T16:07:36.161+01:002010-07-03T16:07:36.161+01:00Democracy will only happen when we directly elect ...Democracy will only happen when we directly elect the PM/Executive<br /><br />We are then free to elect a constituency MP to really hold the executive to account and not to be a party HQ placed, whipped piece of lobby fodder which is all we are offered at the momentLibertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15219132362086878801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-15674804021060428002010-07-03T16:01:12.591+01:002010-07-03T16:01:12.591+01:00I have to add my support to those who have pointed...I have to add my support to those who have pointed out that <br /><br />a) 3-6 MPs is far more likely than 12<br />b) Anyone who thinks that we poor plebs couldn't possibly remember 4-5 public officials in our area is condescending in the extreme.<br />c) Once again - look at Ireland. The importance of first-preference votes AND a well of transfers to draw upon makes it vital for Irish TDs to cultivate strong constituency organisations and stay in touch with what's going on. The Poolbeg incinerator in Dublin South East has claimed many power politicians their seats...Daragh McDowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06049701674340138205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-28652777800887605352010-07-03T15:07:40.244+01:002010-07-03T15:07:40.244+01:00"What's more having multiple MPs working ..."What's more having multiple MPs working in the same area will improve the service provided to consitituents"<br /><br />This is rubbish. A constituency big enough to accommodate 5 MPs (assuming a total of 110 super-constituencies) would be very large - A total population averaging 600,000+. Hardly 'local'.Such a seat in scotland (outside of Strathclyde region) would cover geographically half of scotland!<br /><br />A 'constituency' of 600,000 people (not voters') is too large. A grouping current constituencies to make super constituencies might make sense to elect say 275 'Lords'.<br /><br />Finally<br />The Jenkins Commission rejected STV ...<br />'A Single Transferable Vote system was considered by the commission, but rejected on the grounds that it would require massive constituencies of around 350,000 electors resulting in an oppressive degree of choice, (i.e. too many candidates to choose from.) Also, the counting of votes in STV is "incontestably opaque" and different counting systems can produce different results.<br /><br />Just how are electors expected to sensibly choose between candidates when there might easily be 30 to 40 minimum to choose between? And in a by election there would be no vote to transfer - but 400,000 voters in a constituency covering half of Norfolk.<br /><br />I favour a 2 round system with a run off between the top two [assuming no one gets 50%].Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-22854494340910819442010-07-03T15:04:11.095+01:002010-07-03T15:04:11.095+01:00Iain I also think it would be helpful if could exp...Iain I also think it would be helpful if could explain how STV would put more power in the hands of the party machine than now, since it beats me. Really don't think you can continue to make wild assertions like that without offering some evidence. Damages your credibility for one thing. Can you back it up please with examples of how it has where it is used, or even develop your argument a bit!Cantstandcanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14483280267141596503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-67300026331174931782010-07-03T14:15:54.925+01:002010-07-03T14:15:54.925+01:00Half-right, I think, Iain: it weakens the **geogra...Half-right, I think, Iain: it weakens the **geographical** link — but as a lifelong Tory/UKIP voter who lives in an SNP seat and works in a Labour one, I really don't agree with your implicit assumption about the importance of this "link". I for one would far, far rather be represented by someone who actually shares at least some of my views, rather than someone notionally "local" (when he's not living in Westminster, 500 miles away!) who opposes me!jas88https://www.blogger.com/profile/05563592458314214904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-54009448040532192992010-07-03T14:03:47.347+01:002010-07-03T14:03:47.347+01:00you should see the system we have up here in Scotl...you should see the system we have up here in Scotland for the Scottish Parliament - we have a list system<br /><br />so your chances of getting elected depend totally on how much you grease up to the party elite<br /><br />it also means it does not matter how bad you are at your job as an MSP - if you are favoured by the party big wigs then you will always get elected<br /><br />which of course has 2 main outcomes. <br /><br />1. there are MSP's that simply cannot be got rid off. once elected they are effectively there for life. so as long as they keep their fingers out the till they are unaccountable to the electorate<br /><br />2. you dont get mavericks. everyone does as they are told by the party elite. otherwise come the next election you will find yourself right at the bottom of the party list and likely to loose your seat<br /><br />of course this system was designed by Donald Dewar and his labour cronies to make sure that Labour never lost power and became an elected dictatorship - so i was always dsappointed Donald was not around to see Alec Salamond beat labour last time. i dont have much time for the Scots Nats but it was wonderful to see the smile knocked off of scottish labours face.<br /><br />still doesnt help though with the fact some MSP's are virtually unsackable.<br /><br />isn't democracy wonderful ?Danny Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08789209821773052718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-1348082195025875082010-07-03T13:34:50.796+01:002010-07-03T13:34:50.796+01:00Completely agree with you. Indeed if we think that...Completely agree with you. Indeed if we think that a proportional (so called fair) system is desirable and I think this is still debatable then in my view three principles should be adhered to.<br /><br />1) As you say a single member per constituency is essential. People will genuinely be confused and loose touch with their representatives when there is a choice of 4 or 6 that they can refer to in a much larger area. I really have no idea who my MEP is.<br /><br />2) Each person should only have a single vote. None of this I vote for the BNP first but they have no chance so I get a second bite of the cherry at Labour and again they don't get in so I have a third chance voting for a Lib Dem. ONE PERSON ONE VOTE should be the mantra. The is why I will not be voting for AV.<br /><br />3) Each person should vote directly for a candidate. None of these party lists where the party apparatchiks decide who is top of the list and you vote for a party.<br /><br />Given those principles the proportional system that would work would be first past the post with a proportional top up. This would be based on a proportion of all votes cast and then allocated to runner up candidates in constituencies where these candidates received most votes. So if more Lib Dems were need to top-up and a Lib Dem came second in a constituency and s/he had the most number of votes then they would also be elected.<br /><br />Constituencies would have to be cut down and made slightly larger but not as large as for STV. I would also be in favour of the 5% minimum number of votes to cut out loony candidates.Osama the Nazarenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13627668308711758602noreply@blogger.com