BoJo not standing for PM

Chalky

Simply not true @ICBM. In the modern democratic era, the rule of majority = 50% of Votes +1 has been used for centuries and in the vast majority of democratic elections.

To say democracy for centuries has been un-democratic because it doesn't follow your system is preposterous!

p90fool

paulmapp8306 said:

Quite possibly.  They shouldnt though.  In fact, they shouldnt even take the "colour" of the party into account IMO.  You should vote for the candidate you think will represent your views the best, and do the best for your area regardless of his/her party or the leader thereof.  

 

How could I possibly know that, from three leaflets shoved through my door which are almost identical except in ink colour?

The party whip system makes a nonsense of it anyway, we're voting for the ruling elite of a party rather than our local candidate whether we like it or not.

UnclePsychosis

Chalky;1134178" said:

Simply not true @ICBM. In the modern democratic era, the rule of majority = 50% of Votes +1 has been used for centuries and in the vast majority of democratic elections.

What was the average Conservative vote in the last election? Greater than 50% was it?

ICBM

Chalky said:

Simply not true @ICBM. In the modern democratic era, the rule of majority = 50% of Votes +1 has been used for centuries and in the vast majority of democratic elections.

Once again you're plain wrong.

50%+1 of votes cast does not apply in any FPTP election where there is more than one candidate. It also does not apply in any alternative system other than STV, and in that there is an ordered process to arrive at a true majority, not largest-minority-wins.

A proper, modern democratic process is not the clumsy idea that the most votes counted wins no matter how many choices or votes there are. There are many other modern proportional voting systems which are also not most votes cast - they were set up up precisely to avoid this sort of undemocratic result. We are one of the very few countries that still doesn't use one. 

Countries like Switzerland that normally hold referenda use stricter requirements than a simple majority for important constitutional changes too - eg the Swiss require a double majority of popular vote plus a majority of regions.

It's not "my" system.

Fretwired

ICBM said:

Allowing the minority to rule the majority is expressly not democracy.

But in the real world what do you do? I know lots of people who are not interested in politics and don't vote. The biggest political party in the UK is Apathy. Look at the turnout in most general elections.

I'm for PR but most systems seemed flawed to me and the Single Transferable Vote sounds great in theory, but in practice people would simply vote for a version of of their first vote. So if you were a Labour supporter you would not want to vote for the Tories so you'd vote Labour followed by the Lib Dem etc. A second choice is worth as much as your first choice even though it wouldn't be your preferred candidate.

UnclePsychosis

Interesting insight into the way Gove and chums (deliberately) shafted Boris.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/30/how-boris-johnson-was-brought-to-his-knees-by-the-cuckoo-nest-pl/

chillidoggy

Boris "Brexicuted"

Best yet!

ICBM

Fretwired said:

I'm for PR but most systems seemed flawed to me and the Single Transferable Vote sounds great in theory, but in practice people would simply vote for a version of of their first vote. So if you were a Labour supporter you would not want to vote for the Tories so you'd vote Labour followed by the Lib Dem etc.

That's the whole point! It produces winners who are acceptable to a true majority of the voters. It rewards candidates with broad general support and restricts those with minority support. And it doesn't mean your second, third etc choices are worth as much as your first - they are by definition worth less because they are only counted in the order of preference and can be worth nothing at all if the result has already been decided at an earlier stage.

UnclePsychosis

Fretwired;1134203" said:

ICBM said:



Allowing the minority to rule the majority is expressly not democracy.












But in the real world what do you do? I know lots of people who are not interested in politics and don't vote. The biggest political party in the UK is Apathy. Look at the turnout in most general elections.



I'm for PR but most systems seemed flawed to me and the Single Transferable Vote sounds great in theory, but in practice people would simply vote for a version of of their first vote. So if you were a Labour supporter you would not want to vote for the Tories so you'd vote Labour followed by the Lib Dem etc. A second choice is worth as much as your first choice even though it wouldn't be your preferred candidate.

That's the whole point of StV. Better to have a winner that a true majority is at least content with than a winner who the majority hates.

Fretwired

UnclePsychosis said:

Fretwired;1134203" said:

ICBM said:



Allowing the minority to rule the majority is expressly not democracy.












But in the real world what do you do? I know lots of people who are not interested in politics and don't vote. The biggest political party in the UK is Apathy. Look at the turnout in most general elections.



I'm for PR but most systems seemed flawed to me and the Single Transferable Vote sounds great in theory, but in practice people would simply vote for a version of of their first vote. So if you were a Labour supporter you would not want to vote for the Tories so you'd vote Labour followed by the Lib Dem etc. A second choice is worth as much as your first choice even though it wouldn't be your preferred candidate.

That's the whole point of StV. Better to have a winner that a true majority is at least content with than a winner who the majority hates.

But people will vote negatively. "So who did you vote for" .. "Anyone but the Tories" .... so the first vote is Labour, the second Lib Dem but in reality you may not like or care for the Lib Dems or their policies. Your vote is not motivated by the issues but by a dislike of another party. Our politics is too partisan.

Fretwired

ICBM said:

Fretwired said:

I'm for PR but most systems seemed flawed to me and the Single Transferable Vote sounds great in theory, but in practice people would simply vote for a version of of their first vote. So if you were a Labour supporter you would not want to vote for the Tories so you'd vote Labour followed by the Lib Dem etc.

That's the whole point! It produces winners who are acceptable to a true majority of the voters. It rewards candidates with broad general support and restricts those with minority support. And it doesn't mean your second, third etc choices are worth as much as your first - they are by definition worth less because they are only counted in the order of preference and can be worth nothing at all if the result has already been decided at an earlier stage.

Does it? Not sure. You could end up giving more power to fringe parties like UKIP.

UnclePsychosis

Fretwired said:

UnclePsychosis said:

Fretwired;1134203" said:

ICBM said:



Allowing the minority to rule the majority is expressly not democracy.












But in the real world what do you do? I know lots of people who are not interested in politics and don't vote. The biggest political party in the UK is Apathy. Look at the turnout in most general elections.



I'm for PR but most systems seemed flawed to me and the Single Transferable Vote sounds great in theory, but in practice people would simply vote for a version of of their first vote. So if you were a Labour supporter you would not want to vote for the Tories so you'd vote Labour followed by the Lib Dem etc. A second choice is worth as much as your first choice even though it wouldn't be your preferred candidate.

That's the whole point of StV. Better to have a winner that a true majority is at least content with than a winner who the majority hates.

But people will vote negatively. "So who did you vote for" .. "Anyone but the Tories" .... so the first vote is Labour, the second Lib Dem but in reality you may not like or care for the Lib Dems or their policies. Your vote is not motivated by the issues but by a dislike of another party. Our politics is too partisan.

You're right, it is too partisan. In part because of our moronic FPTP voting system. Politicians don't need to appeal to everyone, just a minority of people and it absolutely encourages "us against them" tribalism.

Teetonetal

ICBM said:

Chalky said:

Simply not true @ICBM. In the modern democratic era, the rule of majority = 50% of Votes +1 has been used for centuries and in the vast majority of democratic elections.

Once again you're plain wrong.

50%+1 of votes cast does not apply in any FPTP election where there is more than one candidate. It also does not apply in any alternative system other than STV, and in that there is an ordered process to arrive at a true majority, not largest-minority-wins.

A proper, modern democratic process is not the clumsy idea that the most votes counted wins no matter how many choices or votes there are. There are many other modern proportional voting systems which are also not most votes cast - they were set up up precisely to avoid this sort of undemocratic result. We are one of the very few countries that still doesn't use one. 

Countries like Switzerland that normally hold referenda use stricter requirements than a simple majority for important constitutional changes too - eg the Swiss require a double majority of popular vote plus a majority of regions.

It's not "my" system.

Switzerland has direct majority for cantonal issues and double majority for constitutional issues.

Brexit referendum would have passed double majority test I believe. (majority people and majority region)

For me, the rules were clear - Brexit would happen on a 50 % +1 win.

28% of the electorate didn't vote. By not voting they lose the right to influence the decision and possibly allow a minority opinion to come into law.. but not voting, when you desire a specific outcome is the ultimate democratic sin. 

I did not vote, despite wanting to remain. I didn't feel it was fair for me to use my vote to affect a country I have not lived in or paid taxes to for 9 years and have no intention of returning to. That's a democratic choice on my part and I still feel the right one, even though my desired outcome wasn't achieved.

ICBM

Fretwired said:

Does it? Not sure. You could end up giving more power to fringe parties like UKIP.

Firstly it's the exact opposite - parties with broad moderate support do better than ones with narrow intense support - and secondly, if there is actually enough support for fringe parties then it needs to be represented.

One of the most serious problems with our system of government is that a 'fringe' party is essentially any other than the two largest. FPTP directly encourages people to vote for a party they don't like in order to try to stop the one they like even less winning, and the third party is then squeezed out - let alone any smaller ones.

The result is that we have single-party "majority" rule based on a minority of the vote - essentially an elected dictatorship - with large numbers of voters completely unrepresented. That alone makes many people feel that voting is pointless.

As a country we really need to get out of this blind spot that a minority should be able to overrule the majority simply by being the largest minority.

ICBM

Teetonetal said:

Switzerland has direct majority for cantonal issues and double majority for constitutional issues.

Brexit referendum would have passed double majority test I believe. (majority people and majority region)

No. It depends how the regions were defined, but at the most obvious regional level - England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland - then it would have failed (being a draw, 2-2), and if you'd included Gibraltar (a devolved region) and London (arguably a devolved region with its own governor) then it would have been clearly defeated (2-4).

Obviously that's a bit too crude because the population of Gibraltar is tiny. If I remember correctly Switzerland has 'half votes' for small cantons as well, but I could be wrong.

Fretwired

ICBM said:

Fretwired said:

Does it? Not sure. You could end up giving more power to fringe parties like UKIP.

Firstly it's the exact opposite - parties with broad moderate support do better than ones with narrow intense support - and secondly, if there is actually enough support for fringe parties then it needs to be represented.

But there isn't necessarily as my second vote counts as much as my first vote. It gets transferred. So if there are four voters who each vote Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and UKIP there's no outright winner. However if for their second vote the Labour and Lib Dem voters decide to vote tactically (keep out the Tory candidate) and vote UKIP, the Tory votes UKIP and the UKIP voter votes Tory you could end up with a UKIP MP that wasn't the first choice of the majority of voters. It's a vote for one party and an anti vote against another party that swings it.

UnclePsychosis

Fretwired said:

ICBM said:

Fretwired said:

Does it? Not sure. You could end up giving more power to fringe parties like UKIP.

Firstly it's the exact opposite - parties with broad moderate support do better than ones with narrow intense support - and secondly, if there is actually enough support for fringe parties then it needs to be represented.

But there isn't necessarily as my second vote counts as much as my first vote. It gets transferred. So if there are four voters who each vote Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and UKIP there's no outright winner. However if for their second vote the Labour and Lib Dem voters decide to vote tactically (keep out the Tory candidate) and vote UKIP, the Tory votes UKIP and the UKIP voter votes Tory you could end up with a UKIP MP that wasn't the first choice of the majority of voters. It's a vote for one party and an anti vote against another party that swings it.

Exactly the same thing happens under FPTP when people vote tactically. At the very least STV takes the guesswork out of tactical voting.

Fretwired

UnclePsychosis said:

Fretwired said:

ICBM said:

Fretwired said:

Does it? Not sure. You could end up giving more power to fringe parties like UKIP.

Firstly it's the exact opposite - parties with broad moderate support do better than ones with narrow intense support - and secondly, if there is actually enough support for fringe parties then it needs to be represented.

But there isn't necessarily as my second vote counts as much as my first vote. It gets transferred. So if there are four voters who each vote Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and UKIP there's no outright winner. However if for their second vote the Labour and Lib Dem voters decide to vote tactically (keep out the Tory candidate) and vote UKIP, the Tory votes UKIP and the UKIP voter votes Tory you could end up with a UKIP MP that wasn't the first choice of the majority of voters. It's a vote for one party and an anti vote against another party that swings it.

Exactly the same thing happens under FPTP when people vote tactically. At the very least STV takes the guesswork out of tactical voting.

I agree .. I don't see the point of swapping one flawed system for another.

Maybe we just bite the bullet and go for a presidential style election. The whole countries vote is added up to create a government and MPs are allocated to constituencies based on voting patterns and the number of seats won as a percentage of the overall vote.

ICBM

Fretwired said:

However if for their second vote the Labour and Lib Dem voters decide to vote tactically (keep out the Tory candidate) and vote UKIP

Why would they do that? They're far more likely to vote for the other of those two.

Regardless, the winner is the most broadly popular and least broadly unpopular candidate. One of the main advantages is that it takes away the need to vote first for a party you don't want in order to block one you *really* don't want.

Relevant to this thread is that the Tory Party will elect its new leader by a variation of this, in that candidates will be successively eliminated - in separate votes rather than by a fixed order of preference - until only two remain who will be presented to the general membership.

If it's good enough to choose a Prime Minister...

Teetonetal

ICBM said:

Teetonetal said:

Switzerland has direct majority for cantonal issues and double majority for constitutional issues.

Brexit referendum would have passed double majority test I believe. (majority people and majority region)

No. It depends how the regions were defined, but at the most obvious regional level - England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland - then it would have failed (being a draw, 2-2), and if you'd included Gibraltar (a devolved region) and London (arguably a devolved region with its own governor) then it would have been clearly defeated (2-4).

Obviously that's a bit too crude because the population of Gibraltar is tiny. If I remember correctly Switzerland has 'half votes' for small cantons as well, but I could be wrong.

I would have assumed the obvious division is per per county or maybe constituency or even per polling station? 

The Swiss method works nicely as each Canton is more or less a mini state with a further division per Gemeinde, so the boundaries are clear and obvious.