info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
All-English-elections-held-past-post-rules
28 views
Skip to first unread message
tim...
Sep 15, 2021, 7:33:28 AM9/15/21
to
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9991691/All-English-elections-held-past-post-rules.html
or
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/09/government-to-change-english-voting-system-after-labour-mayoral-victories
so the first article includes:
"Hundreds of thousands of votes are thought to have been wasted using this
format due to some candidates winning on the second preferences"
How on earth are votes *wasted" because the second preference wins through.
They got to express their preference, Their candidate didn't win. Tough
it's how it works.
The majority choice wins, there are always going to be votes "wasted" if you
didn't vote for the winner, it's called democracy. But many more of them if
the winner didn't get a majority
or
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/09/government-to-change-english-voting-system-after-labour-mayoral-victories
so the first article includes:
"Hundreds of thousands of votes are thought to have been wasted using this
format due to some candidates winning on the second preferences"
How on earth are votes *wasted" because the second preference wins through.
They got to express their preference, Their candidate didn't win. Tough
it's how it works.
The majority choice wins, there are always going to be votes "wasted" if you
didn't vote for the winner, it's called democracy. But many more of them if
the winner didn't get a majority
Jeff Gaines
Sep 15, 2021, 7:44:30 AM9/15/21
to
systems. May not work for local mayors but for parliament 40%
Conservative, 40% Socialist, 20% other should see those proportions in the
House. We could try it on th Lords to start with.
--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
If you ever find something you like buy a lifetime supply because they
will stop making it
Roland Perry
Sep 15, 2021, 10:26:17 AM9/15/21
to
In message <xn0n2wvij...@news.individual.net>, at 11:44:24 on Wed,
15 Sep 2021, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
elections mean that MEPs are largely selected not by the voters, but by
regional party committees who devise the lists, and you don't get one
who has any particular allegiance to the local electorate.
Mayors are an exceptional case, and I was one of the "counters" for the
recent election (but not in my home District Council area).
It was an extraordinarily boring day (not just on account of the Covid
precautions, which meant keeping away from one's fellow counters and
observers, and refreshment vendors banned from the premises), but
because we did about 3hrs counting spread over 10 calendar hours. The
remaining seven hours being waiting for other centres to complete their
counts, so we knew *whose* losing votes needed to be transferred (and
thus counted).
We should have stayed even longer in case there was a recount called for
the combined totals (we'd already successfully done a handful of
recounts for the local totals), but TPTB caved in and let half of us
could go home, having agreed to pay those remaining at overtime rates.
No combined recount was called for.
The result, on STV, turned out to elect a Labour Mayor, who won because
he mopped up all the "anyone but the Tory" votes from the unsuccessful
third-placed LibDem. On first-past-the-post, the Tory would have won (to
a large extent because the anti-Tory vote was split) but STV glued them
back together again!
I gather the next mayoral election might be FPTP. Which smacks of sore
losers, but that's a discussion for another time.
--
Roland Perry
15 Sep 2021, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>"Hundreds of thousands of votes are thought to have been wasted using
>>this format due to some candidates winning on the second preferences"
>>
>>How on earth are votes *wasted" because the second preference wins
>>through. They got to express their preference, Their candidate didn't
>>win. Tough it's how it works.
>>
>>The majority choice wins, there are always going to be votes "wasted"
>>if you didn't vote for the winner, it's called democracy. But many
>>more of them if the winner didn't get a majority
>
>The only way to avoid wasting votes is pure PR, not complex transfer
>systems. May not work for local mayors but for parliament 40%
>Conservative, 40% Socialist, 20% other should see those proportions in
>the House.
That's one of the few things I didn't like about the EU - their
>>"Hundreds of thousands of votes are thought to have been wasted using
>>this format due to some candidates winning on the second preferences"
>>
>>How on earth are votes *wasted" because the second preference wins
>>through. They got to express their preference, Their candidate didn't
>>win. Tough it's how it works.
>>
>>The majority choice wins, there are always going to be votes "wasted"
>>if you didn't vote for the winner, it's called democracy. But many
>>more of them if the winner didn't get a majority
>
>The only way to avoid wasting votes is pure PR, not complex transfer
>systems. May not work for local mayors but for parliament 40%
>Conservative, 40% Socialist, 20% other should see those proportions in
>the House.
elections mean that MEPs are largely selected not by the voters, but by
regional party committees who devise the lists, and you don't get one
who has any particular allegiance to the local electorate.
Mayors are an exceptional case, and I was one of the "counters" for the
recent election (but not in my home District Council area).
It was an extraordinarily boring day (not just on account of the Covid
precautions, which meant keeping away from one's fellow counters and
observers, and refreshment vendors banned from the premises), but
because we did about 3hrs counting spread over 10 calendar hours. The
remaining seven hours being waiting for other centres to complete their
counts, so we knew *whose* losing votes needed to be transferred (and
thus counted).
We should have stayed even longer in case there was a recount called for
the combined totals (we'd already successfully done a handful of
recounts for the local totals), but TPTB caved in and let half of us
could go home, having agreed to pay those remaining at overtime rates.
No combined recount was called for.
The result, on STV, turned out to elect a Labour Mayor, who won because
he mopped up all the "anyone but the Tory" votes from the unsuccessful
third-placed LibDem. On first-past-the-post, the Tory would have won (to
a large extent because the anti-Tory vote was split) but STV glued them
back together again!
I gather the next mayoral election might be FPTP. Which smacks of sore
losers, but that's a discussion for another time.
--
Roland Perry
Fredxx
Sep 15, 2021, 11:12:58 AM9/15/21
to
On 15/09/2021 14:22, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <xn0n2wvij...@news.individual.net>, at 11:44:24 on Wed,
> 15 Sep 2021, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>> "Hundreds of thousands of votes are thought to have been wasted using
>>> this format due to some candidates winning on the second preferences"
>>>
>>> How on earth are votes *wasted" because the second preference wins
>>> through. They got to express their preference, Their candidate
>>> didn't win. Tough it's how it works.
>>>
>>> The majority choice wins, there are always going to be votes "wasted"
>>> if you didn't vote for the winner, it's called democracy. But many
>>> more of them if the winner didn't get a majority
>>
>> The only way to avoid wasting votes is pure PR, not complex transfer
>> systems. May not work for local mayors but for parliament 40%
>> Conservative, 40% Socialist, 20% other should see those proportions in
>> the House.
>
> That's one of the few things I didn't like about the EU - their
> elections mean that MEPs are largely selected not by the voters, but by
> regional party committees who devise the lists, and you don't get one
> who has any particular allegiance to the local electorate.
Agreed, and a PR system would be worse. I want someone to represent me.
> In message <xn0n2wvij...@news.individual.net>, at 11:44:24 on Wed,
> 15 Sep 2021, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>> "Hundreds of thousands of votes are thought to have been wasted using
>>> this format due to some candidates winning on the second preferences"
>>>
>>> How on earth are votes *wasted" because the second preference wins
>>> through. They got to express their preference, Their candidate
>>> didn't win. Tough it's how it works.
>>>
>>> The majority choice wins, there are always going to be votes "wasted"
>>> if you didn't vote for the winner, it's called democracy. But many
>>> more of them if the winner didn't get a majority
>>
>> The only way to avoid wasting votes is pure PR, not complex transfer
>> systems. May not work for local mayors but for parliament 40%
>> Conservative, 40% Socialist, 20% other should see those proportions in
>> the House.
>
> That's one of the few things I didn't like about the EU - their
> elections mean that MEPs are largely selected not by the voters, but by
> regional party committees who devise the lists, and you don't get one
> who has any particular allegiance to the local electorate.
I recall on UseNet someone saying, regarding an EU issue, I should write
to my MEP, my reply being "which MEP", the one that will agree with me,
or the one that won't.
Graham Truesdale
Sep 15, 2021, 1:56:37 PM9/15/21
to
On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 12:33:28 PM UTC+1, tim... wrote:
> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/09/government-to-change-english-voting-system-after-labour-mayoral-victories
“It’s likely that first past the post would make it somewhat easier for the Conservatives to win if they could come up with a really good candidate,”
>
The biggest piece of news in that article is the Guardian admitting/printing a quotation that there could be such as thing as a really good Conservative candidate.
> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/09/government-to-change-english-voting-system-after-labour-mayoral-victories
“It’s likely that first past the post would make it somewhat easier for the Conservatives to win if they could come up with a really good candidate,”
>
The biggest piece of news in that article is the Guardian admitting/printing a quotation that there could be such as thing as a really good Conservative candidate.
Graham Truesdale
Sep 15, 2021, 1:58:28 PM9/15/21
to
On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 3:26:17 PM UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
> That's one of the few things I didn't like about the EU - their
> elections mean that MEPs are largely selected not by the voters, but by
> regional party committees who devise the lists, and you don't get one
> who has any particular allegiance to the local electorate.
>
Except in Northern Ireland where elections were by STV and the voters chose the order in which to rank their preferences.
> That's one of the few things I didn't like about the EU - their
> elections mean that MEPs are largely selected not by the voters, but by
> regional party committees who devise the lists, and you don't get one
> who has any particular allegiance to the local electorate.
>
tim...
Sep 15, 2021, 6:07:32 PM9/15/21
to
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0JCUf6DR...@perry.uk...
it is precisely why this change has been proposed
wrapped up in some nonsense about fairness, whist in reality it seems
patently unfair
But perhaps people whit better experience/knowledge of voting systems can
explain otherwise
Fredxx
Sep 16, 2021, 12:57:56 AM9/16/21
to
candidate tends to have that effect.
Roland Perry
Sep 16, 2021, 1:47:48 AM9/16/21
to
In message <sht07h$vhd$1...@dont-email.me>, at 15:33:21 on Wed, 15 Sep
2021, Fredxx <fre...@nospam.co.uk> remarked:
It depends a bit on the nature of the issue, and whether it's regarding
the implementation of existing legislation (perhaps how it adversely
affects your particular circumstances) or is it lobbying about future
legislation.
I've done a lot of the latter, and it's always best to find an MEP who
is actively involved in the topic in question, than effectively a random
MEP just because they happen to have an office nearby, and who might be
the "wrong flavour" politically too.
Putting it into a UK context, I'd start by finding the Select Committee
(Lords sometimes better than Commons) whose brief covered a topic, and
then pick a likely candidate from the membership.
I realise that means a significant investment in the process, whereas
writing an angry email to your local MP could take only seconds (and
even fewer seconds to be binned).
--
Roland Perry
2021, Fredxx <fre...@nospam.co.uk> remarked:
the implementation of existing legislation (perhaps how it adversely
affects your particular circumstances) or is it lobbying about future
legislation.
I've done a lot of the latter, and it's always best to find an MEP who
is actively involved in the topic in question, than effectively a random
MEP just because they happen to have an office nearby, and who might be
the "wrong flavour" politically too.
Putting it into a UK context, I'd start by finding the Select Committee
(Lords sometimes better than Commons) whose brief covered a topic, and
then pick a likely candidate from the membership.
I realise that means a significant investment in the process, whereas
writing an angry email to your local MP could take only seconds (and
even fewer seconds to be binned).
--
Roland Perry
newshound
Sep 16, 2021, 4:27:22 AM9/16/21
to
rather than *for* a specific one. Whilst getting the "least worst"
member might seem a sort of democratic outcome, I would much prefer to
see more diverse views, particularly in parliament. Until the John
Cleese "PR" advert many years ago I had not realised what an outlier the
UK was in terms of FPTP.
Andy Leighton
Sep 16, 2021, 5:27:09 AM9/16/21
to
On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 14:22:25 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <xn0n2wvij...@news.individual.net>, at 11:44:24 on Wed,
> 15 Sep 2021, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>"Hundreds of thousands of votes are thought to have been wasted using
>>>this format due to some candidates winning on the second preferences"
>>>
>>>How on earth are votes *wasted" because the second preference wins
>>>through. They got to express their preference, Their candidate didn't
>>>win. Tough it's how it works.
>>>
>>>The majority choice wins, there are always going to be votes "wasted"
>>>if you didn't vote for the winner, it's called democracy. But many
>>>more of them if the winner didn't get a majority
>>
>>The only way to avoid wasting votes is pure PR, not complex transfer
>>systems. May not work for local mayors but for parliament 40%
>>Conservative, 40% Socialist, 20% other should see those proportions in
>>the House.
>
> That's one of the few things I didn't like about the EU - their
> elections mean that MEPs are largely selected not by the voters, but by
> regional party committees who devise the lists,
Except that isn't true. The EU do not insist on closed lists. Closed
> In message <xn0n2wvij...@news.individual.net>, at 11:44:24 on Wed,
> 15 Sep 2021, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>"Hundreds of thousands of votes are thought to have been wasted using
>>>this format due to some candidates winning on the second preferences"
>>>
>>>How on earth are votes *wasted" because the second preference wins
>>>through. They got to express their preference, Their candidate didn't
>>>win. Tough it's how it works.
>>>
>>>The majority choice wins, there are always going to be votes "wasted"
>>>if you didn't vote for the winner, it's called democracy. But many
>>>more of them if the winner didn't get a majority
>>
>>The only way to avoid wasting votes is pure PR, not complex transfer
>>systems. May not work for local mayors but for parliament 40%
>>Conservative, 40% Socialist, 20% other should see those proportions in
>>the House.
>
> That's one of the few things I didn't like about the EU - their
> elections mean that MEPs are largely selected not by the voters, but by
> regional party committees who devise the lists,
list for EU elections in Britain was a choice by the British government.
Ireland and Malta for example use STV. More countries use open lists
than closed lists. All the EU insist on is that the system is based
upon proportional representation.
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
- Douglas Adams
Max Demian
Sep 16, 2021, 6:15:39 AM9/16/21
to
--
Max Demian
Tim Woodall
Sep 16, 2021, 6:33:49 AM9/16/21
to
On 2021-09-16, newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote:
> I have always thought that most people actually vote *against* parties
> rather than *for* a specific one.
Probably true where this might have an effect.
> I have always thought that most people actually vote *against* parties
> rather than *for* a specific one.
I've had the misfortune to almost always vote in safe seats. Mostly I've
not voted at all in general elections by way of protest (to the extent
of turning up to vote in the local election but explicitly refusing to
vote in the parallel general election rather than spoil my paper) but at
the last general election I did vote for my first choice safe in the
knowledge that my wasted vote couldn't affect the outcome if I instead
voted tactically.
My candidate came fourth - but had enough votes to change the second and
third place ordering - and if second place had mattered I'd have wanted
the third place candidate to come second.
The winner wouldn't have been remotely challenged if there had only been
them and one other candidate and absolutely everybody who didn't vote
for them would vote for anybody but them.
Roland Perry
Sep 16, 2021, 6:45:21 AM9/16/21
to
In message <shv6i3$acl$1...@einstein.home.woodall.me.uk>, at 10:33:39 on
Thu, 16 Sep 2021, Tim Woodall <new...@woodall.me.uk> remarked:
would have been different?
>- and if second place had mattered I'd have wanted
>the third place candidate to come second.
>
>The winner wouldn't have been remotely challenged if there had only been
>them and one other candidate and absolutely everybody who didn't vote
>for them would vote for anybody but them.
>
--
Roland Perry
Thu, 16 Sep 2021, Tim Woodall <new...@woodall.me.uk> remarked:
>On 2021-09-16, newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote:
>> I have always thought that most people actually vote *against* parties
>> rather than *for* a specific one.
>
>Probably true where this might have an effect.
>
>I've had the misfortune to almost always vote in safe seats. Mostly I've
>not voted at all in general elections by way of protest (to the extent
>of turning up to vote in the local election but explicitly refusing to
>vote in the parallel general election rather than spoil my paper) but at
>the last general election I did vote for my first choice safe in the
>knowledge that my wasted vote couldn't affect the outcome if I instead
>voted tactically.
>
>My candidate came fourth - but had enough votes to change the second and
>third place ordering
How do you know that in the absence of the 4th placed, the 2nd and 3rd
>> I have always thought that most people actually vote *against* parties
>> rather than *for* a specific one.
>
>Probably true where this might have an effect.
>
>I've had the misfortune to almost always vote in safe seats. Mostly I've
>not voted at all in general elections by way of protest (to the extent
>of turning up to vote in the local election but explicitly refusing to
>vote in the parallel general election rather than spoil my paper) but at
>the last general election I did vote for my first choice safe in the
>knowledge that my wasted vote couldn't affect the outcome if I instead
>voted tactically.
>
>My candidate came fourth - but had enough votes to change the second and
>third place ordering
would have been different?
>- and if second place had mattered I'd have wanted
>the third place candidate to come second.
>
>The winner wouldn't have been remotely challenged if there had only been
>them and one other candidate and absolutely everybody who didn't vote
>for them would vote for anybody but them.
>
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Sep 16, 2021, 6:45:21 AM9/16/21
to
In message <slrnsk63f6....@azaal.plus.com>, at 04:27:02 on Thu,
16 Sep 2021, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> remarked:
the EU in this particular aspect.
>Ireland and Malta for example use STV. More countries use open lists
>than closed lists. All the EU insist on is that the system is based
>upon proportional representation.
--
Roland Perry
16 Sep 2021, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> remarked:
>On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 14:22:25 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <xn0n2wvij...@news.individual.net>, at 11:44:24 on Wed,
>> 15 Sep 2021, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>"Hundreds of thousands of votes are thought to have been wasted using
>>>>this format due to some candidates winning on the second preferences"
>>>>
>>>>How on earth are votes *wasted" because the second preference wins
>>>>through. They got to express their preference, Their candidate didn't
>>>>win. Tough it's how it works.
>>>>
>>>>The majority choice wins, there are always going to be votes "wasted"
>>>>if you didn't vote for the winner, it's called democracy. But many
>>>>more of them if the winner didn't get a majority
>>>
>>>The only way to avoid wasting votes is pure PR, not complex transfer
>>>systems. May not work for local mayors but for parliament 40%
>>>Conservative, 40% Socialist, 20% other should see those proportions in
>>>the House.
>>
>> That's one of the few things I didn't like about the EU - their
>> elections mean that MEPs are largely selected not by the voters, but by
>> regional party committees who devise the lists,
>
>Except that isn't true. The EU do not insist on closed lists. Closed
>list for EU elections in Britain was a choice by the British government.
I wasn't trying to assign blame, but commenting on our participation in
>> In message <xn0n2wvij...@news.individual.net>, at 11:44:24 on Wed,
>> 15 Sep 2021, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>"Hundreds of thousands of votes are thought to have been wasted using
>>>>this format due to some candidates winning on the second preferences"
>>>>
>>>>How on earth are votes *wasted" because the second preference wins
>>>>through. They got to express their preference, Their candidate didn't
>>>>win. Tough it's how it works.
>>>>
>>>>The majority choice wins, there are always going to be votes "wasted"
>>>>if you didn't vote for the winner, it's called democracy. But many
>>>>more of them if the winner didn't get a majority
>>>
>>>The only way to avoid wasting votes is pure PR, not complex transfer
>>>systems. May not work for local mayors but for parliament 40%
>>>Conservative, 40% Socialist, 20% other should see those proportions in
>>>the House.
>>
>> That's one of the few things I didn't like about the EU - their
>> elections mean that MEPs are largely selected not by the voters, but by
>> regional party committees who devise the lists,
>
>Except that isn't true. The EU do not insist on closed lists. Closed
>list for EU elections in Britain was a choice by the British government.
the EU in this particular aspect.
>Ireland and Malta for example use STV. More countries use open lists
>than closed lists. All the EU insist on is that the system is based
>upon proportional representation.
--
Serena Blanchflower
Sep 16, 2021, 7:13:20 AM9/16/21
to
their constituents? I know that my MP claims they are forbidden from
doing so; the following text is part of the automated reply to any email
that is sent to them:
> Please note that I will be unable to reply if you have not provided your full name, address and postcode. If you have not already done this, please resend your original email now, including these details. Strict Parliamentary rules mean that MPs are only allowed to help their own constituents. You can check if I am your MP by clicking here and entering your postcode.
--
Best wishes, Serena
When I feed the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have
no food, they call me a communist. (Dom Helder Camara)
tim...
Sep 16, 2021, 7:14:55 AM9/16/21
to
"Tim Woodall" <new...@woodall.me.uk> wrote in message
news:shv6i3$acl$1...@einstein.home.woodall.me.uk...
such seats are in the minority (though of course not all of the votes for
minor candidates are votes against the supposed "hated" candidate, that can
routinely be expected to accrue to the anti-candidate if there were only 2
choices [1])
[1] the classic case being in nominally blue constituencies where a set of
people are currently disenchanted with the blue party and vote orange.
Almost none of these people will ever countenance voting red, and, if the
orange candidate were unavailable would either abstain or hold their nose
whilst voting blue.
You can probably swap red and blue in the above with the same result
Roland Perry
Sep 16, 2021, 7:15:26 AM9/16/21
to
In message <shu3f2$d8r$1...@dont-email.me>, at 01:34:41 on Thu, 16 Sep
2021, Fredxx <fre...@nospam.co.uk> remarked:
STV is a vehicle for individuals to do tactical voting, that doesn't
work for FPTP, unless you act in concert with many others.
--
Roland Perry
2021, Fredxx <fre...@nospam.co.uk> remarked:
work for FPTP, unless you act in concert with many others.
--
Roland Perry
Tim Woodall
Sep 16, 2021, 7:17:14 AM9/16/21
to
On 2021-09-16, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <shv6i3$acl$1...@einstein.home.woodall.me.uk>, at 10:33:39 on
> Thu, 16 Sep 2021, Tim Woodall <new...@woodall.me.uk> remarked:
>>On 2021-09-16, newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote:
>>> I have always thought that most people actually vote *against* parties
>>> rather than *for* a specific one.
>>
>>Probably true where this might have an effect.
>>
>>I've had the misfortune to almost always vote in safe seats. Mostly I've
>>not voted at all in general elections by way of protest (to the extent
>>of turning up to vote in the local election but explicitly refusing to
>>vote in the parallel general election rather than spoil my paper) but at
>>the last general election I did vote for my first choice safe in the
>>knowledge that my wasted vote couldn't affect the outcome if I instead
>>voted tactically.
>>
>>My candidate came fourth - but had enough votes to change the second and
>>third place ordering
>
> How do you know that in the absence of the 4th placed, the 2nd and 3rd
> would have been different?
>
I don't know - why do you think I suggested that? I just said that the
> In message <shv6i3$acl$1...@einstein.home.woodall.me.uk>, at 10:33:39 on
> Thu, 16 Sep 2021, Tim Woodall <new...@woodall.me.uk> remarked:
>>On 2021-09-16, newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote:
>>> I have always thought that most people actually vote *against* parties
>>> rather than *for* a specific one.
>>
>>Probably true where this might have an effect.
>>
>>I've had the misfortune to almost always vote in safe seats. Mostly I've
>>not voted at all in general elections by way of protest (to the extent
>>of turning up to vote in the local election but explicitly refusing to
>>vote in the parallel general election rather than spoil my paper) but at
>>the last general election I did vote for my first choice safe in the
>>knowledge that my wasted vote couldn't affect the outcome if I instead
>>voted tactically.
>>
>>My candidate came fourth - but had enough votes to change the second and
>>third place ordering
>
> How do you know that in the absence of the 4th placed, the 2nd and 3rd
> would have been different?
>
fourth placed person had enough votes to change the second and third
place ordering. v(2) - v(3) < v(4).
But I'd hazard a guess that where the winner gets 75% of the vote, the
other 25% are probably mostly voting for their first choice (not just
me), there seems little point voting "against" anybody while second is
first loser which comes back to the sentence I was responding to (and
you quoted above)
Tim Woodall
Sep 16, 2021, 8:05:43 AM9/16/21
to
On 2021-09-16, tim... <timsn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Tim Woodall" <new...@woodall.me.uk> wrote in message
> news:shv6i3$acl$1...@einstein.home.woodall.me.uk...
>> On 2021-09-16, newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote:
>>> I have always thought that most people actually vote *against* parties
>>> rather than *for* a specific one.
>>
>> Probably true where this might have an effect.
>>
>> I've had the misfortune to almost always vote in safe seats. Mostly I've
>> not voted at all in general elections by way of protest (to the extent
>> of turning up to vote in the local election but explicitly refusing to
>> vote in the parallel general election rather than spoil my paper) but at
>> the last general election I did vote for my first choice safe in the
>> knowledge that my wasted vote couldn't affect the outcome if I instead
>> voted tactically.
>>
>> My candidate came fourth - but had enough votes to change the second and
>> third place ordering - and if second place had mattered I'd have wanted
>> the third place candidate to come second.
>>
>> The winner wouldn't have been remotely challenged if there had only been
>> them and one other candidate and absolutely everybody who didn't vote
>> for them would vote for anybody but them.
>
> are you saying that they got an absolute majority even with FPTP?
>
Indeed. As I said I've been unlucky. My current consituency is around
>
>
> "Tim Woodall" <new...@woodall.me.uk> wrote in message
> news:shv6i3$acl$1...@einstein.home.woodall.me.uk...
>> On 2021-09-16, newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote:
>>> I have always thought that most people actually vote *against* parties
>>> rather than *for* a specific one.
>>
>> Probably true where this might have an effect.
>>
>> I've had the misfortune to almost always vote in safe seats. Mostly I've
>> not voted at all in general elections by way of protest (to the extent
>> of turning up to vote in the local election but explicitly refusing to
>> vote in the parallel general election rather than spoil my paper) but at
>> the last general election I did vote for my first choice safe in the
>> knowledge that my wasted vote couldn't affect the outcome if I instead
>> voted tactically.
>>
>> My candidate came fourth - but had enough votes to change the second and
>> third place ordering - and if second place had mattered I'd have wanted
>> the third place candidate to come second.
>>
>> The winner wouldn't have been remotely challenged if there had only been
>> them and one other candidate and absolutely everybody who didn't vote
>> for them would vote for anybody but them.
>
> are you saying that they got an absolute majority even with FPTP?
>
75% winner, 25% the rest as per the last election.
The very first election I was able to vote in (92) was a 60% winner, 40% the
rest for my home constituency although for that one I was able to use my
vote in my university constituency instead where the winner "only" got
45% so they could, in theory, have been defeated (it was actually
reasonably close, the second place getting 39% - and indeed my vote was
a "not the winner" vote for the second placed candidate.)
The next election (neither of the two above constituencies) was 57% to the
winner.
The one after that, yet another constituency, was 45% to the winner,
again in theory second and third place together could have won, but this
time there was 12% between first and second and it was a "safe seat".
The 2005 election was one of only two general election I've been able to
vote in that was close, a three way marginal with just 2k votes between
first and third. Despite that, turnout was only 65% - and I was one of
the 1 in 3 voters who had given up voting in general elections.
The 2010 election (same constituency) was also close, not as close as
2005.
And since then I've been in a 60%+ to the winner constituency.
So I've been able to vote in, I think 9 constituencies at general
election (but only 8 votes at general elections) and 5 of them were
absolutely majority to the winner.
Roland Perry
Sep 16, 2021, 9:45:21 AM9/16/21
to
In message <mIWdnQ3v0Ji4vd78...@brightview.co.uk>, at
11:44:53 on Thu, 16 Sep 2021, Serena Blanchflower
<nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> remarked:
That's in their Ombudsman role, which I tried (but obviously not
successfully enough) to differentiate from a lobbying situation.
In any event, a lobbyist wouldn't write to an MP, it has to be done more
in person than that.
>> Please note that I will be unable to reply if you have not provided
>>your full name, address and postcode. If you have not already done
>>this, please resend your original email now, including these details.
>>Strict Parliamentary rules mean that MPs are only allowed to help
>>their own constituents. You can check if I am your MP by clicking here
>>and entering your postcode.
>
--
Roland Perry
11:44:53 on Thu, 16 Sep 2021, Serena Blanchflower
<nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> remarked:
successfully enough) to differentiate from a lobbying situation.
In any event, a lobbyist wouldn't write to an MP, it has to be done more
in person than that.
>> Please note that I will be unable to reply if you have not provided
>>your full name, address and postcode. If you have not already done
>>this, please resend your original email now, including these details.
>>Strict Parliamentary rules mean that MPs are only allowed to help
>>their own constituents. You can check if I am your MP by clicking here
>>and entering your postcode.
>
--
Roland Perry
Sep 16, 2021, 9:54:08 AM9/16/21
to
In message <shv93c$c06$1...@einstein.home.woodall.me.uk>, at 11:17:00 on
other two candidates. If they managed to get half each, it wouldn't
change the result.
>But I'd hazard a guess that where the winner gets 75% of the vote, the
>other 25% are probably mostly voting for their first choice (not just
>me), there seems little point voting "against" anybody while second is
>first loser which comes back to the sentence I was responding to (and
>you quoted above)
If the winner has as big a majority as that, no form of tactical/
transferable voting will alter the result.
--
Roland Perry
Thu, 16 Sep 2021, Tim Woodall <new...@woodall.me.uk> remarked:
>On 2021-09-16, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <shv6i3$acl$1...@einstein.home.woodall.me.uk>, at 10:33:39 on
>> Thu, 16 Sep 2021, Tim Woodall <new...@woodall.me.uk> remarked:
>>>On 2021-09-16, newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote:
>>>> I have always thought that most people actually vote *against* parties
>>>> rather than *for* a specific one.
>>>
>>>Probably true where this might have an effect.
>>>
>>>I've had the misfortune to almost always vote in safe seats. Mostly I've
>>>not voted at all in general elections by way of protest (to the extent
>>>of turning up to vote in the local election but explicitly refusing to
>>>vote in the parallel general election rather than spoil my paper) but at
>>>the last general election I did vote for my first choice safe in the
>>>knowledge that my wasted vote couldn't affect the outcome if I instead
>>>voted tactically.
>>>
>>>My candidate came fourth - but had enough votes to change the second and
>>>third place ordering
>>
>> How do you know that in the absence of the 4th placed, the 2nd and 3rd
>> would have been different?
>
>I don't know - why do you think I suggested that? I just said that the
>fourth placed person had enough votes to change the second and third
>place ordering. v(2) - v(3) < v(4).
Oh I see, but only if the votes were cast in a lopsided way for those
>On 2021-09-16, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <shv6i3$acl$1...@einstein.home.woodall.me.uk>, at 10:33:39 on
>> Thu, 16 Sep 2021, Tim Woodall <new...@woodall.me.uk> remarked:
>>>On 2021-09-16, newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote:
>>>> I have always thought that most people actually vote *against* parties
>>>> rather than *for* a specific one.
>>>
>>>Probably true where this might have an effect.
>>>
>>>I've had the misfortune to almost always vote in safe seats. Mostly I've
>>>not voted at all in general elections by way of protest (to the extent
>>>of turning up to vote in the local election but explicitly refusing to
>>>vote in the parallel general election rather than spoil my paper) but at
>>>the last general election I did vote for my first choice safe in the
>>>knowledge that my wasted vote couldn't affect the outcome if I instead
>>>voted tactically.
>>>
>>>My candidate came fourth - but had enough votes to change the second and
>>>third place ordering
>>
>> How do you know that in the absence of the 4th placed, the 2nd and 3rd
>> would have been different?
>
>I don't know - why do you think I suggested that? I just said that the
>fourth placed person had enough votes to change the second and third
>place ordering. v(2) - v(3) < v(4).
other two candidates. If they managed to get half each, it wouldn't
change the result.
>But I'd hazard a guess that where the winner gets 75% of the vote, the
>other 25% are probably mostly voting for their first choice (not just
>me), there seems little point voting "against" anybody while second is
>first loser which comes back to the sentence I was responding to (and
>you quoted above)
transferable voting will alter the result.
--
Roland Perry
0 new messages