General election results 2015

[P. G. Tipps]

Certainly, I will explain a simplified version to make the point clear. If we have a system whereby people are allowed to register a second preference (which we don't), you could have a first 'round' of voting where Party A gets the largest number of 1st preference votes (and in your view is therefore the 'most popular'), say 36%. But when the 2nd preferences are distributed, Party A is found to have NONE. PARTY B, which only gained 35% of the 1st preferences, gains half the 2nd preferences to take its total to 85 (35+50), and Party C which had 29% of 1st preferences gains the other half, taking its total to 79 (29+50), while Party A still only has 35.

If one counts a 2nd preference as only half a vote, Party B scores 60 (35+25) and Party C scores 54 (29+25); Party A only scores 36. Since most people do have second preferences, it is unrealistic to pretend they each want one single party and do not want any of the others under any circumstances. This system allows the electorate to register that although 36% has put A top of their list, a resounding 64% has placed it at the bottom - because Party A split its 2nd prefs between B and C, but the B and C 2nd prefs were exchanged between each other (E&OE - it's still early in the day).

But I can see that is far too complicated for the British (as John Cleese once pointed out, PR means voters have to be able to count up to 6).

Thank you for another meaningful response.

The PR system you describe, whilst impressive in sophisticated design, would indeed be 'far too complicated' for many already leading very busy and sometimes complicated lives, I suspect. It would also be extremely demanding for those unfortunates charged with counting votes and then working the whole thing out at every stage! Long, time-consuming demands for recounts at each stage could also be an unwelcome factor. A sensible desire for the maximum possible simplicity should not be confused with a lack of intelligence.

Whilst I readily concede the system you describe is almost suffocating in its aim of 'complete fairness' to all, I'm not at all convinced this is a better way forward than FPTP, especially as it would almost certainly mean at the end a coalition of parties resulting in a hotch-potch of mixed policies without any clear direction?

However, I do respect your position on this even if I do not agree with it. This is a matter of opinion, not one of absolute rectitude either way.

[Bryn]

I think that it's down to FF and no one else to decide whether or when to do that; as she just just posted in it herself, such an action doesn't appear imminent but, as always and as it should be, it's her call.

.


Perhaps it was not this thread's but Anastasius's plug which was being put up for being pulled.

[Bryn]

... But I can see that is far too complicated for the British (as John Cleese once pointed out, PR means voters have to be able to count up to 6).

But not for those charged with electing members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, though the precise mode of redistribution of second preferences differs somewhat from that which you describe.

[french frank]

I draw attention to my post #810 …

would indeed be 'far too complicated' for many already leading very busy and sometimes complicated lives, I suspect. It would also be extremely demanding for those unfortunates charged with counting votes and then working the whole thing out at every stage!

People mistake a more complicated system for being difficult for the voter. It isn't: it merely means marking 1,2,3 &c against names. Or even just 1. Or even an X would be counted as a 1. It's done in countries all round the world.

It is not 'extremely demanding' for the counting staff. It merely takes them longer, and they are paid for it. They are fully trained in what they have to do and there is no shortage of applicants.

The main point is that the degree of a party's 'popularity' with voters is not only measured by how many Xs (or '1st preferences') it gets. There are groupings that see one or the other type of voting as 'more advantageous' to their group, but the system should not take that into consideration as regards the specific group: it should consider only the principle; the chief purpose of the election being, not to arrive at strong or effective government, but to reflect the collective will, as far as that is possible, of the electorate.

[Flosshilde]

But I can see that is far too complicated for the British (as John Cleese once pointed out, PR means voters have to be able to count up to 6).

English voters, possibly, but Scottish voters in elections for the Scottish Parliament and councils manage it.

[Anastasius]

.... Is that unacceptably illiberal?

Certainly not.

[Anastasius]

.


Perhaps it was not this thread's but Anastasius's plug which was being put up for being pulled.

13Amp ? 16 Amp? I have no idea what you are referring to but presume it is yet another dig at someone and which you seem to delight in.

[Bryn]

13Amp ? 16 Amp? I have no idea what you are referring to but presume it is yet another dig at someone and which you seem to delight in.

Your suggestion was simply ambiguous in its wording. Best you stop digging.

[Richard Barrett]

No one has asked me what I really want

So, MrGongGong: what is it you really want?

(that's a non-facetious question by the way: I thought it might be a good idea to nudge the thread away from arguments about tinkering with a broken system)

[Flosshilde]

In the political world 'effective government' generally means one with the ability to govern freely.

Even in the 'political world' the ability of the new government, with its very small majority, to 'govern freely' is yet to be tested. Any government with a decent opposition has difficulty in 'governing freely', and a beligerent House of Lords can also impede its freedom. So your definition is a little wobbly to say the least.

(speaking of the House of Lords, I liked Lord Falconer's comment about Gove when he was talking about the latter's proposal to abolish the Human Rights Act - "these Tory proposals are dishonest, incoherent and damaging and I really hope that Gove - who is by all accounts an intelligent person - will look at this again.")

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Even in the 'political world' the ability of the new government, with its very small majority, to 'govern freely' is yet to be tested. Any government with a decent opposition has difficulty in 'governing freely', and a beligerent House of Lords can also impede its freedom. So your definition is a little wobbly to say the least.

(speaking of the House of Lords, I liked Lord Falconer's comment about Gove when he was talking about the latter's proposal to abolish the Human Rights Act - "these Tory proposals are dishonest, incoherent and damaging and I really hope that Gove - who is by all accounts an intelligent person - will look at this again.")

"Effective governments" include the old Soviet Regime, the Third Reich, Mugabe's Zimbabwe, Castro's Cuba, Franco's Spain and many more. If effective = unjust, then it's time to think again.

[Dave2002]

Has this also been "moved to the basement" following the cookies incident?

Is Room 101 being applied yet again?

[MrGongGong]

So, MrGongGong: what is it you really want?

(that's a non-facetious question by the way: I thought it might be a good idea to nudge the thread away from arguments about tinkering with a broken system)

Assuming that this is still visible

I would like the people in charge of making decisions about things to know something about the things that they are making decisions about. Failing that, that they really do listen and take account of those who do.

I would like a government that places well being at the top of the agenda.
I would like a government that places ethical behaviour above economics or trade (so no more selling arms and no more support for regimes who think it's ok to bomb people into submission)

That'll do for a start

[P. G. Tipps]

"Effective governments" include the old Soviet Regime, the Third Reich, Mugabe's Zimbabwe, Castro's Cuba, Franco's Spain and many more. If effective = unjust, then it's time to think again.

A curious list indeed as many might consider most of the above regimes as being far from 'effective', reliant on brute force for control and riddled with corruption.

In the old days football teams in the UK used to be selected in smoke-filled rooms by a Chairman and Board of Directors, each team position decided by majority decision and, failing that, the casting vote of the Chairman. Then our teams started to get thumped by the continentals, whom we had previously introduced to the game. On investigating the reasons for these frequent sporting setbacks it was discovered that the cunning bosses of the continental teams simply elected a coach to pick and motivate the team and then let him get on with it. When our clubs started to do the same they eventually discovered it is indeed a rather better way of running a football club.

That true football story has something in common with FPTP and PR though it's now the other way around in the political world. It might however go some way in explaining the clear difference between 'effective government' and 'ineffective government'!

[jean]

A curious list indeed as many might consider most of the above regimes as being far from 'effective', reliant on brute force for control...

Nothing curious about it - brute force is very effective indeed.