2010 General Election: The Cable Forum Exit Poll

[punky]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Why are they selfish for forcing an interview off air? They don't have to bow down to Sky News now do they? And you know that all the viewers don't give a toss about what the protesters are whinging about, how exactly?

Let me know where you live and when you're trying to watch TV. I will come round and constantly ring your doorbell and then unplug your TV. And as its a non-violent protest you'll have to respect me and my right to protest.

Originally Posted by punky

Let me know where you live and when you're trying to watch TV. I will come round and constantly ring your doorbell and then unplug your TV. And as its a non-violent protest you'll have to respect me and my right to protest.

Your house isn't a public area is it?

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by punky

Let me know where you live and when you're trying to watch TV. I will come round and constantly ring your doorbell and then unplug your TV. And as its a non-violent protest you'll have to respect me and my right to protest.

Hardly comparing like with like. A completely pointless analogy.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by punky

I have not computed the various figures that of the dozens of systems Lib Dem supporters can dream up but i'd suggest that FPTP has been very kind to Lib Dems this time around.

On a strictly proportional basis, this is roughly what the result would have been:

Tories: 234 (on 36.1% of the vote)
Labour: 188 (on 29% of the vote)
Lib Dems: 149 (on 23% of the vote)


However that is not the type of PR favoured by the Lib Dems.

The Lib Dems have not dreamed up "dozens of systems".

The Lib Dems want to see the UK use the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system. This is the same system preferred by the Electoral Reform Society, & also by Conservative Action for Electoral Reform.

More info on the system is here:

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=48

http://www.conservativeelectoralreform.org/STV.htm

---------- Post added at 16:58 ---------- Previous post was at 16:54 ----------

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

EDIT: Likewise from the Tory point of view, they weren't given an overwhelming mandate and can either loosely govern or bite the bullet for the sake of the country, give ground, and give us a stable government sooner rather than later. At the moment what we need above all else is stability, which in my opinion only a Tory / Lib Dem coalition can give as the alternatives would be a mess.

Agreed.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Matt D

The Lib Dems want to see the UK use the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system. This is the same system preferred by the Electoral Reform Society, & also by Conservative Action for Electoral Reform.

The biggest problem with that system is that by and large the public are idiots and asking them to do anything more complex than scrawl an X leads to all manner of issues.

The system was used in the last elections up here and caused over 100,000 spoiled papers (about 1 in 20 of all votes cast)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle1756280.ece

Originally Posted by Derek S

The biggest problem with that system is that by and large the public are idiots and asking them to do anything more complex than scrawl an X leads to all manner of issues.

I think this is a little unfair. Having just followed the links, Im not quite clear what STV is. I am not an idiot.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Derek S

The biggest problem with that system is that by and large the public are idiots and asking them to do anything more complex than scrawl an X leads to all manner of issues.

The system was used in the last elections up here and caused over 100,000 spoiled papers (about 1 in 20 of all votes cast)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle1756280.ece

As the article states

There is no point in blaming the e-counting machines for the breakdown in democracy. Yes, there were malfunctions on the night, but so what? We are all now alert to the empty promise of efficiency that computerising anything brings. And, yes, the ballot papers were designed for the scanners, rather than the voters, and that didn’t help. But it wasn’t the key issue.
The blame for the contemptuous treatment of the voters lies with the Scotland Office and Scottish Executive, who between them decided to defy the recommendations of the Arbuthnott Commission review of the voting system (appointed, let’s not forget, to make polling in Scotland fairer and simpler) and hold both the Scottish parliamentary elections and the local authority elections on the same day.
Hence the two ballot papers, one requiring crosses, one numbers; hence the confusion. Voters were not helped by the rules that allowed the Nationalists to put “Alex Salmond for First Minister” instead of “SNP” on every ballot paper, muddying the water between personal and party votes. Bewildering? Imagine how Scotland’s thousands of elderly and barely literate felt.

It was not the basics of STV that were at fault it was as highlighted above. In a fair and transparent system it is perfectly comprehensible. Were this not the case, Germany, Greece, Ireland and all the others would now have FPTP. It is very unfair to insult the intelligence of the voters by claiming any thing but FPTP is incomprehensible.

Originally Posted by Derek S

The biggest problem with that system is that by and large the public are idiots and asking them to do anything more complex than scrawl an X leads to all manner of issues.

The system was used in the last elections up here and caused over 100,000 spoiled papers (about 1 in 20 of all votes cast)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle1756280.ece

That link doesn't really back your point up. The specific problem in 2007 was the use of two different systems of PR, in two different elections (Holyrood and Council) both being held at the same time.

My degree-educated missus (rather more highly qualified academically than me, I should add) made a mess of it herself, getting her Xs and numbers in the wrong place.

I am willing to bet that neither council nor Scottish Parliament elections will suffer anything like the same level of spoilt papers next time round, and the reason will not be that the voting systems are changed - because they aren't being changed - but that the elections are no longer going to be held on the same day.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Angua

As the article states It was not the basics of STV that were at fault it was as highlighted above. In a fair and transparent system it is perfectly comprehensible. Were this not the case, Germany, Greece, Ireland and all the others would now have FPTP. It is very unfair to insult the intelligence of the voters by claiming any thing but FPTP is incomprehensible.

Indeed.

Although the method for counting in an STV election is more complicated than counting in an FPTP election, the actual voting itself is fairly simple:

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/d...20is%20stv.pdf

Originally Posted by Electoral Reform leaflet on STV

How does STV work?

1 The ballot paper lists the names of the candidates from each party. Voters vote by putting a ‘1’ next to the name of their favoured candidate, a ‘2’ next to the name of their next favoured candidate and so on. They stop allocating
preferences when they cannot decide between the candidates – they do not
need to vote for them all.

(snip)

Although the counting process is more complex than with FPTP, it can be done by, or with the help of, a computer and it is a small price to pay for improving the voting power of every single elector.

Marking the candidates in preference using a "1", "2", "3" etc. seems fairly simply to me, even if it isn't as simple as a single "X".

The Republic of Ireland & other countries seem to manage with STV. We could have actually had STV & AV in the UK nearly a hundred years ago if it hadn't been blocked by the House of Lords.


Any change in the voting system would also (should also) surely be accompanied by voter education on how the new system would work: leaflets in the post, stuff on TV/newspapers/etc., clear instructions in polling stations & on ballot papers.

[punky]

14 year old votes in the election: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...nd/8670022.stm

A 14-year-old boy from Lancashire who voted in the general election said he did it because he "wanted to make a difference".

Alfie McKenzie, from Poulton-le-Fylde, voted for the Liberal Democrats in the Wyre and Preston North constituency, after being sent a polling card.

He was only caught when he confided in a teacher at school. His head teacher called the local council and police.

....

Alfie said he was "very serious" about politics and socialism, but decided to vote Liberal Democrat as a tactical option.

He said: "There's not a socialist candidate in our area and unfortunately even if there was it would be a wasted vote. I've looked into it and the best option for a socialist is the Liberal Democrats.

"I did want to make a difference - unfortunately I didn't."

Alfie's mum, Nadine Wiseman, said she had asked him not to vote, after he received the polling card, but she "wasn't surprised" when he did.

Not sure about his political opinions (and dressing like a Tory) but it's a shame as sounds more intelligent that BNP voters and the feckless who can't be bothered to vote.

[Ignitionnet]

I'm fine with STV my only concern is how it translates to the current constituencies. It would need to be done by borough, county or a similar administrative division and would cause upset among some constituencies - there would be a number of MPs without one or constituencies that have been assigned one.

Overall not a bad idea and not actually massively different from FPTP so long as it's done that way - each of the enlarged constituencies electing directly via FPTP then across the area a 2nd MP being assigned to each of those larger constituencies based on STV results across the administrative area would ensure local accountability and if the electorate weren't happy with who they were assigned a robust process to remove them democratically would be a prerequisite as part of the reform.

As a compromise STV could even be used alongside the current system to elect a second house if election to the Commons via it were so unpalatable.

I must admit the more I think about it the more I like it. It's all kinds of democratic.

[chris9991]

Just after the election and the following story gets printed in The Sunday Times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7120750.ece

Why not last week??

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I'm fine with STV my only concern is how it translates to the current constituencies. It would need to be done by borough, county or a similar administrative division and would cause upset among some constituencies - there would be a number of MPs without one or constituencies that have been assigned one.

Overall not a bad idea and not actually massively different from FPTP so long as it's done that way - each of the enlarged constituencies electing directly via FPTP then across the area a 2nd MP being assigned to each of those larger constituencies based on STV results across the administrative area would ensure local accountability and if the electorate weren't happy with who they were assigned a robust process to remove them democratically would be a prerequisite as part of the reform.

As a compromise STV could even be used alongside the current system to elect a second house if election to the Commons via it were so unpalatable.

I must admit the more I think about it the more I like it. It's all kinds of democratic.

You seem to be thinking of the system used for Holyrood and for the Senedd in Cardiff, but that isn't STV. In the top-up list system used in Wales and Scotland, you elect a representative for a constituency by FPTP, then you clump a number of constituencies together into a region and elect representatives for that region by asking voters to choose a single party via an X. The seats in the region are allocated proportionally, also taking into account the seats already won at constituency level.

It delivers reasonably good proportionality overall, and it retains a close link between a constituency and an individual representative, but the major drawback is the use of a list of candidates drawn up by the Parties to top up at regional level. In practice, what happens is, all the constituency candidates are also on their party's regional list. So even if they don't win their constituency contest, they stand a pretty good chance of getting elected, if they are high enough up their regional list (seats being allocated to the first name on the list, and then on downwards until the allocation for that party in that region is filled).

Under this system, the likes of Jacqui Smith, Neil Hamilton and Lembit Opik are almost impossible to get rid of, no matter how personally unpopular they may have become to their local electorate, because as prominent members of their party they are always going to get a prominent place on their regional list. They lose their constituency seat, but they still get in as a regional top-up.

The only way to mitigate this is to either make the party list open - so that you don't just mark your X for a party, but for a named individual from that party - or else dispense with lists altogether and go for full-blown STV, which gives voters in a given area a list of names and a requirement to rank them in order of preference. This is the system used in local council elections in Scotland, and was a precondition of the LibDem coalition with Labour in Scotland way back when the Parliament was first founded.

[Ignitionnet]

I get all that, but how does it fit into 650 constituencies? If electing 5 ministers to each constituency you'd need to reduce that to 130 constituencies so there'd need to be some allocation to individual areas in the constituency or a bit of a loss of identity of your representative.

Just a small concern.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/elect...tuency/c17.stm

The guy who came last here didn't even vote for himself!