17 Comments

• Laurence Boyce 9th Nov '08 - 3:18am

  If you study the incredibly complex results of the FEC, FPC, and FCC elections, you can see that the end result is virtually identical to that which would have been obtained by the simple expedient of taking the first preference votes in order. Makes you wonder whether all this STV malarkey is really worth it. Still, if it keeps the anoraks happy . . .

• Geoffrey Payne 9th Nov '08 - 10:45am

  You are wrong about that.
  A lot of people who give their first preference to someone who is certain to win will have to consider whether to vote tactically under first past the post.
  It is a traversty under our electoral system that in many parts of the country people vote tactically rather than for their first preference.

• Laurence Boyce 9th Nov '08 - 11:14am

  No I am not wrong about my observation of the federal election results. What I said is true.

  Also, if FPTP applied to these elections then this would entail everyone having up to 15 unpreferenced votes (for 15 places), not just one vote. Tactical voting would hardly enter into the equation.

  As far as national elections are concerned, I favour AV which deals with the tactical question.

  But I cannot favour STV. One glance at Colin’s spreadsheets shows why. It is absurdly complicated, and the electoral system must be accessible to the general public.

• Richard Clein 9th Nov '08 - 3:16pm

  Laurence if only that were the case I would still be on FE

• Chris Keating 9th Nov '08 - 4:21pm

  I think fifteen-vote FPTP would actually make life *more* complicated.

  When I had a vote in these elections, I generally found it quite easy to list five or ten preferences, and hope that my vote would end up counting for one of them.

  Trying to work out not only who would be best to get elected but who most needs my support would have been really quite difficult.

• Richard Huzzey 9th Nov '08 - 4:44pm

  I’m a big fan of approval voting – avoids the ills of FPTP but without the complexity or odd marginal effects of STV.

• Anders 9th Nov '08 - 5:04pm

  Laurence if only that were the case I would still be on FE

  Indeed, and when I ran for FCC two years ago both James Gurling and I would have been elected under FPTP but we didn’t get on under STV.

  I do have some sympathy for Laurence’s point of view though. Although the way people vote and the outcome are straightforward and of course much fairer under STV, trying to explain to people how you work out the result is less easy (and it needs to be clear to ensure people have confidence in the system). I support STV due to the lack of a better alternative rather than because I wholeheartedly endorse it.

• Laurence Boyce 9th Nov '08 - 5:30pm

  Richard, that’s why I said virtually identical. I’m sorry you missed out!

• Richard Clein 9th Nov '08 - 7:44pm

  Thanks Laurence. To be honest I won’t miss the 6 hour round trip! Having said that it’s a shame that the two new people elected are both London based. I think this a major problem about the FEs composition. My only regret is that I didnt ‘lord’ it up on my trips to Westminster like some of the others who travel for meetings (most of them appointed) as opposed to directly elected. I never saw it as an opportunity to have a day out in the Palaces of Westminster but more an important meeting that I was elected to attend and represent the grassroots. Of course it is also a shame that some of the people who were the prime movers of making FE more of a scrutiny body aren’t now there to scrutinise. I feel an article for Liberator coming on. Tomorrow will be my last meeting where my motion to introduce a new award to recognise the contribution to the party of Belinda Eyre Brook will finally be approved.

• Iain Roberts 9th Nov '08 - 8:10pm

  I was sorry to see you fell at the final hurdle, Richard. Doubtless the party’s loss is Liverpool’s gain.

• Steve Comer 9th Nov '08 - 10:45pm

  Laurence seems to be advocating the ‘Single Non-Transferable vote’.
  Last tried in Japan I believe. The problem with it is that with turnout like this, there would be a real possibility of one or more ‘tied’ votes once you get past the first few placing.

  STV is what we advocate as the fairest voting system, its what we should practice internally. The count may look complex, but I expect Colin counted it by computer, so probably quicker than manually counting FPTP>

• Laurence Boyce 9th Nov '08 - 11:25pm

  Steve, I’m more concerned about what we advocate for national elections. I’m using this data to suggest that STV might be over complex.

  What happens in the normal course of events when there is a tie? It must happen from time to time in council elections.

• Clegg's Ardent Admirer 10th Nov '08 - 12:35pm

  I waded through these ballot papers out of a sense of duty and bloody mindedness. Despite spending 90 minutes on the thing i still ended up voting on gender and geograpgical balance and who i heard of. I awarded high marks for opinion /policy wether i agreed with it or not as most of the manifestos were so bland.

  can’t help but wonder if there is a better system.

  as for the interim peers panel how on earth can you rank 40 odd Candidates ?

  the 10 people i would most like to see in the Lords were on the list which is one of the reasons they are my ten !

• Duncan Borrowman 10th Nov '08 - 2:36pm

  Richard, you say “Having said that it’s a shame that the two new people elected are both London based”.

  As far as I can see, 2 of last year’s FE failed to get re-elected yourself (Liverpool) and Duncan Greenland (London). 3 didn’t restand – Candy Piercy (SE), Mike Simpson (SE), Marie-Lousie Rossi (London).
  They were replaced by Gordon Lishman (Lancashire IIRC), Kate Parminter, David Walter, Monica Whyte and myself – all I think London or SE. So the geographic balance hardly changed at all.

  I would say that I did not lobby for a single vote. But 9 people contacted me to tell me they had given me their 1st preference. 4 were local to where I live. The other 5 were from 1 from Scotland, 1 from Wales, 2 from the West Midlands and 1 from… Liverpool.

  Having said all of that, commisserations. I actually think the immediate issue isn’t where FE members come from, but where it is held. If you change the latter you may change who wants to be a member of it!

• Stephen Robinson 10th Nov '08 - 10:05pm

  “I waded through these ballot papers out of a sense of duty and bloody mindedness.”

  Very noble but anything past about 4th or 5th pref is usually a waste. I’ve just checked the Rosenstiel site linked to above: for FE and FPC my 1st pref was the only one used and for FCC my 3rd was used a tiny bit.

• Richard Clein 11th Nov '08 - 10:42am

  Duncan, The fact is the Committee remains London centric which is why you may find it difficult to change the location for where FE meets. Also many of the appointed parliamentarians are often in and out for divisions. The new members you mention above could also be described as “the great and the good” and hardly representative of the party. You may also want to see if you can get meeting day and time changed as well. Good luck.

• Duncan Borrowman 11th Nov '08 - 11:31am

  I don’t think the incoming are any more great and the good than the outgoing.

  OK. Gordon Lishman as co author of The Theory and Practice of Community Politics and co mover of the 1970 assembly motion on community politics counts as great and good.

  You are correct about the issue of divisions though.