Today (22 May 2014) Democratic Audit has a post about Primary Elections (in Latin America) – a mechanism that has some superficial attractions for the British political system and which has been tried in some parliamentary constituencies. They state that primaries:
have been asked to deliver several – and sometimes competing – goals: promoting intra-party democracy, solving conflicts between party factions, strengthening party links with society and institutionalizing party systems and electoral coalitions.
(ref: The Latin American experience suggests primary elections can be effective but not a magic recipe for party democratisation Flavia Freidenberg and Julia Pomares)
It’s all about parties and not about ideas. Is there a better way? Continue reading →
By enfranchiseme
|
Also posted in Alternative Vote (AV), Diversity of Opinion, Electoral Engagement, Expression of Preferences, Split Vote avoidance, Transferable Voting (STV), Uncategorized, United States Presidential System
|
Tagged diversity, parliamentary, preference voting, presidential, primaries, transferable votes, US
|
The Eastminster blog (at UEA Norwich) published a post “The Big Sleep” (11 April 2014)
Mark Wells stood as a candidate in both a general election and European election. The European election was much less engaging for candidates and the electorate, he argues, because of the proportional electoral system.
His experiences as a bottom of the list European candidate sounds dire but I take issue with his final conclusions that:
In reality, the PR system in use is too democratic to stir the blood.
Continue reading →
By enfranchiseme
|
Also posted in Being represented, Diversity of Opinion, East of England Euro Elections 2004, Electoral Engagement, Expression of Preferences, First Past The Post, List Systems, Norfolk Parliamentary Elections 2001, Northern Ireland Euro Elections, Time to Count the Vote, Transferable Voting (STV), Uncategorized
|
Tagged Closed List, d'Houdt, East of England, engagement, European election, FPTP, Mark Wells, Norfolk, PR, proportional electoral system, quota, STV, vote effectiveness
|
So in the by-election for a new deputy speaker there are seven candidates and according to the BBC News website (15 October 2013 Deputy Speaker: Seven Conservative MPs to contest ballot):
The election will be conducted under a system known as single transferable vote, where MPs will be able to list their preferred candidates in order of one to seven on the ballot paper.
If no candidate secures 50% plus one of the votes in the ballot, the candidate with the least votes will be eliminated and their preference votes re-distributed to other contenders. This process will continue until a winner emerges. Continue reading →
Just come across this as a voting system – and have severe brain-ache. It does however appear to have something going for it when it comes to wanting to vote for or against candidates or indeed for or against “the system”.
It’s called chiralkine logic. Continue reading →
Some commentators have tried to explain away the high number of “spoilt ballots” in last weeks PCC election as the public being confused by the voting system. Detailed analysis of the spoilt ballots might confirm this, but I am left wondering why they did not use the simpler Alternative Vote? Oh, yes they screwed up a referendum on that issue earlier this year. Continue reading →
By enfranchiseme
|
Also posted in Expression of Preferences, Police Commissioner Elections, Supplementary Vote, Votes having an effect, Winner should win
|
Tagged Alternative Vote, AV, First Past The Post, FPTP, PCC Elections, police and crime commissioners, police commissioners, preference, Supplementary Vote, transferable voting
|
Councils (in England – the Scots know better) have two main ways of electing their councillors (both using the dreaded “first past the post” method).: “All-up elections” where every councillor is up for election, or “by thirds” where a third of the councillors are up for election each year – usually one councillor from each three-seat ward. Continue reading →
Reading the comments on the 2010 Labour Leadership Election on the BBC Daily Politics message board I worry about the ability of some to understand AV (Alternative Vote). And the continued press and media comment does not fill me with confidence that all will be clear by the time of the referendum. Continue reading →
By enfranchiseme
|
Also posted in Alternative Vote (AV), Expression of Preferences, Labour Leadership, Media Coverage, Presidential System, Public Understanding, Referendum Issues, Transferable Voting (STV), Winner should win
|
Tagged AV, labour leadership, preference, public understanding, referendum, spoilt votes, transferable voting
|
From reporting of the results of the Labour Leadership election, I am forced to conclude that either the media is seriously lacking in intellectual capability, or they are trying to reflect an equally incompetent population. I hope it is not the latter – but to conclude that the media is so lacking, is not a comfortable conclusion either.
Continue reading →
Often said of STV (The Single Transferable Vote). The name is initially the hardest bit; but it says it all:
“I have a single vote and I can instruct the returning officer how to transfer it so as to best elect my choice of candidates. I do this by putting a “1” against my first choice, a “2” against my second choice, a “3” against my third choice and so on until I am indifferent as to further preferences.”
For the voter it is as simple as that. Continue reading →
Enfranchise me! 