It's actually called Supplementary Vote in the mayoral election. If anyone gets over 50% in the first count, they win. If nobody gets 50%, all but the top two in the count are eliminated and the second preferences on the ballot papers are counted.
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
It's actually called Supplementary Vote in the mayoral election. If anyone gets over 50% in the first count, they win. If nobody gets 50%, all but the top two in the count are eliminated and the second preferences on the ballot papers are counted.
I had to look up the London Assembly system......
Additional Member System (AMS)
The Additional Member System is used to elect the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the London Assembly.
Under AMS, voters are given two votes; one for an individual candidate and one for a party. Individual candidates are elected to single-member constituencies using first-past-the-post (or the second ballot or alternative vote). Under the second, party vote, representatives (additional members) are elected proportionally to a larger region.
The percentage of votes obtained by the parties in the party vote (second ballot) determines the overall number of representatives including those elected for the single member constituencies after taking into account the seats gained in each region by each party in the first ballot.
Additional Member System (AMS)
The Additional Member System is used to elect the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the London Assembly.
Under AMS, voters are given two votes; one for an individual candidate and one for a party. Individual candidates are elected to single-member constituencies using first-past-the-post (or the second ballot or alternative vote). Under the second, party vote, representatives (additional members) are elected proportionally to a larger region.
The percentage of votes obtained by the parties in the party vote (second ballot) determines the overall number of representatives including those elected for the single member constituencies after taking into account the seats gained in each region by each party in the first ballot.
That seems to make sense, we should do it for Parliament, retains the local MP but gives a nod to proportional representation. I've forgotten what the Lib Dems were proposing when we had that referendum a few years ago, but I recall I wasn't that impressed.
No, of course people should bother to vote. It's simply that if (for example) I wanted the Monster Raving Loony party to get in, I'd need to understand that the likelihood of that happening, despite my vote in favour, was small. It's not a wasted vote because I cast the vote for the party / person I wanted to win. And every vote sends a message in some shape of form.
It's just that AV / STV and all of the other systems outside of complete PR drive people to cast votes for people they don't want to win, because there's someone else they want to win even less.
If that was in place in my Monster Raving Loony vote above, I'd then need to think 'OK, they aren't getting in, so who else should I vote for', and I'd find it difficult to vote for someone I don't like simply to keep someone out of office. Maybe it's just me...
Most votes are wasted with FPTP though. If you are a Tory voter up North or a labour/liberal voter down south - your vote is wasted. It cant be right that 4 million people vote UKIP and they get one seat. At least with PR and "regional candidate lists" their votes would be represented and therefore worth casting.
Cameron would truss up his mother and sell her to people traffickers if he could win the forthcoming referendum. Turkey is holding the EU by the testicles over mass migration from Africa and the ME. Squeeze a bit and I suggest they'll be getting whatever they want
I see Samantha Cameron was seen balling out Mrs Gove at a private party recently, f'ing and blinding because SC felt Michael Gove had not been loyal to her husband. Mrs Gove said afterwards diplomatically that she understood the Camerons were under a great deal of stress at present.
Last edited:
And local representation and accountability would be lost. Plus you resign yourself to permanent coalition governments, where back-room deals determine the direction of the country instead of elected representatives.
The north/south ideological split is an anomaly that may indicate that a change is needed, but not really as far as I can tell. The voters in the South - where there has always been more people and prosperity throughout the centuries - vote for the parties that will generate more overall wealth, which means that they will get richer. The voters in the north - where traditionally there's been more manual labour and a (perceived) tougher way of life - consider themselves the downtrodden masses and vote for parties that pledge to change all of that. Because they want to become the richer people, and they want the better way of life, despite what they may say about clinging onto their working class roots.
I don't think that will change any time soon, despite the increased nationalism of parties such as UKIP and the SNP, who have a certain level of support but - in contrasting fortunes - whilst the SNP managed to gather enough support in enough constituencies to win and displace the failed New Labour incumbents, UKIP really blew it by not managing to get enough people in enough constituencies translating votes into seats. That was most likely because there's a far stronger nationalist movement in Scotland than there is in the rest of the country. I appreciate it sounds unfair on UKIP supporters, but our system of local representation at national level means that that's the way the game is played. All parties know that, and they all prepare for elections in the way they feel is best for them. UKIP got it right in as far as generating a core vote goes, but they would have been better served had they not declared themselves a true challenger to the main parties and concentrated on fewer, winnable seats instead. If they had done so, we may well have fifteen or twenty UKIP MPs now instead of just the one. And their voice would be heard more in Westminster. As it is, they are a negligible force, and their voters - whose four million votes only returned a single MP - ought to blame the party tactics for the situation instead of the system.
On the matter of the system, it's worth remembering that it is skewed in favour of a Labour government after the boundary changes brought in by Tony Blair. The Lib Dems scuppered a proposed rebalancing when they were in coalition, and as a result an average Conservative MP needed to gain far more votes than an average Labour MP, or indeed an average SNP MP.
Basically, there are loads of historic and constitutional reasons why no system is truly fair, but we have the one we operate under, and the rules are clear. Stand in a constituency, get more votes than your opponents (even just a single vote) and you are elected. If your party gains the most votes, they are in power, either as a majority party or as the lead party in a coalition. There's little point fighting an election under known rules, losing, and then whining about it. Plan and execute better next time.
Don't get the sense behind your first paragraph at all. If 'back room deals' are done under PR they are done between elected representatives of a broad section of the electorate. Surely that is more democratic than the back room deals done within a single party with 30 odd percent of the electorates' backing as we have now - one result being a stupid and divisive referendum? The system being used today in London shows how you can retain local representation via constituencies and build in a fairer distribution of seats according to votes won by parties.
Change the system and the parties will have to change with it. The fact that we have one system is no reason to keep it forever, if it were why not go back to absolute monarchy or feudalism? 'Strong leadership' isn't the ability to tell everybody what to do because you have a majority in the House of Commons, it's the ability to forge alliances and bring people with you. Political parties in Germany, for example, all stand for election on firm and distinct manifestos, yet they and the electorate understand that they will compromise to for a more representative government. Governments in countries with PR aren't necessarily weak, they are just more representative of more of their citizens, Which I really struggle to see as a bad thing.
Just exercised my franchise. Might only be in a PCC election, but I believe not voting is the first step down the road of having that vote removed from you. The candidate I voted for was none other than MARK HUGHES 
The most uninspiring bunch of candidates you could ask for as Mayor, can't we come up with anything better than these? Anyway, I've exercised my democratic right to stay at home...
I didn't vote for him Col. I voted for some other useless twat. Ignore the first sentence of my post if you like.
I did, but I'll never forgive him for the way he has lied and mislead over the EU referendum. I also think that the Tories have had something of a mare in many areas since winning the election. Not sure I'd vote for them next time, but the trouble is I can't see any alternative.
Perhaps if Teresa May became leader I might be tempted.
BTW................I like your "liberal elite" tag line.
Most appropriate
(Apparently).
I think she has an outstanding chance, she has managed to stay above the fray. Hopefully people, no matter what their view of the EU, will now see Johnson as the nasty piece of work he is. Tories in meltdown, Labour sleep walking to oblivion, Lib Dems led by a happy clappy God squadder who is routinely ignored......the choices are ever narrowing.
Cheers re the tag line. It probably is accurate. As long as I'm not accused of being 'establishment'.
The Turks have no intention of meeting all of the 72 criteria the EU were insisting upon for Turkey to be an member, nor will they need to. They have got the EU, Merkel & Germany, who are the only ones that matter, by the short & curlies. If the EU commission does not ratify the fast track access for Turks to the UK, the migrants they are currently stopping from crossing from Turkey to the Greek Islands will be fast tracked to the EU. This was the view of IInur Cevik a senior advisor to the Turkish president talking to Evan Davies on Newsnight on Wednesday. He called it part of the package deal to stem the flow of migrants to the EU. Not paranoia just fact.
Niger have got into the act now too. Demanding vast amounts of money to stem the tide from Africa.