Sunday, February 17, 2019

This is what happens when you mess with people's heads about how the Holyrood voting system works

I know the interminable argument about the Holyrood voting system is not exactly the most pressing subject at the moment, but I would just like to congratulate the "tactical voting on the list" brigade for managing to convince people that they'd somehow be helping the cause of independence by abstaining on the list ballot.  This was a genuine tweet yesterday -

"We get two votes in the Scottish elections.  One for constituency & one for the list.  Can anyone tell me what would happen if some of us used our first vote for the SNP and didn't cast a second vote?  Cos I know that SNP x 2 works against us."

You can kind of see the "logic" here - because the Greens, RISE and others are so adamant that giving both votes to the SNP is a bad thing, people take that literally and assume that voting SNP on the list is actually harmful and decreases the number of pro-independence MSPs, and therefore conclude that not voting on the list at all must by definition be better than voting SNP.  Not to put too fine a point on it, that conclusion is completely nuts, and it should give the tactical voting lobby pause for thought about the grave dangers of the confusion they are sowing. 

In one sense, voting on the list is no different from voting in constituencies - ie. there's a chance your vote might help to elect someone, and there's also a chance that it won't.  It just depends on whether enough people vote in the same way that you do.  But if you don't vote at all, all you're doing is letting other people make the decision entirely for themselves.  If you take it to an extreme and no pro-independence voters at all take part in the list ballot, all that will happen is that every single MSP elected on the list will be a unionist.  It really is that simple.

List seats are distributed on a compensatory basis to make the overall composition of parliament roughly proportional to how people voted on the list ballot.  That is why, in principle, the list ballot is the most important of the two ballots, and also why people should vote for their first choice party on the list, regardless of what that first choice is. 

Nevertheless, it's possible that a vote for a large party like the SNP on the list might not help to elect anyone if that party has already won a large number of constituency seats in your region, and if its list vote is not overwhelming enough.  It's also possible that a vote for a small party like the Greens on the list might not help to elect anyone if that party falls below the de facto threshold for representation in the region, which is perhaps around 5% or 6% of the vote.  The position of the tactical voting lobby is effectively that the former is guaranteed to happen, and that the latter is guaranteed not to happen.  Both of those claims are self-evidently bogus and are disproved by the results of previous elections.  But even if they were true, there is still no planet on which abstaining would do any good, or indeed do anything but harm.

28 comments:

  1. There should just be one vote. The list seats then shared out as proportion of the total vote share of that vote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed but I would also add the list should be made up from those who received the most votes but did not win the seat. The voters choose those elected as list MSP's, not the parties.

      Can't see the parties going for this though, they like the safe list seats.

      Delete
  2. Quite right. Vote for who you want to represent you on both votes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 30 MSPs and 30 Mps would be enough to represent the Scottish population. We have hundreds of councillors who do the local stuff. A first past the post voting system is best. The MSPs could move to Glasgow City Chambers. Shut down the eyesore Holyrood and save a fortune.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gosh. GWC comes out for SNP majority rule under first-past-the-post. Ruth Davidson might not even be an MSP under your set-up. Great stuff.

      Delete
    2. Anything that saves the taxpayer money and gets rid of wasters. Politics has a habit of changing young James. The old saying that Labour could put up a monkey and win was true however we now have the Nat si apes and that will change sometime along the road. I have to say James that you Nat sis have never put up any case for having masses of politicians although you occasionally mention the Lords Meals on Wheels. I suspect you know the EU Parliament is not required.

      Delete
    3. That sounds like a prediction that Ruth Davidson will be First Minister. You were probably wise not to say it directly, because yes, we would have laughed.

      Delete
    4. Ruth is too busy looking after summbuddies wean and tank meccano kits.

      Delete
  4. The sooner we move to an STV system, with single member constituencies only, the better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These type of votes are only to get less popular politicians on the gravy train.

      Delete
    2. STV by definition involves multi-member constituencies.

      Delete
    3. MUPs, More unnecessary politicians.

      Delete
  5. FRUMPs like Brian 'Smiler' Wilson and Baron Splendid of Flippginhome -
    Fakely
    Radical
    Upwardly
    Mobile
    Pricks

    ReplyDelete
  6. The best parallel I can find (and its not even 100%)

    Hollywood VOTING is like other countries voting for a Lower house + Upper house but in the same chamber.

    A number of other countries combine constituency electorates and proportional voting in their 2 houses to balance the democratic representation. UK is weirdly undemocratic as it has the unelected House of Lords.

    This distortion deliberately permeates all the way through every level of UK elections. Westminster would never allow a system that:
    1 -gives away control
    2- reveals the flaw in the Westminster system.

    Scotland needs to get its act together and learn how to work the system you have been dealt.

    ReplyDelete
  7. English nationalism at work.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47274905

    Several Labour MPs about to resign, say party sources

    So which option are Labour going to back? No deal or May's deal? They need to pick one; they support brexit and there's no time for their alternative plan now. Only parties which have always been against brexit can safely keep opposing it right to the end; these will never carry the brexit can obviously.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There is a reason that the SNP ask for both votes. If they only wanted 1, they'd say so.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Any chance of a constituency by constituency guide to keeping union MSP's out ?

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Magnificent Seven right wing Blairites have resigned and will sit as independents. Joining the right wing Nat sis and blue Tories was not an option.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I guess if you are Labour and support Remain, you should not vote UK Labour now; either abstain or vote for Chucka's new pro-EU Labour grouping.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Great blog James but now we will get all those nutjobs out to say different for more reasons than really exist.Before the last Holyrood elections I kept repeating the same as yourself both votes for the SNP it is the only way that makes sense, first vote is for the person the second for the party of preference what is so difficult to understand about that? but still some said I was wrong, I did point out that when we won the majority it was because people did vote for the party in the second vote, why vote for the SNP candidate then vote against the party? that is pretty simple I thought to understand but no still they said different then we lost our majority. I was beginning to think these folk were plants by the unionists to confuse and gain seats for them.There was the news today a breakaway group from the Labour just the same as the last time when Shirley Williams David Owens, Jenkins and one other who's name I have forgotten the infamous "Gang of Four" they went and joined the Liberal Party and it became the Lib-Dems now look at them,aye in the Lords getting £300, a day better than being elected!

    ReplyDelete
  13. First Past the post in Scotland would give the SNP 80% of the seats at Holyrood, which might seem great, but is NOT democratic.

    The current system is fairer, in that it more accurately represents the will of the voters. Consensus politics is the norm in most modern democracies, but ours is 'messed up' by unionist SMPs who will even sabotage the workings of Holyrood, often voting against their own stated policies to attack those who both support Independence AND have Scotland's best interests at heart.

    I voted SNP (first vote) and Green (second vote) last time out, which seemed right at the time (I'm rethinking to SNP both until after Independence, then I'll see what's on offer.

    The SNP is a cross-party coalition of political leanings: moderate Tories, Labour, Libdems, staunch nationalists, but all with with a core belief that Scotland can function better as an Independent nation.

    In one respect, the SNP gives a 'loose' example of how consensus politics will work in an Independent Scotland, and with the obstructionists and spoilers removed from Scotland's parliament.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you doing the Glesga Comedy Festival. Consensus politics means the rich get richer as they have year on year since the Nat sis came to power. Holyrood may have had a few working class MSPs in its origin but those days are long gone and over. We'll aff kids go to university to pass the time and the working class flip hamburgers.

      Delete
  14. There's no size fits all solution as to how you split your vote or whether you should. It requires precognition or your best guess.

    Certainly if the SNP/Green had been followed the year the SNP got an outright majority they wouldn't.

    On the other hand in some cases that ticket is the only thing that gets a winning coalition. However that in turn leads to things like fees for work place parking.

    One thing certain is that potentially you can miss a seat by a single vote. Splitting by more than two means more chance for wasted votes.

    All of which only applies until there's a hybrid FPTP/STV system hopefully with a chance to get round party lists. Would allow independents more of a chance on the list.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I can't help but see a pattern emerging here. :-(

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47282603

    Honda set to close Swindon car plant

    ReplyDelete
  16. James said "That is why, in principle, the list ballot is the most important of the two ballots, and also why people should vote for their first choice party on the list, regardless of what that first choice is". In Germany the d'Hondt system is used in regional elections. I know from friends there that the List vote is considered the most important.

    It is very dangerous to assume that the SNP will actually win all expected Constituency seats. Failure to win means the List vote becomes all important. It is essential that SNP supporters vote SNP on both List and Constituency. If there is an incorrect desire to refer to first and second vote then the List vote must be first.

    ReplyDelete
  17. As a traditional Scot I will vote for the Christian Evangelical Protestants with my first vote and the ukip with my second vote. I will give the snp my third vote.

    ReplyDelete