Well, Labour supporters and assorted right-wing friends were able to enjoy the exotic sensation of being "only" 10% behind for a whole 24 hours before the hammerblow fell. Here is this month's Survation poll of Westminster voting intentions...
Scottish voting intentions for the May 2015 UK general election (Survation, 12th-16th January) :
SNP 46% (-2)
Labour 26% (+2)
Conservatives 14% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 7% (+2)
UKIP 4% (n/c)
Greens 3% (+2)
It's important to stress that Survation are one of the firms that have introduced weighting by recalled referendum vote, which is one of the strongest predictors of Westminster vote. So Labour have no alibi here - No voters have been upweighted from 400 to 431 to bring them into line with their correct population share, but that has been rendered virtually irrelevant by the SNP's mind-boggling lead of 85% to 8% among Yes voters (who have been downweighted slightly).
Can Labour draw some minor comfort from the fact that the gap has narrowed by 4% since the last Survation poll, even though that still leaves them light-years behind? Not really. The problem for them is that the last poll saw a widening of the gap, so if we go back to the Survation poll from two months ago, it was almost identical to this one - the SNP are on exactly the same vote share now (46%) as they were then. That suggests there has been no slippage since the period when Ipsos-Mori famously showed the SNP ahead by 29%.
Of course Panelbase suggested a slightly more significant reduction in the SNP's lead, and if we only had those two polls to go on, we might conclude that there's a 50/50 chance that something has indeed changed. But as I pointed out last night, the Scottish subsamples from GB-wide polls (and there hasn't exactly been a shortage of them) have completely failed to corroborate the Panelbase trend. Someone claimed in the comments section that narrower SNP leads have been more commonplace in subsamples of late. Not true. In fact, the opposite is true - we've been seeing bigger gaps somewhat more consistently. On that basis, the balance of probability would seem to lie heavily with Survation being closer to the truth, meaning that the SNP's enormous advantage is holding steady.
Incidentally, there is one important common factor between Survation and Panelbase, and that's the poor showing for the Tories. Cammo's mob do tend to get understated by Scottish polling, but there's certainly no sign whatever that they're going to make any progress from their dismal result in 2010. Back in the days when I could be bothered to read Ian Smart, I seem to recall him talking in his trademark oracular fashion about how the untold story of Scottish politics since 2011 has been the relentless march of the Tories. That "insight" is starting to look about as well-founded as his claim that the No campaign would coast to victory in Cumbernauld and Kilysth (and that the people here claiming to be planning to vote Yes were only "taking the p***").
The most interesting of Survation's supplementary questions asked for respondents' preferred election outcome. Annoyingly, the list of options wasn't anything like exhaustive, with the most obvious omission being the possibility of a minority government. However, the results still give us some indication of how much voters like the idea of each party being in government. Unsurprisingly, the most popular of the potential "junior partners" is the SNP, with a combined total of 44% wanting to see Nicola Sturgeon's party in coalition with either Labour or the Tories (even though the latter option has already been definitively ruled out). By contrast, just 13% are keen on the stomach-churning possibility of Nick Clegg remaining in power, as deputy to either Cameron or Miliband. And a mere 9% fancy the idea of Deputy PM Farage.
We also have Holyrood voting intention figures...
Constituency vote :
SNP 50% (-1)
Labour 26% (+1)
Conservatives 12% (-3)
Liberal Democrats 6% (+1)
UKIP 3% (+1)
Greens 3% (+2)
Regional list vote :
SNP 39% (-1)
Labour 23% (-1)
Conservatives 14% (n/c)
Greens 10% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 7% (+1)
UKIP 6% (-1)
SSP 1% (+1)
And once again the familiar pattern, with the biggest threat to the SNP proving to be their own supporters drifting to other parties on the list, perhaps on the incorrect assumption that the list vote is less important.
* * *
SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS
This is one of the more credible updates of the Poll of Polls, because it's based on no fewer than two full-scale polls (from Panelbase and Survation) and seven subsamples (five from YouGov, one from Populus and one from ComRes). As before, I haven't been able to include the Greens, because we don't have the relevant information from Panelbase yet.
Scottish voting intentions for the May 2015 UK general election :
SNP 42.9% (+1.6)
Labour 28.0% (-0.7)
Conservatives 15.0% (-0.8)
UKIP 5.4% (-0.8)
Liberal Democrats 5.0% (+1.4)
(The Poll of Polls uses the Scottish subsamples from all GB-wide polls that have been conducted entirely within the last seven days and for which datasets have been provided, and also all full-scale Scottish polls that have been conducted at least partly within the last seven days. Full-scale polls are given ten times the weighting of subsamples.)
* * *
UPDATE : Political Betting's resident pub bore Carlotta Vance ("oh yes, Denis and Margaret would be laughing like drains, tee hee!") has this morning bizarrely ascribed a claim to me that I didn't make, knowing full well that I cannot set the record straight because, like virtually every other SNP supporter that posted on the site for long enough, I was randomly banned. Rest assured, Ms Vance, that I will not deny you the right to reply that you and your right-wing chums have denied me. But then, of course, if you're a regular reader of this blog, you've probably been posting here anyway - perhaps you're one of the mysterious influx of anonymous Rule Britannia! types that we've been so thrilled to welcome over the last 36 hours?
Incidentally, having got totally carried away with his assumptions about the significance of the Panelbase poll (it's that Murphy bounce! I knew it would come one day!), the headline today marking Mike Smithson's awkward climbdown in the light of the Survation numbers is something of a classic -
"Another Scottish poll gives a little bit of cheer to LAB but not that much"
* * *
UPDATE II : And now the most glorious of ironies - Smithson has taken Carlotta's misrepresentation as the cue to cherry-pick three outlier Scottish subsample results in an attempt to rescue his fading hopes of a "Labour revival" narrative. He seems to have forgotten that he once banned Stuart Dickson for TWO YEARS for the heinous crime of posting Scottish subsamples.
One of his selection of subsamples, by the way, is a TNS-BMRB offering which shows the SNP jumping from third place last month to first place this month (and that's in spite of the fact that people who recalled voting SNP in 2010 were downweighted by two-thirds). Couldn't he "be arsed" to check the baseline numbers? Probably not.
In fairness, isn't that a 4-point reduction in the lead from the last Survation poll? So it does leave Slab some straws to cluch at.
ReplyDeleteMichael Foot lost by less than 20 points, so if that's the sort of straw Labour want to cling to, by all means let them get on with it.
ReplyDeleteKeaton
ReplyDeleteIs till leaves Labour with around 5 or 6 seats. Fantastic progress.
Only 19.8% want a Labour majority in May.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't that kinda scupper Labour's entire electoral campaign angle?
In contrast, 35.1% want the SNP to win in Scotland and Labour to win in the rUK with them working together.
If only 20% want a Labour Majority then you have to think 1 in 5 Labour VIs are not just soft but postively ripe for conversion to the SNP. I understand the conventional wisdom is of a "return to norm" but I'd suggest norm is Holyrood VI i,e, 50% for the SNP (which seems consistent now).
ReplyDeleteBefore you guys reach for the kleenex, you might want to consider the small matter of the 13% of don't knows / refuseniks excluded and ignored from the overall tally. If these people voted labour, it would put labour 3-4 points behind the SNP, with a definite seat advantage.
ReplyDeleteDon't have nightmares mind... ;0)
So let me get this straight - your wizard plan for getting out of this hole is that EVERY SINGLE UNDECIDED VOTER is going to vote Labour? And even then you'd lose.
DeleteUtterly brilliant.
It's our latest dastardly scheme.
DeleteIn all seriousness though, labour have been getting pelters recently. Could there be a 'shy labour' factor at work? Might some of those shy labour people, if they do exist, be saying they will vote SNP to pollsters? Maybe the SNP lead - or a large part of it - is soft and will be blown away by an intensive, labour vs tory style, traditional election campaign.
So many ifs. So much uncertainty. The SNP and labour figures in general elections have been more or less static since the mid 1990s. I'll only accept that the positions have completely reversed when I see it unfolding on the morning of May 8th. Just now, it seems extremely unlikely. If it had happened in 2008 during the crash or 2010 when the tories began their austerity or in the early 80s during the height of Thatcherism, I could understand it. But a country doesn't simply reverse its political allegiances for no good reason. There have been no earth shattering events - just a failed referendum that most people fully expected to fail.
I would say a grand systemic failure of polling companies is more likely than a genuine polar shift in Scottish politics for no good reason.
Anyway, really must go now. Nite!
"There have been no earth shattering events - just a failed referendum that most people fully expected to fail. "
DeleteMove along, nothing to see here...
I thought by now most Labour supporters had removed their heads from the sand and replaced them up their arses, but evidently not.
Nite nite!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"Shy Labour" is a nonsense. Polling doesn't support it.
DeleteThis isn't a referendum where the known "Quebec effect" means you need to take x% (most likely between 3 and 5) off the polling to get an accurate result. VI tends to end up as the polling suggests in most elections.
If respondents are lying, how can polling companies detect it, prior to the big day itself?
DeleteA colleague at work told me on Friday that his Labour party mates had been encouraging each other to sign up to Panelbase during and after the indyref, he said it was to compensate for what they saw as infiltration by the SNP earlier in 2013. Anyone else heard of this? It may explain the lower SNP VI in that poll.
ReplyDeleteIt's theoretically possible - Panelbase excluded new members from their referendum polling, but as I understand it that precaution has now ended.
DeleteSo what you're saying is that it's possible for there to be a degree of self selection in polling samples?
DeleteInteresting. Who's to say the SNP aren't signing up en masse to be surveyed?
I said "theoretically" possible - I thought the implication was obvious. It was you guys who were paranoid about Panelbase during the referendum, seemingly oblivious to the fact that "infiltration" of polling panels by No activists was just as possible.
DeleteIt's probably best to assume that there isn't some coordinated mass signups going on. It always struck me as a bit of a flimsy excuse for unfavourable polls. Polling companies aren't going to want their results to be terribly inaccurate, so I would imagine they have an eye out for suspicious activity. Best treat every poll as part of the overall picture.
DeleteBut independence supporters are more activist. People rarely defend the status quo with passion and zeal. That is for those who seek radical change. Unless you can contact people out of the blue and have them obliged to answer all of your questions truthfully (which is, of course, impossible), then there is no way of being sure that your results are truly reflective of real life - especially when one side is rampant and fashionable and the other reticent, wary and beleaguered, as is the case now in Scotland.
DeleteAnon : That's what weighting by referendum vote is there for. But by all means keep dreaming up excuses to dull the pain between now and May.
DeleteBy the way, the last time I checked the Survation panel was completely closed to new members.
Oh, I know that the status quo isn't something that inspires passion. I was in Better Together, after all. I just think it's dangerous to assume that unfavourable polls are wrong. At best it's a gamble and worst it's the political approach of the ostrich (And yes, I know they don't really bury their head in the sand). Then it comes to polling (And life in general) I always prepare myself for the worst. That way if everything ends up going much better than expected it's a nice surprise.
DeleteDull the pain? The referendum win last year achieved that remarkably James. It would be nice to see the SNP busted down to size but if it doesn't happen in May, so be it. There are fall back positions for a unionist. Winning the popular vote automatically gives us the moral high ground. The SNP may find themselves excluded from the UK government or, in the event they actually join a governing coalition, it's hard to see them not being sullied by it as it will have to make deep cuts no matter who is nominally in charge. UDI is a complete non starter and if they try to get a second referendum, they will be exposed as the undemocratic, not particularly pleasant people the rest of us recognised them as a long time ago. If by some miracle they get a second referendum then they absolutely must win it - or they will be truly finished, like the Quebec separatists.
DeleteWatching all this unfold isn't painful as such. There's a hint of danger but you know everything is loaded in your favour. I'm just waiting on the SNP tripping up, popcorn at the ready.
"Winning the popular vote automatically gives us the moral high ground."
DeleteThen by God have you got a problem. Haven't you seen the polls?
"Then by God have you got a problem. Haven't you seen the polls?"
DeleteLike the poll you've just posted about where 49% support Yes parties and 51% support No parties. Or were you talking about the last one from Panelbase where the four No parties were on a combined 55%?
No, I'm talking about the poll putting the SNP twenty points ahead. Or did you forget that you support the most glorious political union in the history of the known universe, that just happens to be hopelessly wedded to the first-past-the-post electoral system? You are a silly-billy. We're playing under the rules of your game - and we're winning handsomely.
DeleteDo you understand what the term "popular vote" actually means?
DeleteBetter than you, by the sounds of things. Hey-ho.
DeleteGiven you've just written a comment implying that you think it means "who wins the most seats" I sincerely doubt that.
DeleteJesus. If you can't even work out what I'm implying, it's probably time for you to go to bed.
DeleteYou're implying that you don't know what a basic term means. You directly quoted someone talking about the popular vote and bizarrely responded to it with a comment about predicted seats and the first past the post electoral system (which has *nothing at all* to do with the popular vote). Now you're laughably trying to argue the point.
DeleteI presume you're not actually ten years old so a simple "oops, I got that one wrong" might be an idea.
Anon : You can't seem to follow plain English. I've just told you that you misunderstood my point. I was absolutely astounded that you misunderstood it, but there it is. There really is no point sticking your fingers in your ears, stamping your feet and insisting that I must have meant what you want me to have meant. ("Bizarrely responded with a comment about predicted seats"? Er, where did I do that? Yeah, exactly.)
DeleteWhy are you posting anonymously, by the way? Is it entirely a coincidence that we've had such a sudden influx of anonymous posters over the last 36 hours or so? How many of you are on the McTernan pay-roll?
Holyrood Seats based on the Holyrood poll:
ReplyDeleteSNP - 71 (+2)
LAB - 25 (-12)
CON - 13 (-2)
GRN - 11 (+9)
UKIP - 5 (+5)
LIB - 4 (-1)
IND - 0 (-1)
FPTP:
SNP 50.0%
Labour 25.7%
Conservatives 12.2%
Liberal Democrats 5.8%
Regional:
SNP 38.6%
Labour 22.9%
Conservatives 13.6%
Greens 10.4%
Liberal Democrats 7.1%
UKIP 6.0%
Probably SNP votes heading to the Greens on the regional list.
5 seats at Holyrood being soiled by UKIP bums, I feel sick.
Delete81 SNP and Green seats, How great would that be? A huge majority for the indy supporting parties, (it's your 63% again, Skier).
Delete5 seats from 6% of the vote is probably optomistic for UKIP. Greens got 2 with 5% thanks to concentration in Glasgow and Edinburgh. It takes some concentration at this level of support and that limits the potential seats in itself.
DeleteUKIP will get one in South, not sure they will reach the threshold elsewhere. At 10% the Greens will cockblock them in a lot of Regions.
Much as I too detest the thought of UKIP bums soiling the seats of our parliament, we should maybe look at this in the context of it simply being the ultra-unionist vote amalgamating around a single party. Let them have their time, if that's what a small minority of voters really think they want. They'll be booted out next time around for sheer incompetence, if nothing else.
DeleteFunny how it's only Yes voters that get accused of being reactionary.
Iain
Just to add, looking at the figures above bears this out. A small amalgam of Con/Lib/Lab voters looking for a different home. It won't have escaped the attention of the hardline unionists (those that have a couple of brain cells to rub together that is) that the No camp ran a bad campaign, and 45 to 55% is far too darn close for comfort. Even without that, down south Labour are losing votes to UKIP in any case. It should come as no great surprise the same thing is happening here, albeit to a much smaller extent.
DeleteIain
The Scottish Socialist Party are taking a bit of a tanking in this poll. You might have thought that their prominence in the referendum and the visibility of radical left-wing politics would have seen them polling at least something in the Holyrood voting intentions. They would probably be my party of choice if I thought they had a chance of getting representation in 2016, but they're looking like a completely wasted vote at this point.
DeleteTommy Sheridan isn't in the SSP, I don't think Aamer Anwar is either. So there was no prominent SSP campaigner in the Referendum campaign. RIC are a broad church most of whom, I would suggest are Green voters.
DeleteTo be fair, Colin Fox got the odd airing in some media. Not that I am saying he has the profile of Tommy Sheridan, but he was doing a bit of campaigning and was visible if you happened to look at the right sources.
DeleteBad polls for Labour no matter how they dress it up.
ReplyDeleteI think it's good to have Ukip under real political scrutiny in Scotland, as they are treated as a bit of a Joke by the media and some of the pronouncements aren't taken seriously, simply because they have no representation.
ReplyDeleteOnce they start calling for the abolition of the Scottish Parliament and for all unemployed to be sent to fight Moslems in the Middle East, then we will soon see how their policies stand up to scrutiny.
Actually, for their many faults, UKIP lean more towards non-interventionism in foreign policy. They opposed the bombing of Syria.
DeleteTrue Stoat, but you make the mistake of thinking that my point was about fighting wars in the Middle East, it wasn't, it was about getting 'rid' of the unemployed. :-)
DeleteJames, again you are talking about that Independence supporters voting Green on the List vote is a risk. It is not a risk to the push for further Devolution and Independence.
ReplyDeleteAs things stand the 1.5 million list votes for the SNP are going to return TWO MSPs. That seems to be a complete waste for the Independence campaign and 11 Green MSPs would seem to be a far better return and also offer something to the parliament.
The SNP will benefit from Incumbency, swing to party in power and electoral popularity, the idea they won't win a majority in Holyrood purely on First Past the Post seats looks highly unlikely. As I have said before, if the SNP get within a few points or even win the Orkey and Shetland seat in Westminster then they will win the two equivalent seats in Holyrood.
In those circumstances voting SNP on the List would be a complete waste of votes.
And I'll keep banging the same drum for the next fifteen months, because so-called "tactical voting" on the list is a mug's game. Some SNP supporters attempted it in 2011, and it almost backfired catastrophically.
DeleteWhat evidence do you have that it happened in 2011? As I recall the polls were not favourable for an SNP landslide until very close to the election, not nearly enough time to put forward a tactical List strategy, I don't recall hearing any calls for such a vote from, well anyone.
DeleteThe stars are converged to wipe half of SLAB out with a sufficiently high Green vote. The SNP appear solid on their FPTP, they will get Incumbency bonuses, they will get Swing to Power improvements, they will continue to have a strong popularity AND we have a dry run in May 2015 which will give us much stronger confidence than polling will.
If the goal is SNP then I can understand your insistence on the tactic of two SNP votes. If the goal is Independence then that no longer makes sense. There has to be a threshold when anyone whose goal is independence sees a List vote for a non-SNP Independence party as preferable.
Do you have a threshold and if so what is it?
Mine is 50% consistent SNP support and getting within 5pts in Orkney and Shetland in Westminster 2015 along with reducing Labour to under 20 seats. If this doesn't happen I'll happily reconsider my intentions.
Precisely - the polls were inaccurate in 2011, as they often are. They understated the SNP on the list, and overstated the Greens. They didn't overstate the SNP in the constituencies, but they could easily have done. You would need absolutely precise accuracy from the polls on all three counts to make tactical voting on the list viable. That is simply not going to be available, and without it attempts at tactical voting have a high probability of backfiring and gifting the unionist parties an extra seat.
DeleteThere was constant discussion of tactical voting in 2011, by the way - some of it can be found in the archives of this blog.
Discussion on blogs is not the same as an official region by region list vote strategy though, is it. This is about advancing Independence, not simply the SNP.
DeleteIs this not, after all, why many many non SNP people and activists are getting behind the SNP for Westminster. We are being told that it's a more effective advance for Indy than an alliance at Westminster would be. I think a region by region list vote strategy for Holyrood that acknowledged that, and used it where appropriate, could be an incredibly powerful Indy tool and unifier of the movement.
braco
There isn't going to be an "official region by region list vote strategy". The SNP are not going to send out leaflets urging their own voters to ignore the SNP list and vote Green instead. The discussions on tactical voting will be much the same as last time - individuals trying to convince themselves that they can double the effectiveness of their vote, as opposed to the reality, which is that they risk throwing their vote away.
DeleteOf course James' unstated assumption is that it is SNP votes that are being loaned out to the list parties whereas I would think that it is actually smaller parties' votes that are being loaned to the SNP in the constituency vote. Those voters will and should return to their natural home in the list section. It should hopefully provide a more plural parliament.
DeleteWe have to be wary of the dangers of single-party rule. Scotland unfortunately seems to have a taste for it (with the proviso that it punishes traitorous parties). Part of us growing up into a modern European country would be to have a more rainbow coloured parliament.
Personally I think that we actually need a Scottish right-wing party. I'd like to see the remaining tartan tories in the SNP break away (but only for Holyrood and local) and represent that strain of thought. We need to remove all legitimacy for Westminster rule and that requires reducing British parties to a rump. That would also leave us in a stronger position for the next referendum and provide decent, patriotic opposition to the Scottish govt.
I think there will be a major realignment of political parties after Scotland regains its independence.
DeleteSo James, tactical voting is only viable and advisable when voting SNP? I see. Maybe we need a YES movement authority to advise on region by region list vote tactics. Surely a proportional system is the ideal setting for a Yes Alliance.
DeleteWasn't this the argument that was being put forward on these threads by some of the regulars. That a YES Alliance was not possible at Westminster but would be good for 2016? Destroying unionist representation in Scotland in every parliament, council and quango is the priority. Not which YES parties representatives replace them. If a YES alliance on the list vote is the most effective tool to advance that then that's exactly what we should all be building to create.
braco
Braco : I don't know if I'm speaking a foreign language or something, but I think I've made it abundantly clear on multiple occasions that so-called "tactical voting" isn't viable on the list AT ALL. That's the nature of the beast - it's viable in constituency elections but not on the list.
DeleteBy the way, what you're suggesting with "official strategies" is getting very, very close to trying to cheat the AMS system with what Michael Ancram called "alter ego parties". That isn't strictly speaking illegal, but the media would crucify us for it, and rightly so.
By which I meant a YES Alliance group made up of all the Indy supporting parties which has the authority to decide on which party stands on the list (and which party doesn't), in order to maximise the number of pro Indy MSPs returned to Holyrood in 2016.
DeleteThis would of course require the adoption of 'enlightened self interest' on the part of the SNP (and all the other pro Indy parties and groups). Much the same attitude we as activists and voters are being urged to adopt (and we are) for the Westminster vote. Surely not an impossible task when the rewards could be so great for all pro indies?
braco
If you're talking about a full electoral pact between parties that don't stand against each other, that's fine. That's exactly what I advocated for the Westminster election, and is entirely different from tactical voting. It's obviously not going to happen, but I wouldn't personally be opposed to it.
DeleteI should add, of course, that I'm not opposed on the proviso that the electoral pact is registered with the Electoral Commission, and isn't trying to cheat the AMS system.
DeleteMaybe that's the problem James. I and it seems a few others don't think 'you have made it abundantly clear' why it's not viable.
DeleteI don't see your second point at all. Not strictly illegal? It was not strictly illegal to invent a voting system for Holyrood in order to try and ensure continual Unionist majorities, no matter who actually 'won' the election. We are playing with a marked deck and you want us to play gentlemen agreements as well? This is their system, much like the squealing about first past the post (now that it looks like we might break it), we operate within their rules yes, but to win.
The media will try to 'crucify' us anyway, just as they always have. Would it have any traction after the publics experience of tory/labour BetterTogether and the YES movement's alliance of different parties working together. I doubt it very much myself.
braco
I have explained umpteen times why it isn't viable, using the failed attempts at tactical voting in the northeast in 2011 as the obvious example. If that hasn't made it clear, I don't know what more I can do.
DeleteCheating the AMS system with "official strategies" isn't like trying to gain a small edge here or there - it's heavy-duty cheating that would seek to gain 20+ seats that we aren't entitled to. Thankfully decent politicians like Patrick Harvie and Nicola Sturgeon would never be party to it, so it's an academic point.
Only you raised the 'cheating' topic. I don't (and neither would the pro indy voting public) care how it's done. A pact or whatever you want to call it is absolutely fine by me, as long as it sets out to achieve the aim of not wasting pro indy party votes. Simple as that.
DeleteYou have 'umpteen times' explained why an adhoc, disorganised and uninformed attempt by individual voters in the North East nearly backfired. That's not the same as is being suggested, and hopefully seriously considered as to it's worth and viability.
braco
Braco : I have to say that I'm still not at all clear what you're actually proposing. Is it an electoral alliance, standing under a single banner registered with the Electoral Commission? If so, that's fine. But if you're talking about "official strategies" to exploit a bug in the d'Hondt allocation system, that's a different matter entirely.
DeleteJames, I don't think anyone is expecting the SNP to formally declare that it's supporters and members should vote for alternative Indy parties on the list. What we are talking about (and is reflected in the polling) is that a SNP Seat, Green List voting combination is the best possible outcome for the Independence movement subject to certain basic criteria being met (some of which I outlined above).
DeleteIt is sensible and practical and on historical evidence appears to risk very little to potentially gain a lot.
It is not a bug in the d'Hondt Method to be able to reflect more than one aspect of voting choice in your selections. You are still voting for parties with policies which are at odds with each other, you are simply using a very attractive aspect of the d'Hondt Method to enhance your democratic choice.
Just because this is probably not a deliberate consideration of the creation of d'Hondt does not mean it is a bug, it does not mean it is undesirable in an electoral system either. Democracy is not just the right to vote FOR something, it is also the right to vote AGAINST something - in this case Labour and Unionism.
I think grim has it right. I voted SNP constituency / Green list in 2011 and will almost certainly do the same in 2016. I tend to think of myself more as a green voter lending my vote to the SNP in the constituency as the greens have no chance at FPTP.
DeleteThe list system was intended to 'top up' parties to a level of representation in the parliament that is roughly in line with PR.The SNP got no list MSPs last time because their share of constituency MSPs exceeded their share of the popular vote. In other words, they are already over represented - and you lot feel the need to fiddle the system by actively cheating?
DeleteYou're going the right way about getting the Scottish parliament suspended - or converted to pure PR (what it should have been to start with).
Sorry to interrupt your plotting and scheming. By all means, keep going :0)
By all means interrupt us if you're going to make a prize idiot of yourself. The SNP "got no list seats last time", you think? Why not check the results and get back to us.
DeleteHey, I stand corrected! I'm prepared to put my hands up and admit error. However, they are still over represented in a system that is meant to be roughly proportional. Their list seats take them from minority status to majority status when they achieved roughly 45% on both votes. It's a crazy system. Politics aside, can anyone here seriously defend a 'proportional' system that deliberately hands a majority to a minority party? You are all saying that the Holyrood system was engineered to stop the SNP. If that's the case, they didn't do very well. A purely proportional system would have been better - or two chambers, one FPTP, one PR - agreement of both required. At least it would have been fair and it would have worked well.
DeletePopulus sub-sample:
ReplyDeleteSNP 32, Labour 28, Tories 25.
Fairly typical Populus result (narrow SNP lead, high Tory share).
http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/OmOnline_Vote_19-01-2015_BPC.pdf
The usual extreme downweighting of SNP identifiers. It looks like they made up roughly 50% of the unweighted Scottish sample.
DeleteYes, I have the running average of SNP down-weighting hitting a new high since the iref.
DeleteMeanwhile the demented Christina D aka Fitalass actually wrote this on Political Racism.
ReplyDelete"I wouldn't write off either Jim Murphy or Ruth Davidson just yet due to these January polls. Both these politicians had an excellent Indy Referendum campaign, and once the GE campaign kicks in they are going to again have a far more high profile in the Scottish news cycles than they both currently enjoy."
We've had 24/7 Murphy on all channels and front pages but this woman is claiming that he's been invisible? Can somebody please get medical help for the poor cow?
Ah your one of those paid up Labour jobbers,trying to install hope where there is derision,mad Murphy the invisible man aye sure he is OF ONLY HE WAS.
DeleteI have never voted any other party than the SNP I'll be 63 come June,so I've voted a few times.I have seen polls for years now and one thing they do have in common is to galvanise the side with the lowest % or the one showing the biggest drop.I am confident that a lot of people have awoken to the sleight of hand deals that the Labour party have pulled over the years,I have no respect for the Labour party although the odd one or two of their members have given me hope on the odd occasion.I am wary of the polls with the large % for us SNP voters,some may stay at home because we have a big lead and other parties will have some come out because the opposite.I only hope we all manage to get out to vote and somebody takes a good long look at those postal votes I really don't trust them and never have.
ReplyDeleteThink I've asked this question here, rather plaintively, before and if anyone knows the answer I'd be grateful. Even if it's obvious and I'm being naive.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't a formal Yes Alliance group, putting up candidates as such (not as parties but with with existing SNP and Green list MSPs at the head of each regional list) , only on the list, be likely to garner a huge number of list MSPs? It would have no constituency MSPs to dilute the list vote. Downside would be that that could be countered by a No Alliance but it'd be harder for the No parties to agree to that as so many of them are only in on their party's list. So, a huge number of constituency SNP MSPs and then a huge number of Yes Alliance list MSPs.
Does that not work?
It wouldn't work much better than simply voting SNP for the Seat and Green on the List.
DeleteIt would also, almost certainly, be blocked by the Electoral Commission.
Thanks. The latter I can see. But not the former. It'd be much better. If you've already got loads of constituency MSPs then you'll get, for the same list vote, hardly any list MSPs. For the same votes, you'd get more Yes Alliance MSP's than SNP ones because there'd be no Yes Alliance constituency members. And having separate lists for the Greens and the SNP would again dilute the numbers.
DeleteYou mean putting the same candidates under a different party allegiance on the list from in the constituency? Surely that would be thrown out by the Electoral Commission. If not, it would certainly be morally wrong.
DeleteI mean a separate, independence-supporting Yes Alliance which would only run on the list with the SNP, Greens and SSP not running. Each party could put forward candidates so any sitting list MSPs could top the lists and so all but certainly get elected. They'd maybe resign from their parties first and would certainly run, get elected and sit as Yes Alliance MSPs. Beyond those few existing list MSPs, the candidates could be non-party. My ideals would include people like Jeane Freeman who'd never stand for the SNP. Others might see Simeon like Craig Murray. And so on. "Morally wrong"?
Delete*someone like Craig Murray
DeleteJames Kelly and Scottish Skier
ReplyDeletedo you think the rogue results are to do with some pollsters down weighting the SNP deliberately in order to boost the Labour standing to try to promote Murphy and co.
During indy there were a couple of pollster who were always out of step as well. Are they doing this deliberately and does it depend on who has commissioned the poll in the first place so that they try and skew the result for their customers.
hoss