Some people have emailed asking me for advice on tactical voting in specific regions. All I can really say is I don't believe in tactical voting on the list. I'm advocating an Alba list vote because I think Alba are the best party, and that's the way the list vote should be used. I know there's a slight paradox there because Alba themselves do advocate gaming the list system, but that doesn't particularly worry me - all parties look for an angle to try to maximise their vote.
As for the claims that 'both votes SNP' makes sense in the South of Scotland in a way that it doesn't elsewhere, it's not as simple as people are making out. It's true that the SNP will probably win list seats in the South and that they could therefore take a hit if they lose list votes, but it doesn't automatically follow that an SNP list vote is the best way of maximising pro-indy representation in the region. They'll win constituency seats in the South as well, which means the d'Hondt formula will reduce their list vote drastically before a single list seat is allocated - and that in turn means that if Alba get over the de facto threshold of 5% or 6%, you could potentially get more bang for your buck in the South by voting Alba. But the big question is: will they get over the threshold? This is the problem with trying to game the system: to make it work reliably, you need to know in advance how everyone else is going to vote, and that's not possible. It's much simpler just to vote for your first choice party on the list.
I've also seen another bogus claim about how the system works, and ironically it's been trotted out by both Alba supporters and detractors. The suggestion is that the better the SNP do in terms of constituency seats, the better Alba will do in terms of list seats. That's a lovely thought but it isn't actually true. If the SNP are severely over-represented in a region's constituency seats, the list seats are effectively spread more thinly in trying to compensate the other parties. So in some cases Alba will have less chance of a list seat if the SNP do well in the constituencies. But that doesn't matter because Alba's aim is to maximise pro-indy representation, and voting SNP on the constituency ballot certainly has that effect.
Can I phrase the question another way? My preferred vote would be Alba 1 and 2. Unfortunately, Alba aren’t standing for the constituency vote, therefore I need to choose the best alternative. My choice is SNP, Labour, Tory or LibDem. Therefore SNP 1 Alba 2.
ReplyDeleteIf Alba win no seats at all and the SNP lose a list seat in South Scotland because of list votes that moved from the SNP to Alba will you regret your push for Alba on the list?
ReplyDeleteBloody hell, that's convoluted. I live in Cumbernauld.
DeleteIf Alba reach the threshold in the South, meaning that Alba votes in the South count for more than SNP votes, will people regret *not* pushing for Alba on the list? This is the point I made in the blogpost - unless you know in advance how everyone else is going to vote, you can't possibly know whether Alba or the SNP are the better tactical option in the South. Better to vote for your first choice party on the list - and in my case that's Alba.
While my constituency vote goes to the SNP, my list vote is not available to them.
DeleteOne thing I do not want is a single party Indy Scotland, where the SNP can threaten us with a unionist government and a reversal of Indy if we don't vote SNP, all the while getting away with more egregious policies. Alba gives us a chance at a multi Indy party Scotland and resolves the question of how to split the SNP post-Indy. For that alone, I would be willing to vote Alba in South Scotland.
You said it yourself.
ReplyDelete"It's true that the SNP will probably win list seats in the South and that they could therefore take a hit if they lose list votes"
If Alba fail to win a list seat and the SNP lose one because of votes lost to the Alba party then I would see that as a loss.
And if Alba get over the threshold in the South and win an extra seat for the pro-indy camp, I would see that as a gain. And as I have no way of knowing whether that scenario is more or less likely to occur than your scenario, there's no rational reason for doing anything other than voting for my first-choice party, which is Alba.
DeleteI've now explained that point three times, which leaves me with the distinct impression that you're hearing only what you want to hear.
I'm in a slightly different position. The SNP are my preferred party, but since I'm fairly sure that they will win back Aberdeenshire West from the Tories, hence their D'Hondt divisor will be 11, and since I live in Salmond heartland, I think my list vote for the Alba party will give me the "biggest bang for my buck".
ReplyDeleteI also can't wait to see Salmond back in action in Holyrood. If you asked Rennie, Sarwar or DRoss if they'd prefer to see a "Salmond-free" Holyrood, I'm fairly sure they'd yes, if they were to have an uncharacteristic burst of honesty.....
Greens got 4.9% here last time; just shy of a seat, so a tactical vote their way would seems to be a safer punt in the South of Scotland than Alba if gambling’s yer hing.
ReplyDeleteAs for the ‘SNP are definitely going to win my constituency so that frees up my list vote!’ – this isn’t how it works because the PR list is regional. Christine Grahame is a shoe in for me, but the SNP will lose some south of Scotland constituency votes. So, me voting SNP on the list helps my fellow SNP voters elsewhere who may not get an SNP constituency MSP be proportionally represented. It is the list that decides total seat allocation (Constituency + List) after all.
Anyhoo, I'm voting with heart and for candidates as much or more than party. I took time to consider all the SNP list candidates and rank my top 5. My top 3 of that were selected, including Joan McAlpine, so it’s SNP for me here.
I have said it before and I’ll say it again. Alba have painted themselves into a corner arguing they are first and foremost a tactical vote for a ‘supermajority’, including not having a manifesto (yet). Because if they are clearly behind the greens when voting starts (which is now), then they should really advise folk to Go green lest be seen as hypocritical. The closer election day comes, the more this will apply unless Alba double their polling average.
IMO Alba should not have done down this route so overtly, and it’s the cause of friction with other yes parties. They’d have been better taking the ‘Vote for us to put us in government’ route. James backs them for this reason and so a good few others it seems.
I’d simply say that the Greens aren’t the best choice because they aren’t as focussed on Independence. For Alba it’s the no. 1 priority whereas for the Greens it’s a little further down the list. Perhaps part of the reason why we haven’t seen any progress in the previous 5 years.
DeleteThis is of course your opinion.
DeleteI'd say that in a 'who's done the most to further indy in the past 5 years' competition, Alba would come behind the SNP and Greens given the Alba have only got around to starting themselves now.
I might also add that the Greens and SNP have spent the last 5 years trying to convert No voters to Yes voters. Successfully so it seems too, given baseline yes appears to be a little over 50% now. SNP and Green manifestos are also clearly targeted at both Yes and soft no voters with the aim of furthering the cause.
By contrast, Alba are just targeting existing Yes SNP/Green voters, i.e. once the hard work has already been done...
So for now, SNP + Greens are definitely doing more to further the indy cause. If Alba start bringing No voters around to indy, then we can give them the same credit.
The Greens are focused on the imminent future of the human race. Flags are immaterial. Perhaps part of the reason why we haven’t seen any progress in the previous 5 years.
DeleteFour of the ten most vulnerable constituency seats in Scotland are tory seats in the south of Scotland. A reasonable performance for SNP there stands a very good chance of capturing those seats but reducing SNP's chance of gaining list seats - therefore a healthy vote for Alba might well produce additional indy seats (and fewer tory seats) in Holyrood.
ReplyDeleteFour of the ten most vulnerable seats in Scotland are Conservative seats in South Scotland. If SNP put up a reasonable performance there (assisted by Alba votes), they will remove those tories from Holyrood. If Alba also put up a reasonable performance their list gains will add to indy seats. It would help if SNP recognised Alba as allies, not adversaries.
ReplyDeleteI do disagree with voting Alba for myself I have been an SNP member for years, so cant vote against my party. So I am SNP 1&2. I have one bone of contention with you over this "SNP will win the constituency" You are able to guarantee this I hope?
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't appear to be something I've said, so I can't help you there.
DeleteJames, what you say looks wrong. You say that if a party is over-represented in the constituencies, the list seats are spread more thinly. They're not, they're spread more thickly: if the over-represented party doesn't get any, there's one less party to share them with, so Alba is more likely to get a seat.
ReplyDeleteD'Hondt, on present trends, gives Alba the fourth list-seat in South Scotland. There's no plausible scenario where D'Hondt doesn't give them a seat.
No, that's simply wrong - it's the complete opposite of how it works. If the SNP are severely over-represented in the constituencies, that means the leading unionist parties need to be compensated with list seats, and that leaves fewer list seats left for the smaller parties.
DeleteThis is not a partisan point in any way - it's a purely arithmetical point.
Just made a donation to your site BUT am concerned about what you said above "So in some cases Alba will have less chance of a list seat if the SNP do well in the constituencies."
ReplyDeleteI have been involved in dozens of elections. And as a Chartered Accountant can actually count. If people 'X' SNP in constituencies and 'X' Alba on the list in numbers they will clearly knock out Unionist list candidates.
I remember debating this with Stu and (I think yourself) back in the day when it was 'both votes SNP' mantra across the board.
Well, I'm not sure if you were misconstruing what I said, because it was very specific. Voting SNP in the constituency ballot will maximise the overall number of *pro-indy* seats but in some cases may reduce the number of list seats taken by Alba itself. That's an accurate statement and I'll explain it further if you wish.
DeleteTake a region where the SNP sweep most of the constituency seats - it means the Unionists will get the first, second, third etc seat - if even 1/10th of SNP voters vote Alba on the list this sequence will be broken.
DeleteI am also aware that there maybe issues in South Scotland - but it is hard to sell a mixed message to voters when seeking a tactical vote - its got to be simple to succeed
The comment you're referring to wasn't an attempt at "pro-Alba messaging" - it was the correction of a misconception about the voting system. "The more constituency seats the SNP take, the more list seats Alba will take" is not an accurate statement and in some cases is the complete opposite of the truth, so we should not be saying that. What *is* accurate is that if Alba supporters vote SNP on the constituency ballot, that will maximise the overall number of *pro-indy* MSPs.
DeleteJames, get some people to help admin the comments - the internet doesn't get better, it gets worse.
ReplyDeleteOK - if Alba voters disillusioned with the SNP follow Alex Salmon's direction to vote for SNP anywaythat could win more constituency seats.
ReplyDeleteBut equally if SNP voters do the same on the list for Alba there is a win-win
I am not pro-Alba messaging either - it just seems to me we need a simple message that works both ways and is fundamentally true
You need to take on admins James to help weed out the Brit trolls - otherwise it will just get worse - the Brits are getting exponentially worse
ReplyDeleteHi James, apologies if this has come up before and I have missed it, but what are your thoughts on the potential effects of the Greens standing candidates in some constituencies, particularly in SoS (where I am) and H&I? Ta.
ReplyDelete