On the Holyrood list you can only vote for one party, so with the best will in the world, if you chose Alba that meant you were not choosing the SNP and there was at least a theoretical risk of costing the SNP a seat. That risk almost played out in South Scotland - the initial BBC projection suggested the SNP would narrowly miss out on a list seat in the region, meaning voters drifting to Alba could well have swung the balance. In the end, thankfully, the SNP took a seat in the south, meaning Alba cost the SNP no seats at all anywhere in Scotland.
But with the Single Transferable Vote system used for local elections, that risk is eliminated, because it's a preferential system which allows people to effectively use the same vote for both Alba and the SNP simultaneously. A pro-independence voter might rank the candidates in his or her ward as follows...
1) Alba
2) SNP
3) SNP
4) Green
5) Labour
6) Labour
7) Liberal Democrats
8) Conservatives
Ideally that will help elect an Alba councillor, but if it doesn't, your vote will automatically transfer to the SNP and will have exactly the same effect as it would have done if you'd given the SNP your first preference. So in no sense have you "voted against the SNP".
Alba, of course, will be urging their voters to use their lower preferences for other pro-indy parties. On past form, the SNP will not follow suit and will instead tell their supporters to rank SNP candidates only. That could well reduce the overall number of pro-indy councillors elected. Whatever you think of Alba's prospects, there are certainly wards where the Greens are in with a shout, but a lack of transfers from the SNP will reduce their chances.
There may have been a legitimate debate in the Holyrood election about whether the SNP or Alba had the better plan for maximising pro-indy representation (in reality that debate ended in a no score draw), but in the local elections it's a no brainer - you get the most Yes-supporting councillors if you rank all of the pro-indy parties. It may be uncomfortable for the SNP, but in the context of a Single Transferable Vote election, the time has come for them to stop trying to "bury" Alba, and instead to start cooperating with other pro-indy parties for mutual benefit. If they prove too tribal for that, it's the whole independence movement that will suffer.
Surely the penny will have dropped with voters by then that SNP objective with SNP 1&2 etc has been to shut out all non-SNP independence voices even if it means fewer pro independence seats
ReplyDeleteIt is so blatant & will backfire badly if they persist
"If they prove too tribal for that, it's the whole independence movement that will suffer." And you can bet that's what is going to happen.
ReplyDelete"If they prove too tribal for that, it's the whole independence movement that will suffer." And you can bet that's what is going to happen.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Peter Grant MP (and probably, by extension, the whole damn lot of them) needs to understand that we have the right to not vote SNP if we don't want to. That's how democracy works, but like Labour before them the SNP now expects obedience and unquestioning loyalty from Yessers. They should know what a dangerous road that is to go down.
ReplyDeleteWhy isn't STV used everywhere? I mean, obviously the reason is that the decision to change the voting system is in the hands of parties who benefit from FPTP and AMS, but is there any moral justification? It's so obviously the fairest system
ReplyDeleteIt depends on your definition of 'fairest' - it's not the most proportional system, and for some people that's all that matters.
DeleteAccording to what I've read, STV sometimes produces grossly non-proportional results.
DeleteYou may remember there was a referendum as a condition of Libdem support for a minority Conservative government. That got shot down in flames. Unsurprising really.
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum
Totally irrelevant: that was a referendum on AV, not STV.
DeleteI'll hae a look at what Alba are offering at council services level and my local candidates, then decide how I'll rank all parties as usual.
ReplyDeleteAs for polling:
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19306065.snp-win-10-seats-tories-win-majority-labour-general-election/
SNP would win 58 of 59 Scottish seats in a snap General Election, poll finds
Bit off topic, but James has kindly given me permission to post a link to a petition that I've created on change.org to limit the number of times an candidate can gain a seat in Holyrood on the PR system, especially if they've been rejected by the electorate. please see the link below:
ReplyDeletehttp://chng.it/FH96LTPc
Victor Don
I can see the argument against not having the safety net of knowing you will get a seat on the list if you fail to win in a Constituency.
DeleteBut have to look at in a big picture. What ever your views of her, i don't think many many would say that Nicola Sturgeon being in Parliament is a benefit for Scottish politics. However under your proposal she would of not got a seat in 2003 as she was 'rejected' by the electorate for a second time and therefore could not get a seat on the list.
Thats just the most high profile example, i'm sure there are others - were good MSPs (of all parties) would not of been able to serve under your proposals;
On balance, i think the current system has more benefits, and that Scottish politics would be weaker as a whole if your proposal was implemented.
Another panelbase poll in the field. Voting intention for Holyrood, Westminster and independence. Plus a lot of questions about Brexit and the pandemic. Reads rather like something from scotcen or similar.
ReplyDeletePretty disgraceful scenes from Glasgow. What is it with union flag wavers and the need to trash scotland?
ReplyDeleteThis is 'Scotland's shame'; and it's so very British.
ReplyDeletehttps://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/4F76/production/_118524302_sun.png
Aye, I lent the Greens my first preference vote in 2017. The candidate got 170 of those votes(3.5%) and was knocked out in the third round with 201. My vote then went to and stayed with the SNP candidates to the end.
ReplyDeleteOn paper, STV may seem easier to break into than the AMS system is, but I think it's actually harder in practice: the multi-member wards tend to have three or four members, maybe a few have five. This raises the effective threshold to be elected considerably, to 33%, 25% or 20%.
It can be lowered further when other parties put up multiple candidates but not to the extent that it's anywhere close to AMS' ~6%.