Wednesday, June 2, 2021

The UK Government was elected on 44% of the vote, and the Scottish Government was elected on 48% of the vote. Murdo Fraser, naturally, only thinks the latter is a problem.

The Tory MSP Murdo Fraser finishes his latest Scotsman column with some perfectly reasonable suggestions for reforming the Holyrood voting system.  He advocates replacing the two-ballot set-up with a single ballot to eliminate the possibility of gaming the system, scrapping closed lists in favour of open lists that would give the opportunity for voters to choose between individual candidates (that ought to be a no-brainer), and possibly switching wholesale to the Single Transferable Vote system.  But unfortunately his journey to these sensible conclusions, ie. his stated reasons for thinking the system needs to change, involves some of the most mind-bending 'logic' you'll ever see.

Murdo seems to think the fact that the SNP are considering a deal with the Greens will somehow lead to a greater 'distortion' of the way people voted.  But self-evidently the opposite is true - the SNP on their own took 48% of the constituency vote and 40% of the regional list vote, but the SNP and Greens in combination took 49% of the constituency vote and 48% of the regional list vote.  A two-party government would therefore be closer to representing the majority, not further away.  Contrast that with the single-party Tory government at Westminster that just 44% of the electorate voted for.  Crucially, that government claimed a mandate for a hard Brexit even though a significantly bigger share of the popular vote went to parties opposed to leaving the EU on the basis Boris Johnson wanted.  If Murdo wishes to talk about 'distortion' and open-and-shut cases for reform of the voting system, Westminster is the place to start.

Another bogus point Murdo makes is that the pro-indy majority at Holyrood was artificially created by SNP voters gaming the system and switching to the Greens on the list.  That really is absolute rubbish.  There was a pro-indy majority on the popular vote in the regional list ballot - a point that Murdo conveniently glosses over.  It may be theoretically possible that voting for different parties on the two ballots can make pro-indy votes work more efficiently, but what it can't do is increase the overall number of pro-indy votes.  And yet the combined vote share for pro-indy parties was significantly higher on the list ballot than on the constituency ballot.  Murdo needs to reflect on where those extra votes came from. It can't have anything to do with gaming the system.  The most likely explanation is that some people voted for a unionist party on the constituency ballot because their favourite pro-indy party didn't have a candidate in their area.

9 comments:

  1. You would think with the help Nicola gave the Tory party on the regional vote list he would shut up, especially as they jointly 'gamed' the system to get what they want. But apparently they system is only gamed when your opponents make gains.
    Of course he neglects to mention that his party has benefitted grotesquely and disproportionately from the far worse Westminster voting system which has given them absolute power on about 30% of the vote. Funny he doesn't complain about that. He and his master Boris will say anything to put opposition in a bad light or heaven forfend, the fact that the tories only appeal to a minority of the electorate, yet run the UK like their private fiefdom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You would think with the help Nicola gave the Tory party on the regional vote list

      Could you possibly explain what on earth this drivel means?

      And please don't say 'The SNP failed to demand SNP voters not vote SNP, but for another, competing party!' as that's just comically stupid sounding.

      Delete
    2. In fairness, it makes about as much as your "Joanna Cherry prefers Westminster to Holyrood" schtick.

      Delete
    3. She decided to withdraw from her Holyrood candidacy because that would mean having to give up her Westminster seat. This is what we all (and those dependent on us) nominally face when changing job.

      I agree with this SNP policy as I have never been comfortable with 'double jobbing'. I think Douglas Ross was wrong and should be attacked for it. To do so means the SNP can't be hypocrites.

      I also agree with Hanvey and Macaskill that SNP MPs should be focused on Scotland and not getting comfortable in Westminster.

      I also agree with Cherry that Scots MPs are a bit of a waste of time, particularly with silly important sounding but completely pointless shadow cabinet posts (e.g. 'Shadow Secretary of State for the Home Department and Justice') etc.

      Delete
  2. Is it possible to tell what the outcome of the Scottish election results would have been if we were using the same systems as the UK elections

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course - just look at the constituency seats alone. The SNP won 62 out of 73.

      Delete
    2. 62 out of 73 = 552 out of 650, i.e., the kind of figure seen only in governments of national unity at times of serious emergency for the UK, like a world war.

      Of course that says more about the unrepresentativity of the Westminster FPTP system than anything negative about our mixed system.

      Delete
    3. 85% of the seats and better still no Murdo Fraser and the rest of them that get in through the back door

      Delete
  3. No self awareness from Fraser considering he has benefited from the party list in every election he has contested

    ReplyDelete