The point I made was that the list vote was actually the more important of the two votes, because the overall composition of parliament is roughly proportional to how people vote on the list ballot, not on the constituency ballot. Therefore, in general, people would be very foolish not to vote for their first-choice party on the list. If anything, it's the constituency ballot that lends itself to tactical voting, but if you try to play silly buggers on the list there's a severe danger of ending up with a perverse outcome. Yes, in theory it might be possible to game the system by voting for a second choice party on the list, but only in conditions that don't and can't exist in the real world - ie. 100% opinion poll accuracy, foreknowledge of how everybody else is going to vote, and certainty of exactly how many constituency seats that will translate into for each party.
This position of "vote for your first choice party on the list, don't listen to the siren voices telling you it's safe or necessary to abandon your first-choice party on the list" was cynically misrepresented for years by the usual suspects such as Kevin Williamson, Mike Small and Stewart Bremner as "James Kelly trying to suppress the Greens and RISE by pushing the 'both votes SNP' or 'SNP 1&2' line". And that really was an appallingly cynical misrepresentation, because they carried on doing it even after I repeatedly pointed out that I didn't use the phrases 'both votes SNP' or 'SNP 1&2', and that I actively objected to the latter because it misleadingly implies the constituency and list ballots are 'first preference' and 'second preference' votes. I also pointed out that my advice to anyone whose first choice party was the Greens was that they should vote Green on the list, which was plainly not consistent with the idea that I was some sort of "both votes SNP" drone. I simply objected to SNP supporters being duped into using their most important vote for another party - and I had no control over the fact that ultimately it was only SNP supporters who were being targeted by the "game the system" scam.
Although yesterday's bizarre outcome in the Conservative leadership election took place under a completely different voting system, it's nevertheless the perfect illustration of some of the points I used to make about what can go wrong if you try to game the system. What seems to have happened is that some James Cleverly supporters looked at the result of the penultimate ballot on Tuesday, concluded that their man was guaranteed to make the members' run-off, and that it was therefore safe and smart for them to vote for one of the other candidates. Some of them voted for their second-choice candidate to try to eliminate whoever they regarded as the most objectionable candidate, while others may even have voted for their least favourite candidate on the logic that this would make the members' run-off more winnable for Cleverly. The latter group must feel particularly idiotic now, because far too many of them attempted the tactic and ended up accidentally eliminating Cleverly from the race altogether. In other words, they assumed perfect foreknowledge of how everyone else was going to vote, and discovered the hard way that such foreknowledge simply isn't possible in the real world.
* * *
SCOT GOES POP FUNDRAISER 2024: I took a prolonged break from promoting the fundraiser during the general election period, but I'll have to make some serious progress over the coming days and weeks if the blog is to remain viable. Many thanks to everyone who has donated so far. Card donations can be made via the fundraiser page HERE, or direct donations can be made via Paypal. My Paypal email address is: jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk
Only two of them; if they had stayed it would not have made a difference unless both went to Jenrick, which would have tied them in second place. Wonder how they'd handle that result.
ReplyDeleteThe movement appears to have been mostly Tugendhat's twenty not going to Cleverly.
"Only two of them"
DeleteNo! I've seen that claim made, but it's obviously wrong. Net loss of votes and absolute loss of votes are two very different things. Cleverly will have picked up votes from Tugendhat but lost more than two (probably significantly more than two) of the votes he had on Tuesday.
Also: when the electorate is just a hundred people, all of which work in the same building, you actually can conspire to create a desired result, if you're sufficiently conniving. I don't rate this with Michael Portillo's notorious collapse in 2001. As 10:47 pointed out, this was Tugendhat's supporters choosing the other (white) guy.
DeleteI don't doubt that there's been some domino effect shuffling, but occam's razor is that most MPs stuck with their preferred candidate until they were eliminated.
DeleteAgain, "most" and "no more than two" are self-evidently very different concepts.
DeleteYes, but you seem to be implying that most of Tuggy's 20 went to Cleverly and then as many as 22 Original Clevers decided to fuck around and find out. That does not seem likely.
DeleteWhat the hell are you talking about? No, I did not imply that, and you can see for yourself I did not imply that. Stop being so silly. There are plenty of numbers between 2 and 22.
DeleteAnd inevitably we get the "it doesn't matter that I was wrong, what matters is that you upset me by pointing out that I was wrong!" Take your little tantrum elsewhere, there's a good chap. If you misrepresent me on my own blog, the outcome is only ever going to be one of two things - you'll be corrected in no uncertain terms or you'll be deleted.
DeleteOut of curiosity doesn't that also apply to Alba, ISP and to some extent the Greens as well?
ReplyDeleteThe first two especially used the rationale that thousands of SNP List votes ended up in the bin and that it would be better for voters to lend their second vote to anther pro-independence Party in order to produce a "supermajority" in the Scottish Parliament.
But looking at current polling now the SNP aren't expected to do as well in the Constituency ballot like in previous elections... so even for the sake of argument if Alba etc were right previously that argument no longer applies to 2026?
"Out of curiosity doesn't that also apply to Alba, ISP and to some extent the Greens as well?"
DeleteI'm a bit puzzled that you've added the Greens at the end there, because the whole thrust of the blogpost was that it applies to the Greens. But yes, of course it applies to Alba as well, and when I joined Alba in 2021 I made clear that I wasn't particularly sold on the whole 'supermajority' schtick and that I was voting Alba on the list simply because I had a new first-choice party.
Single Transferable Vote solves this problem, as your ballot doesn't go right in the bin if you make the "wrong choice".
DeleteThe problem with any ballot where you're restricted to just the one X is that, proportional or not, you will be discarded after that one (forced) choice.
If you accept the premise that another pro-indy Party like Alba shouldn't stand in Westminster elections and can't 'game the system' in Holyrood elections... what is their purpose as it sounds they would be unable to get anyone elected under either system, especially in 2026.
Delete"If you accept the premise that another pro-indy Party like Alba shouldn't stand in Westminster elections and can't 'game the system' in Holyrood elections...what is their purpose"
DeleteTo stand on their own merits in Holyrood elections and try to get elected on the list without gaming the system. Hope this helps.
Under the present leadership, the SNP won't be getting either of my votes, let alone 1&2.
ReplyDeleteClear out the Devolutionist leadership and put indy back on the agenda. Until then: go whistle.
Anon at 11.08 there's always the ISP !!
DeleteYou insult the 70000 members of SNP who are never devolutionist. You can be led by McEleny and Co if you are that desperate.
DeleteYou mean 64,525 members? (According to the accounts submitted to the Electoral Commission) and it's probably even less as the Party has form when it comes to lying about the number of members it has.
DeleteI said the Devolutionist leadership. Which they are, going by all of their actions.
DeleteIf the membership is unwilling to accept perpetual London rule, they too should do something about it.
Acceptance is complicity.
How would you counter this argument?: The SNP aren't expected to win as many Constituencies like they had done in the past, and for the first time since 2007 there's a very real possibility of the SNP not winning the election and unionists coming to power... Due to those reasons all pro-independence supporters need to vote SNP 1&2 in order to maintain a pro-independence Government at Holyrood.
ReplyDeleteWell, it's not exactly the first time "Both Votes SNP!" has ever come up!
DeleteRight now, the SNP does not strike me as a party that's ever going to do anything about independence. So it's pretty easy for me to abandon them on the list, and I'll even consider it on the constituency ballot if Swinney's still as useless.
If they changed leader and got serious about indy, I'd give them a serious second look. But only then.
Yeah but I can easily see SNP supporters trying to say that they're the only viable option, an SNP Government is still better than a Labour one and after the election in 2026 we can work on changing the Party, but if they lose power that will set us all back etc.
DeleteHow do we change the party?
DeleteEverything I've heard says the party is run very firmly from the top. Members have no power to move anything forward. All policy comes from the leader and their handful of closest advisers. Even ministers are outside the loop. Vital issues to much of the movement—land reform is the canonical example—are stifled even when they get as far as conference.
Being an SNP member is the epitome of Wheesht For Indy. Ten years of that is what got us here.
I agree but that only leaves us with two options: Still voting SNP as they're as lead preferable to a unionist Government, keeps hope alive and there's a risk that with unionists in power independence will be set back as they certainly won't make it an active issue.
DeleteOr there's the Wings view that the SNP are the roadblock and need to be replaced and the best thing to happen now is to get rid of them asap so that we can then rebuild.
Two options: endorse the devolutionist SNP with your vote, or don’t.
DeleteI chose the latter in July and I’ll do it again in 2026. A “pro-independence” Scotgov that shows bugger all signs of any interest in independence is no use to me.
Make the election a de facto referendum on independence and I’ll vote for it. Don’t and I won’t.
Anon 4.52 the Wings guy is a Tory.
DeleteI don’t vote and I won’t vote but I demand independence!
DeleteThe cry of the pretenders.
I will vote. I just won’t vote for parties who accept the British status quo, which includes Swinney’s SNP.
DeleteI believe in SNP 1 & 2. However if pro independence parties are willing to agree to SNP 1 and Independents coalition 2 I could vote for that. Would Greens and ALBA/ISP agree?
ReplyDeleteAlba literally used the hashtag #SNP1ALBA2 last time.
DeleteVoting for the SNP on the Constituency Ballot and themselves on the List was their whole strategy.
Ask anyone in the SNP to picture an alliance for independence, the very thing we'd have to do in a Plebiscitary Election, and what they'll imagine is SNP 1&2.
DeleteAsk them to think really hard about it, and they might imagine the box on the regional ballot with a label like: SNP—A Vote For Independence.
The party *is* the movement, in their eyes. Which has been the problem all along.
And the current leadership still interprets that as "SNP—Ask London Nicely, Yet Again"
DeleteIt really is just a carrot on a stick, with them. A totem to motivate the voters. A longterm goal requiring no policy and certainly no action. Why would you want independence, really, when you can have Devo with a vague ambition on top?
"Alba literally used the hashtag #SNP1ALBA2 last time."
DeleteI very much doubt they did. Individual Alba supporters may have done, but I doubt if the leadership would have been daft enough to risk misleading people into thinking it was a preferential vote-by-numbers system like STV.
Anon at 12.09pm says:- " I believe in SNP 1 & 2 ". I think you mean " Both Votes SNP" The SNP said that for a reason. There is a constituency vote and a regional list vote. Neither are numbered or rated ahead of the other.
DeleteVote for independence. 1 SNP 2 An other independence party’s. Add together for pro indy
DeleteAre you saying it adds up to 3?
DeleteAre you and your alter ego really reduced to this?
DeleteAh, you're the eccentric chap from the other day who thinks IFS and I am the same person. Well, far be it from me to stop you if you really want to make a fool of yourself to that extent.
DeleteAre, not am.
DeleteHey KC. You forgot "God Save the King!"
ReplyDeleteThanks for reiterating the prime importance of the list vote James. In all likelihood the SNP will be heavily reliant on it in 2026. Which is all the more reason to make sure the best candidates are high on the regional lists, even if they also stand in a constituency. The members should choose the list in open primaries, no stitch ups permitted.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I like the idea of primary elections—where the public gets a vote—I expect no such thing from the SNP, and you can rest assured of a stitch up for the important spots in every region.
DeleteYou'll know when Jo Cherry is mysteriously missed.
Joanne Cherry KC supports women’s rights and possibly even Scottish independence. She has no place in the modern SNP.
DeleteMost people support women’s rights. More enlightened folk also support other people’s rights too.
DeleteAnd men’s rights
DeleteI've deleted the entire mini-thread starting with Anon at 11.19 because it became clear he wasn't arguing in good faith. I've no idea how many of the Anons in the replies were him and how many were other people, but I will say this: there seems to be something about this subject that magically renders otherwise intelligent people incapable of comprehending the English language. The subtext of one of the replies to me in that mini-thread amounted to a belief that I don't think the Greens should stand on the list but only in the constituencies. That is the *complete polar opposite* of what I believe - I actually think that the Greens (and Alba) should only stand on the list and not in the constituencies. If you've somehow managed to misunderstand that, it's safe to assume that you are allowing some deeply ingrained prejudices to get in the way, and that you need to dispense with those prejudices, start from scratch, and read what I've actually said rather than the Small-Williamson-Bremner caricature of it.
ReplyDeleteAnon: for the avoidance of doubt, no reply to the above was wanted or required. You misrepresented the blogpost as being an attack on a happy clappy concept you call "vote sharing" and had an almighty fit when I pointed out the game you were playing. Sorry, but I've seen that stunt once too often over the years. Actually a thousand times too often.
DeleteAnon: I don't know how you managed to interpret "no reply to the above was wanted or required" as the green light for two more angry comments, but no more, thank you.
DeleteHowever, you vote in 2026 do not vote for any Britnat parties.
ReplyDeleteBritnat politicians - what are they like. Britnat Labour in Scotland call for the Scotgov to pay out the new devolved winter fuel allowance but then vote against the motion in Holyrood calling on Westminster to reverse its decision. Their loyalty is first and foremost to England. Scots pensioners can freeze but they can slurp up all their nice freebies. Labour in Scotland's campaign slogan in 2026 should be - " vote Labour to freeze your granny."
Meanwhile the mental Tory party members are about to pick Liz Truss part 2 - thankfully unlike Truss they won't be in power. A choice between a woman who isnae keen on maternity leave and a man who isnae keen on human rights. Starmer may be a red Tory right of centre but these two Tory nutters are so far to the right they could be standing in Siberia.
Better Together they said - aye better for England and only some parts of England. People actually vote in Scotland to remain colonised - hard to stomach. In Norway they voted 97% for their independence. Today they have a trillion pound wealth found from their oil. Scotland we get £300 removed from our pensioners and told it is all the fault of the Tories that Scotland hisnae voted for since the 50s. It's England's fault but we get the same shit rained down on us because we are all Better Together - it's called gaslighting to hide the fact we are a colony.
We were Better Together in 2014 and still Better Together today, without a shadow of a doubt.
DeleteThankfully, those that think otherwise remain in a minority.
Eat your cereal.
DeleteAnon@4:47,
DeleteLol, though I doubt very much IFS eating some cereal will make much difference. I think he’s beyond that!
The usual intelligence free comments from Britnat trolls.
DeleteI see the old “de facto referendum “ still getting trotted out!
ReplyDeleteDear oh dear!
Celine Gottwald has far too much to say for herself and is a distraction. A damned distraction.
ReplyDeleteWhere’s the guy who always comments “Nothing positive to say Alba?” on every thread?
ReplyDeleteMaybe Chris is busy filling in the expulsion paperwork tonight.
He's gone out for the day with the "This is a clear sign John Swinney was the right choice for leader" guy.
Delete