May 2011 Election

[Michael W]

I wouldn't like to bet on that seat staying Lib-Dem, not since the fiasco of the coalition.

I think they'll keep it. This was the result last time around:

Iain Smith ( LD) - 13, 307

Ted Brocklebank (CON) - 8,291

Rod Campbell (SNP) - 6, 735

The Labour vote was just over 2,500.

They're probably going to lose Dunfermline West, but I can see them keeping this one, if only due to the large majority the incumbent enjoys.

[Tryfield]

I think they'll keep it. This was the result last time around:

Iain Smith ( LD) - 13, 307

Ted Brocklebank (CON) - 8,291

Rod Campbell (SNP) - 6, 735

The Labour vote was just over 2,500.

They're probably going to lose Dunfermline West, but I can see them keeping this one, if only due to the large majority the incumbent enjoys.

I know what your saying about the majority, but a heck of a lot has happened since 2007. Besides, that was with a mere 51.7% turnout. As I said, I wouldn't bet on that seat...too unpredictable.

[vikingTON]

North-East Fife is being tipped as one to fall to the SNP on pollingreport. Remember that the swing is both going against the Lib Dem vote and in favour of the SNP at the same time (and also a wee bit away from the Tories IIRC).

Edit: as an indication, the LDs got 16 and 11% nationally in 2007. The best recent polling gives them 9% and 8%. The SNP are from 33 and 31% to a 'worst' 40 and 35%. This means that in seats like NE Fife the Lib Dem vote should drop drastically, the SNP vote increasing significantly, and more so because the SNP are polling very well in the constituency vote.

[Scary Bear]

Why would you vote SNP in constituency and not on the list, if you want SNP to win?

Being in Fife, there's a decent chance the SNP won't win the seat you're in and so you're SNP vote will be wasted, meaning your only other vote will go to the SSP, who probably don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting on the Mid Scotland and Fife list anyway. So both votes are effectively wasted.

I can fully see why someone would 'waste' their vote in a constituency vote, on principal but to then vote against your first choice party on the list, where your vote might make a difference seems crazy to me.

Isn't it the case that they weight the Regional list votes based on Constituency votes for the same party? I recall hearing something along those lines back in the day.

Personally I also like using my second vote for the wee parties.

[vikingTON]

Regional votes are divided by (1 + the number of total seats won in the region). So if the SNP had 200,000 list votes and 0 constitiuency seats, they'd get a regional seat ahead of Labour with 250,000 votes but, say, 6 constituency seats.

Then the SNP's vote would be divided by the new total, the next winner found, and so on...

[Ad Lib]

Isn't it the case that they weight the Regional list votes based on Constituency votes for the same party? I recall hearing something along those lines back in the day.

Personally I also like using my second vote for the wee parties.

As VT explains, the constituency vote only really matters in so far as a party has already won a seat.

[rumple]

Isn't it the case that they weight the Regional list votes based on Constituency votes for the same party? I recall hearing something along those lines back in the day.

Personally I also like using my second vote for the wee parties.

This explains it.

The total regional votes for each party are divided by the number of constituency seats plus one. The party with the highest number then gets one list seat. That party then has one added to its total of seats, and the process is repeated till all the seats in the region have been allocated.

This process is the reason that Labour got the highest number of list votes in Glasgow last time, but didn't get any list seats. They'd cleaned up on the FPTP constituency seats so their regional vote total was immediately divided by ten, whereas the SNP were starting from only one seat (so divided by only two). The situation was exactly the same in the west of Scotland region.

Labour kept trumpeting that their supporters should vote Labour twice, even though it was obvious that the regional votes in Glasgow and the west of Scotland would be wasted. They all simply went down the pan.

Now if those Labour voters had given their second vote to the Lib Dems instead then that would have deprived the SNP of maybe four seats. Labour would have been the largest party and with the stronger Lib Dems they'd probably have been back in coalition with a majority.

Where I live the SNP are likely to hoover up constituencies and get nothing on the list. So here it makes sense for SNP supporters to give their regional vote to the Greens who are most likely to go into coalition with the SNP. You'll almost certainly get better value from a vote for them.

None of the parties want to broadcast the possibilities of using the regional vote for tactical voting because it scares them. It's hard to predict and control. It's not easy to explain, so it's much easier just to tell the faithful to vote twice for you. The nightmare would be getting pipped repeatedly in the FPTP constituencies and then finding the core vote had gone all over the place in the regional vote leaving you with zilch. That could happen to Labour if their supporters do what they should have done last time in Glasgow and the west.

It's easy to see why the parties shy away from a clear explanation of the regional vote and how it can work, but the press really should make an effort to help people understand.

[vikingTON]

Good point rumple, if Labour weren't such a bunch of thick c***s they'd get their voters in red rosette land to hand their second vote elsewhere, maybe even to the Socialist parties. But tbh I doubt there are many Labour voters intelligent enough to grasp the logic.

[rumple]

Good point rumple, if Labour weren't such a bunch of thick c***s they'd get their voters in red rosette land to hand their second vote elsewhere, maybe even to the Socialist parties. But tbh I doubt there are many Labour voters intelligent enough to grasp the logic.

But could you imagine the panic now the campaign's falling apart? They'd have been telling their supporters to back other parties and it would gradually be dawning on them that they could be losing constituency seats, which would leave them double-stuffed.

[chico]

But could you imagine the panic now the campaign's falling apart? They'd have been telling their supporters to back other parties and it would gradually be dawning on them that they could be losing constituency seats, which would leave them double-stuffed.

Do subway do that?

[Enigma]

Do subway do that?

No, but I have seen it done on the tube8

[Poet of the Macabre]

Why would you vote SNP in constituency and not on the list, if you want SNP to win?

Being in Fife, there's a decent chance the SNP won't win the seat you're in and so you're SNP vote will be wasted, meaning your only other vote will go to the SSP, who probably don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting on the Mid Scotland and Fife list anyway. So both votes are effectively wasted.

I can fully see why someone would 'waste' their vote in a constituency vote, on principal but to then vote against your first choice party on the list, where your vote might make a difference seems crazy to me.

I did say maybe. I very well may vote SNP on both papers. I do like the SSP though and probably would vote for them in an independent country, so like to show my support. Very good chance that won't make sense in this election though.

Difficult for me to sometimes let my head rule my heart.

[Poet of the Macabre]

No, but I have seen it done on the tube8

Greenied.

[The Gavin Sutherland]

Shite poll. There's no NF/BNP or UKIP who will get my vote!

f**k the SNP.

[Ad Lib]

Shite poll. There's no NF/BNP or UKIP who will get my vote!

f**k the SNP.

One of the downsides about not being a Platinum Member is you only get one red dot to use a day.

I usually use mine sparingly, but you've justified my use for this 24 hours, that's for sure.

[Scary Bear]

This explains it.

The total regional votes for each party are divided by the number of constituency seats plus one. The party with the highest number then gets one list seat. That party then has one added to its total of seats, and the process is repeated till all the seats in the region have been allocated.

This process is the reason that Labour got the highest number of list votes in Glasgow last time, but didn't get any list seats. They'd cleaned up on the FPTP constituency seats so their regional vote total was immediately divided by ten, whereas the SNP were starting from only one seat (so divided by only two). The situation was exactly the same in the west of Scotland region.

Labour kept trumpeting that their supporters should vote Labour twice, even though it was obvious that the regional votes in Glasgow and the west of Scotland would be wasted. They all simply went down the pan.

Now if those Labour voters had given their second vote to the Lib Dems instead then that would have deprived the SNP of maybe four seats. Labour would have been the largest party and with the stronger Lib Dems they'd probably have been back in coalition with a majority.

Where I live the SNP are likely to hoover up constituencies and get nothing on the list. So here it makes sense for SNP supporters to give their regional vote to the Greens who are most likely to go into coalition with the SNP. You'll almost certainly get better value from a vote for them.

None of the parties want to broadcast the possibilities of using the regional vote for tactical voting because it scares them. It's hard to predict and control. It's not easy to explain, so it's much easier just to tell the faithful to vote twice for you. The nightmare would be getting pipped repeatedly in the FPTP constituencies and then finding the core vote had gone all over the place in the regional vote leaving you with zilch. That could happen to Labour if their supporters do what they should have done last time in Glasgow and the west.

It's easy to see why the parties shy away from a clear explanation of the regional vote and how it can work, but the press really should make an effort to help people understand.

Does that go for me in the Kirkcaldy seat?

I agree with the bit about the Press. Back in the day they explained the voting process for Holyrood, but that was ages ago. A recap would be nice. Maybe the journos should read your post and regurgitate it in their papers.

[Ivo den Bieman]

Does that go for me in the Kirkcaldy seat?

I agree with the bit about the Press. Back in the day they explained the voting process for Holyrood, but that was ages ago. A recap would be nice. Maybe the journos should read your post and regurgitate it in their papers.

You're in the Mid-Scotland & Fife region- so yes, a Green vote would definitely count there; the main candidate is a guy called Mark Ruskell, who was an MSP from 2003-7.

[renton]

North-East Fife is being tipped as one to fall to the SNP on pollingreport. Remember that the swing is both going against the Lib Dem vote and in favour of the SNP at the same time (and also a wee bit away from the Tories IIRC).

Edit: as an indication, the LDs got 16 and 11% nationally in 2007. The best recent polling gives them 9% and 8%. The SNP are from 33 and 31% to a 'worst' 40 and 35%. This means that in seats like NE Fife the Lib Dem vote should drop drastically, the SNP vote increasing significantly, and more so because the SNP are polling very well in the constituency vote.

One thing about North East Fife I'd imagine is that Ming Campbell voted against the tuition fees rise. Being the local MP for some time, and sticking to his guns like that - should afford the MSP in the area some amount of cover so long as they wheel out Campbell for every single PR event. Provisionally, I think the LDs might manage to keep that one.

At the moment I'm looking to vote SNP in the constituency and Green in the list.

For reasons of abject laziness, absent mindedness and generally proving the notion of inertia, depsite seven years living in Edinburgh I'm still registered at my parents house in Kirkcaldy. I maintain that with only a majority of 2,600 that Livingstone can be kicked out if there is a high enough turn out in the area - particularly from younger voters. I don't think an SNP vote there is necessarily a waste.

The SNP is an easy choice this time out, whatever the Labour movement stands for in it's better frame of mind (and occasionally it does seem to) is not apparent here. Someone said that the Labour movement is at it's best when being brave, and being bold. It's timid and cautious nature then, is it's very worst incarnation and that's what Scottish Labour in it's more socially conservative frame of mind represents. It's views on the justice system are abhorrent in the extreme, it's timidity regaridng the wielding of power, as subjugate to Westminster intolerable.

And that's even before you start on the sheer difference in competency levels shown by the rival party machines. I'm comfortable enough in the SNP's current dominant centre left mode in most spheres, and am wearily accepting of it's neoliberal tendencies as evinced by Swinney - it's no worse than Labour - a supposedly left wing party -have been pedlding now for years.

Green in the list was always going to be my choice. As a voice for a greater renewable industry, they are commited, I mean really commited, to growing what is potentially the lifeblood of a future Scottish economy. Theirs is a compelling counter vision of a decentralised left wing government, communal and local at the same time. Different from state centralisation but adament in it's belief of the reciprocal obnds that society requires of us.

[Broccoli Dog]

AMS Nerds Glasgow Kelvin: SNP/Green

Good idea/bad idea?

[Ad Lib]

AMS Nerds Glasgow Kelvin: SNP/Green

Good idea/bad idea?

Either SNP/Green or SNP/SNP. Labour are going to be squeaky bum on a couple of constituencies but should still pick up the lion's share.