General Politics Thread

[Shades75]

7 hours ago, NotThePars said:

I couldn't give a shit if somedy is working the system to their advantage as long as the people that genuinely need the support get it. It's pretty apparent you can either allow some people to "sponge" off the state or leave vulnerable people at the mercy of an ideologically driven state. It says a heck of a lot about you which one you choose to prioritise.

This is a very succinct way of putting it.

We either accept that some will game the system or we penalise all that deserve benefits because some will take the piss.

That's before we even discuss why some people feel so hopeless that a life on benefits is the best that they can achieve.

[NotThePars]

4 hours ago, welshbairn said:

In local politics I'd prefer to vote on the candidate rather than party, but it's too important to build up momentum just now to think like that.

 

I'm in Glasgow so I'm just counting down the days till Glasgow Labour are unceremoniously booted out! 

[lichtgilphead]

3 minutes ago, Wee Willie said:

I'll sleep on it

Ok, I'll try to explain it using the seat I'll be voting in 

We have 7 candidates for 3 seats. 

Non-party candidate A - current councillor - doesn't appear to have any discernible political views. Now in his 90's

Non party candidate B - current councillor - ex labour, but left at least 2 elections ago. Not sure of his current position on indy - will ask if I see him

SNP - current leader of SNP group on council - supports indy

Green - part of Yes campaign in 2014 - supports Indy

Non party candidate C - part of Yes campaign in 2014 - ex member of SNP. I assume she still supprts indy, but I'll be asking her when I see her

Labour - enough said

Conservative - enough said

I'll definitely vote SNP 1st, Green 2nd. I'm likely to vote for the non-party candidates in the order C 3rd, B 4th & A 5th. I'll vote Labour 6th, only because they're slightly less evil than the Tories IMO

By doing this, it's likely that my vote will end up counting for a pro-indy candidate, but in the highly unlikely event that all my previous votes have either been elected or fallen by the wayside, I'll end up voting for the lesser of the 2 evils.

PS This used to be a Lib-Dem seat - they can't even get someone to stand for them these days.

[Wee Willie]

6 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

Ok, I'll try to explain it using the seat I'll be voting in 

We have 7 candidates for 3 seats. 

Non-party candidate A - current councillor - doesn't appear to have any discernible political views. Now in his 90's

Non party candidate B - current councillor - ex labour, but left at least 2 elections ago. Not sure of his current position on indy - will ask if I see him

SNP - current leader of SNP group on council - supports indy

Green - part of Yes campaign in 2014 - supports Indy

Non party candidate C - part of Yes campaign in 2014 - ex member of SNP. I assume she still supprts indy, but I'll be asking her when I see her

Labour - enough said

Conservative - enough said

I'll definitely vote SNP 1st, Green 2nd. I'm likely to vote for the non-party candidates in the order C 3rd, B 4th & A 5th. I'll vote Labour 6th, only because they're slightly less evil than the Tories IMO

By doing this, it's likely that my vote will end up counting for a pro-indy candidate, but in the highly unlikely event that all my previous votes have either been elected or fallen by the wayside, I'll end up voting for the lesser of the 2 evils.

PS This used to be a Lib-Dem seat - they can't even get someone to stand for them these days.

Well done on understanding local politics.
I've voted every chance I had since 1961 and it's always been for the SNP.
I've never bothered reading manifestos, either SNP or any other.
All I want for Christmas is Independence.
Tae hell wi' the means, it's the end that counts.
Come Independence then I'll look at all the parties tae see whit they offer.

Okay we're talking council elections here and no national ones but my sentiment is still the same - vote SNP.
Once I see the ballot paper I'll mibbe dae whit you suggest but dinnae bank on it.

Well done on a lucid post

 

 

[Bully Wee Villa]

Is there any point in voting 3, 4, 5, etc? Have those votes ever made a difference? Do they only get used when it's a tie?

[Wee Willie]

3 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

Is there any point in voting 3, 4, 5, etc? Have those votes ever made a difference? Do they only get used when it's a tie?

I forgot tae ask that question.

[lichtgilphead]

1 minute ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

Is there any point in voting 3, 4, 5, etc? Have those votes ever made a difference? Do they only get used when it's a tie?

Of course there is. With 3 (or even 4 candidates) being elected in each ward, there's a high chance that your first & second preferences will either be elected or will be eliminated before your vote is allocated. I would rather it went to a candidate that I disliked less than the Tory than not have it counted at all. 

[lichtgilphead]

Another way to think about this type of election is "Which candidate do I hate most?" and give them the high scores

Say that the candidates were BNP, Conservatives, Greens, Labour, Solidarity, SNP, UKIP 

My votes in these circumstances would be

BNP 7, UKIP 6, Conservatives 5, Labour 4, Solidarity 3, Green 2 & SNP 1

It seems counter-intuitive, but this method puts the good guys in with the maximum chance of being elected.

[Bully Wee Villa]

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think your third choice will ever come into effect with the way the voting system works, will it?

 

I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for third, etc, choices, you might as well spend the extra second doing that. Just querying whether it has ever made a difference to who was elected anywhere?

 

[DublinMagyar]

Same system is used here in Ireland too elect TDs. It often goes down to the 7th round of votes to separate the winner.

[Bully Wee Villa]

Shows what I know then!

[Bully Wee Villa]

Fucking Hell, that's more complicated than I thought! Surely then if you really hate a party your better just not to vote for them at all, rather than choosing them as your last or second last preference?

 

Cheers for explanation, btw.

 

[lichtgilphead]

Ok, here's the election results for my local council - linky

Scroll down to Ward 3, and you'll see that Donnie Macmillan, Dougie Philand and Sandy Taylor were elected. If you then click on the transfer report, you'll see a mass of figures - I'll try to make sense of them.

Valid Ballots    2892
Positions to be Filled    3
Quota    724
This means 2892 voters voted to fill 3 vacancies. 2892 divided by (3+1) is 723. Accordingly, you need 724 votes (723+1) to be elected

Stage 1    First Preferences
Charlotte HANBURY    174
Alison Jean HAY    312
Donnie MACMILLAN    409
Douglas Trevor PHILAND    1111
Wendy REYNOLDS    174
Sandy TAYLOR    712
Dougie Philand has 1111 votes. That's more than 724, so he is elected. However, Dougie has 387 votes more than he needs, so these votes are allocated proportionately amongst the 2nd choices on these 1111 ballot papers

Stage 2 - Surplus of Douglas Trevor PHILAND            
Action    Total Votes    Transfer Weight    Transfer Value
Transfer to Charlotte HANBURY    48    0.34833    16.71984
Transfer to Alison Jean HAY    216    0.34833    75.23928
Transfer to Donnie MACMILLAN    315    0.34833    109.72395
Transfer to Wendy REYNOLDS    101    0.34833    35.18133
Transfer to Sandy TAYLOR    286    0.34833    99.62238
Non-transferables    50.51322        
Wee Donnie gets most of the transfers (109 point something), but Sandy Taylor gets 99 point something, taking him over the magic 724 (712 + 99 = 811), This leaves Sandy with a surplus of  87 point something.

Here's where it gets really complicated

The third choices of the people who voted Philand 1 & Taylor 2 (or vice versa) are then allocated proportionately to their 3rd choice. In addition, the 2nd choices of the people that voted Taylor 1 and "anyone but Philand" 2 are allocated proportionately to their 2nd choice

At this point, no-one else has reached 724 votes, so the lowest total left is eliminated and their votes transferred

Stage 4 - Exclusion of Charlotte HANBURY            
Action    Total Votes    Transfer Weight    Transfer Value
Transfer to Alison Jean HAY    2    0.0376    0.0752
Transfer to Alison Jean HAY    6    0.10795    0.6477
Transfer to Alison Jean HAY    13    0.34833    4.52829
Transfer to Alison Jean HAY    77    1    77
Transfer to Donnie MACMILLAN    51    1    51
Transfer to Donnie MACMILLAN    10    0.34833    3.4833
Transfer to Donnie MACMILLAN    5    0.10795    0.53975
Transfer to Donnie MACMILLAN    2    0.0376    0.0752
Transfer to Wendy REYNOLDS    3    0.10795    0.32385
Transfer to Wendy REYNOLDS    5    0.34833    1.74165
Transfer to Wendy REYNOLDS    7    1    7
Non-transferables    47.16375        
From this point on, candidates continue to be eliminated, as no-one gets to the magic number before there are only 2 candidates left standing and the one with the higher total at this time wins.

Accordingly, the result:

Dougie Philand - elected on 1st preferences alone

Sandy Taylor - elected on a mixture of 1st & 2nd preferences

Donnie Macmillan - elected on a mixture of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th preference votes (technically, Alison Hay's 6th preference votes are also allocated to him as well)

So, in this particular election, some 5th preferences were counted. This isn't atypical

Edited April 6, 2017 by lichtgilphead
Edited & resubmitted because I can't count

[Bully Wee Villa]

Hang on where did your post go? People are going to think I was replying to myself, like a lonely Queen's Park fan in a stadium that holds 50,000.

[Bully Wee Villa]

It's back!

[lichtgilphead]

1 minute ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

Fucking Hell, that's more complicated than I thought! Surely then if you really hate a party your better just not to vote for them at all, rather than choosing them as your last or second last preference?

 

Cheers for explanation, btw.

 

Yeah, but it's simpler to start with the one you hate most and give them the highest number rather than leaving one box blank and starting with the 2nd highest number.

It's also quite satisfying to place some absolute bunch of b*stards last.

 

[lichtgilphead]

Just now, Bully Wee Villa said:

It's back!

I realised I'd f*cked up some numbers & it was easier to copy delete & repost than have someone quote me and show up my stupidity!

[Baxter Parp]

 

[strichener]

22 hours ago, AUFC90 said:

So Strichener, will you put your dislike of the EU aside and vote yes again in a future referendum ? Just curious.

No I won't put my dislike to the EU aside.  I will still vote yes.

 

22 hours ago, Randy Giles said:

He'll probably flip flop like he usually does.*

*Citation needed.

[strichener]

22 hours ago, NotThePars said:

I couldn't give a shit if somedy is working the system to their advantage as long as the people that genuinely need the support get it. It's pretty apparent you can either allow some people to "sponge" off the state or leave vulnerable people at the mercy of an ideologically driven state. It says a heck of a lot about you which one you choose to prioritise.

And if the number of people "working the system" is removing resource from the most vulnerable?  Or perhaps we just borrow and tax more to pay for this. 

The protection of the vulnerable should always be at the heart of the welfare system, identifying these people and eradicating the spongers should be part of the same process.  It is for this very reason that I made a point of saying that the cap goes hand in hand with properly identifying those that should be in receipt of DLA and PIP and therefore exempt from the cap.