GordonS Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 On 16/08/2024 at 15:16, welshbairn said: I don't think it's right that a candidate can stand both for the constituency and the regional party list. If they're rejected by their constituency they shouldn't get to sneak in the back door by people who likely don't know who they're voting for. That's completely misunderstanding the point of PR. The vast majority of candidates are rejected by the electorate, hardly any get more than 50%. Should none of them get elected? There are several people in the Scottish and UK parliaments who got less than 35% of the vote, and elsewhere there were candidates that came second with over 40%. Could you say that someone that gets a larger share was rejected by the electorate, while someone with a smaller share was accepted? The reality is that voters very rarely vote for a candidate over a party. Most don't even know who the candidate is for the party they're voting for. The regional vote is more important and fairer than the constituency vote. The point of PR is to reflect the reality that the vast majority of us are voting for a party and not an individual. Following through the consequences of what you're saying, a party could get 35% in every constituency in a region and win none of them. But instead of getting some of the candidates that got 35% in their constituencies elected through the regional vote, they've to get 4 or 5 completely different people? The real answer to the problem you pose is open lists, where you can rank the candidates within the party lists, but it's pretty confusing for voters. Loads of countries use this method. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 2 minutes ago, GordonS said: That's completely misunderstanding the point of PR. The vast majority of candidates are rejected by the electorate, hardly any get more than 50%. Should none of them get elected? There are several people in the Scottish and UK parliaments who got less than 35% of the vote, and elsewhere there were candidates that came second with over 40%. Could you say that someone that gets a larger share was rejected by the electorate, while someone with a smaller share was accepted? The reality is that voters very rarely vote for a candidate over a party. Most don't even know who the candidate is for the party they're voting for. The regional vote is more important and fairer than the constituency vote. The point of PR is to reflect the reality that the vast majority of us are voting for a party and not an individual. Following through the consequences of what you're saying, a party could get 35% in every constituency in a region and win none of them. But instead of getting some of the candidates that got 35% in their constituencies elected through the regional vote, they've to get 4 or 5 completely different people? The real answer to the problem you pose is open lists, where you can rank the candidates within the party lists, but it's pretty confusing for voters. Loads of countries use this method. I prefer a direct loçal vote for the person people want to represent them to a vote for random nominees picked by party HQs. If you can't convince your constituency to vote for you, you shouldn't be in representative politics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonS Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 On 16/08/2024 at 13:09, MacDuffman said: I disagree that they got the votes. If you look at this description the SNP clearly got the most votes in the Regional Vote but as they won the Constituency Vote they end up having less Members - how is this what people voted for. I understand its about fairness & Proportional Representation but how can the Party that get the most Regional votes end up getting the least or no MSP's - its as if they are being punished for winning the Constituency vote. My Area was the same - SNP got the most votes but there are no SNP Regional MSP's - totally out voted by Tory/Labour. Imagine a party gets 51% in every constituency in a region and of the regional votes. Say the region it has 9 constituencies and the usual 7 regional seats. What they would get now is the 9 constituencies and possibly none of the regional seats, leaving them with 9 of the 16 seats - over their fair share of the 16, but not far, and leaving 7 seats to be split among parties that got 49% of the vote. With your suggestion, they would win the 9 constituencies and 4 of the regional seats, giving them 13 seats and leaving 3 seats to be shared between parties that got 49% of the vote between them. That's obviously massively less proportional or fair, and the whole point of the regional vote is to make it more proportional and fairer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheese Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 45 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said: I see she has pulled out. Has she pulled out the race? Thought she'd just quit as deputy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salt n Vinegar Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 1 hour ago, welshbairn said: I prefer a direct loçal vote for the person people want to represent them to a vote for random nominees picked by party HQs. If you can't convince your constituency to vote for you, you shouldn't be in representative politics. I know that I've banged on about this before, but under the present arrangements in the UK system, you can be so far down the party list that you've no chance of being elected on the regional list, but because your face fits, or you donate enough to the party, or you support particular campaigns, that you just wait six months, get booted up into the "Lords" and be appointed as an Under Secretary of State for Scotland. Never mind being elected by a minority of the votes, we had a guy who was absolutely rejected by the electorate put into the Government of Scotland. Step forward Malcolm "Lord" Offord. Fifth (yes, fifth) on the Tory list in the Lothians in 2021 (so even his own local party didn't fancy him much), gloriously unelected, then was made a life Peer in September of the same year and days later was given a Government position. Democracy my @rse. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 3 hours ago, welshbairn said: I prefer a direct loçal vote for the person people want to represent them to a vote for random nominees picked by party HQs. If you can't convince your constituency to vote for you, you shouldn't be in representative politics. I'm irrationally curious about how that cedilla ended up in that sentence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 (edited) 11 minutes ago, BFTD said: I'm irrationally curious about how that cedilla ended up in that sentence. Çñàß My tablet goes foreign if I do more than a sharp tap on the keys Edited August 19 by welshbairn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrbridgeSaintee Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 4 hours ago, Cheese said: Has she pulled out the race? Thought she'd just quit as deputy. You’re right, my bad! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacDuffman Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 15 hours ago, GordonS said: Imagine a party gets 51% in every constituency in a region and of the regional votes. Say the region it has 9 constituencies and the usual 7 regional seats. What they would get now is the 9 constituencies and possibly none of the regional seats, leaving them with 9 of the 16 seats - over their fair share of the 16, but not far, and leaving 7 seats to be split among parties that got 49% of the vote. With your suggestion, they would win the 9 constituencies and 4 of the regional seats, giving them 13 seats and leaving 3 seats to be shared between parties that got 49% of the vote between them. That's obviously massively less proportional or fair, and the whole point of the regional vote is to make it more proportional and fairer. Thanks. This clears it up for me. Had completely forgot that there were other Constituencies in the Region. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Pennel Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 On 15/08/2024 at 11:29, MacDuffman said: Was looking at my MSP's the other week and found this. I had no idea that twat was one of my Regional MSP's https://www.parliament.scot/msps/current-and-previous-msps/search-results?postcode=g67 2en Just shows how bad the AMS Formula is as there is no way that Central Scotland would vote in 3 Tories, 3 Labour & 1 Green. What is the point in regional voting when the Party you vote for doesn't get the seats and numpties like Kerr & Murdo get jobs for life without ever winning anything. Do you really want the tories tae know yer postcode ? They'll hunt you down or, at least, leaflet ye without mercy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 (edited) On 15/08/2024 at 11:29, MacDuffman said: Was looking at my MSP's the other week and found this. I had no idea that twat was one of my Regional MSP's https://www.parliament.scot/msps/current-and-previous-msps/search-results?postcode=g67 2en Just shows how bad the AMS Formula is as there is no way that Central Scotland would vote in 3 Tories, 3 Labour & 1 Green. What is the point in regional voting when the Party you vote for doesn't get the seats and numpties like Kerr & Murdo get jobs for life without ever winning anything. Checked mine and I've got 4 Tories including Dougie fkn Ross, plus one each for Labour, Green and SNP. Constituency MSP is SNP. f**k knows how that came about. Highlands and Islands region. Edited August 19 by welshbairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherrif John Bunnell Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 You can go and see the awful Tory b*****d at the Fringe tomorrow. And he'll be chatting with Douglas Ross. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 (edited) 18 hours ago, GordonS said: Imagine a party gets 51% in every constituency in a region and of the regional votes. Say the region it has 9 constituencies and the usual 7 regional seats. What they would get now is the 9 constituencies and possibly none of the regional seats, leaving them with 9 of the 16 seats - over their fair share of the 16, but not far, and leaving 7 seats to be split among parties that got 49% of the vote. With your suggestion, they would win the 9 constituencies and 4 of the regional seats, giving them 13 seats and leaving 3 seats to be shared between parties that got 49% of the vote between them. That's obviously massively less proportional or fair, and the whole point of the regional vote is to make it more proportional and fairer. There is 1 slight imbalance in our current system... every region elects 7 additional MSPs, but while most regions contain 9 constituencies, both North-East and West have 10 but Highland just 8 (plus 3 of those have abnormally low populations being Orkney, Shetland, and Western Isles). In consequence the teuchters are effectively slightly over-represented IIRC. 18 hours ago, welshbairn said: I prefer a direct loçal vote for the person people want to represent them to a vote for random nominees picked by party HQs. If you can't convince your constituency to vote for you, you shouldn't be in representative politics. Be thankful we're not Wales where a Labour/Plaid stitch up has just abolished the constituencies leaving only the regional lists; plus increased the number of members from 60 to 96. In future you will only be able to vote for parties in Wales and won't have an individual constituency rep (it's also being made closed list so parties decide the candidates and their order: the voter cannot rank them like in Scottish council elections). I think they did drop plans to mimic Northern Ireland and let parties pick replacements when somebody resigns/dies, rather than hold a by-election (like in our council elections) or take the next person on that party's original list (like in our Holyrood elections). Edited August 19 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 1 hour ago, Sherrif John Bunnell said: You can go and see the awful Tory b*****d at the Fringe tomorrow. And he'll be chatting with Douglas Ross. Not sure who to boo - DRoss or Britney? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrewDon Posted August 25 Share Posted August 25 Desperate stuff, this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheese Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 Still going well I see... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.