I believe there’s some evidence from countries which use STV that there is a strong correlation between alphabetical order and number of 3rd, 4th, etc preferences. In other words, lots of people preference their first and second choices then fill in the others in the order they appear on the ballot paper. Sorry I can’t be more specific about where or when this was published, but IIRC it was some time in the late 1980s (I was returning officer for a students’ union election at the time, so I was reading up on STV).
In any event, it’s better than the abominable party list system which we now have for European Parliamentary elections, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.
Steve, I can’t work out whether you want the deposit abolished because it isn’t effective in discouraging freaks or because you don’t think freaks should be discouraged.
They don’t. In 1997 we had the Juice Party, the Mongolian Barbequeue Great Place to Party and the Heart 106.2 Party, all of which were publicity stunts for commercial concerns. In this election, the Daily Star is standing a Page 3 model as a candidate somewhere in Manchester and I believe at least one local radio station is also standing a candidate.
Regulations would be extremely difficult to draw up in principle; and ultimatley somebody would have to be appointed as the arbiter of which candidates were legitimate and which were advertising stunts. We now have a mechanism for preventing certain types of bogus candidate throught the Registration of Political Parties Act (e.g. the “Literal Democrat” who won several thousands of Lib Dem votes in one constituency in 1997), but all that is required is for the registered party to have a name and symbol that is not likely to be confused with another party. And in any event, you don’t have to belong to a registered party to stand in an election – nor should you, given that local circumstances often throw up a new party or independent candidate at the last minute (e.g. the NHS candidate in Wyre Forest this time round).
Anyway, as you rightly point out, the number of candidates losing their deposit is not necessarily representative of the number of frivolous candidates. The Tories lost at least one deposit in 1997, and the Greens, (various) anti-European parties and far-right parties lose their deposits on a regular basis.
I’d rather see freaks discouraged for being freaks, rather than for not having the money for the deposit.
I agree, it’s difficult to decide fairly who’s a freak and who isn’t. I think most of us would agree that the likes of the BNP are serious - utterly repulsive, but not freaks - but what about the obsessive Euro-skeptics? Or the Natural Law Party? Where can we draw the line? It just seems to me that the current system, where we allow (to pick one example from the Electoral Commission’s website) the Jam Wrestling Party to stand, merely because they have the money for a deposit (while someone perhaps more serious does not), is unsatisfactory. And, if it has to be changed (not that it necessarily does, no system is perfect, many people can live with this one), then I am in favour of increasing access rather than decreasing it. That is, I will put up with the freaks, rather than see people with legitimate points prevented from standing.
Anyway. I’m off to the polling station. Perhaps I shall scribble “off the electoral radar” on my paper, in honour of this thread.
Since when has anyone paid attention to what they read in the paper ?
Labour are going to win, tough.
Part of the reason Labour are so strong is that they have stolen some policies from the tories and lib dems, they have moved to the centre, because if you don’t get in you can’t do anything !
If labour went more lefty then the lib dems and tories would get more votes, vote for who you think should rule.
BTW I read the telegraph even though i am big lefty, all the other papers are crap.
And so we already start to see the future of the country shaped by the vote.
Hague has resigned.
All political commentators are saying that the landslide is due to the party’s racist attitude, taxless approach and general extreme right-wingedness of the Tories.
As such the next leader is going to have to be someone who will take the Tories leftwards once again.
This will threaten Labour’s new position as the darlings of the centre-right and will encourage them to seek to take back the liberal high ground from the LibDems.
And so by doing our duty and NOT voting Tory we’ve helped set a more appropriate political agenda.
Despite his recent efforts to show his sensitive, caring, ex-gay side, I really don’t see Michael Portillo successfully re-inventing himself as a centrist.
Ken Clarke? From an outsider’s perspective, he might be a better choice… but could he successfully sell himself to the Europhobes in the Conservative party?
Who else is there? Chris Patten? Anne Widdecombe…?actually, now I think about it, that’s not wholly implausible. She’s got the drive, and she’s one of the few Tory heavyweights who’s viewed by the public with some sort of affection. What do you lot think? Time for the Tories to get themselves a strong female leader again?
Although I’d agree that she is a heavyweight, it wouldn’t be from the political point of view.
And I’m not sure how you claim she’s viewed affectionately by the british public. Look at the reception she got for her “Zero tolerance” philosophy on drugs. All in all I’d say she’s actually less popular than Hague, which is an achievement in itself.
Widdicombe? Popular amongst the rabid right maybe. Held in amazed contempt by everyone else.
They’re also talking Ian Duncan-Smith and David Davies. Either way the party is going to HAVE to be a lot more tolerant and, yes, even libertarian if it wants to survive in the future.
The big problem for the Tories is that the '97 vote was not just a high water mark but is now a proven, sustained opinion that is pro-Labour and anti-Tory.
They have made absolutely no progress whatsoever despite all their promises which, quite frankly, the electorate see as being either unrealistic or just plain lies.
Tory campaigning in my view was slightly arrogant in that it hardly addressed the most basic concerns of Joe Public such as education, healthcare, pensioners welfare, it was all about low taxation - which is seen as just selfish and greedy and about Europe and immigration which was seen as either racist or just clinging on to a past that never was.
What it has done is to give the next Tory party leder much more power to force though change against the old outdated right wing ideals as these have again been rejected by the public.
Good riddance to the Tories I say, set of reactionary, insular, racist, homophobic bigots!!
