Whilst I’ve no particular objection to Scottish independence, if that’s what the Scottish people truly want and if they can make it work, there is a bit of a thing where the SNP seems to keep on asking ‘what about now? No? OK, what about now? Still no? Fine. What about now?’
I’ve come to the conclusion, as well, that approval voting is the best possible system. In the abstract, Condorcet ranked-choice systems might be a little better, except that one essential feature of any voting system is that the people have to trust it, and they won’t trust what they don’t understand. Approval voting, in addition to having good abstract properties, has the virtue of being simple enough to be easily understood.
AV here stands for Alternative Vote, where you get a first and second choice in a single-member constituency. If no-one gets 50%+1 in first choices, the second choices are counted. So, in theory, you vote with your heart for first choice and your head for second choice. That retains the perceived MP-constituent link and avoids the complications of (say) Single Transferable preference voting (which needs multi-member constituencies and hard to second-guess counting methods, and may well still not produce a proportional result.
We had AV in the election for London Mayor, and no-one seems not to have understood how to use it.
Overjoyed illegal migrants already gathering to celebrate Labour victory.
Ah, OK, so a watered-down version of instant runoff voting (IRV). Pure IRV would have you list all of the candidates in order of preference, and go as many rounds as needed until some single candidate got over 50%. I assume that in a system with just two votes recorded per person, it’d still be possible (though less common) for a candidate to be elected without reaching 50%, especially in a many-party race.
IRV is certainly better than one-round-plurality-wins, which is about the worst possible way of running a more-than-two-way election. Compared to most other ranked-choice methods, though, its only virtue is its relative simplicity. And if nobody understood it in the London mayoral race, maybe even its simplicity isn’t much to claim credit for.
I count at least two ways that your statement disagrees with the facts in that article.
text for discourse
Ah, OK, I missed the “not”, sorry about that.
I’d still say that approval voting is as simple to understand, though, and has better features.
I’m wondering a bit about the logistics of the outgoing PM moving out of 10 Downing Street and the new one moving in. Sunak knew for a while that he’d have to vacate so presumably he was packed and ready to go. Do they typically bring much stuff with them aside from clothing when they move in? I think the US presidents bring some furniture for the family quarters.
I agree and the nationalist know they only need to win once, while they are happy to push for independence referenda until they get the answer there will not be an opporunity to rejoin the Union if the public change their mind.
The Guardian has a good article about the No 10 moving out/moving in process:
Also, it’s from the Telegraph. Which has always been right-wing but at least since the Barclay brothers bought it it has become increasingly factually unreliable and is now largely filled with bullshit on any political topic.
The Republic of Ireland has used Single-Transferable-Voting in multimember constitutancies for decades.
Reading that article, I thought it was a parody. Just putting Tory talking points into the mouths of migrants. “We were totally deterred by the big tough Rwanda plan, but now that that Rishi Sunak is gone we are totally going to get on some dinghies right now”.
Does anyone know what that “Party Krekaran” alleged nickname is about? I can’t find references to what it means anywhere.
Of course it is. Reporter “Connor Stringer”…? And the “nickname” would be any “sounds foreign so it must be funny”. Is it actually on the Telegraph website, rather than just picked up by that app?
Here it is on the Telegraph website.
Curious if anyone can do the math of if all the Lab + LD + Greens votes went to one candidate and all the Con + Ref votes went to another, what the seat count would be and which districts would change hands. Saw a few results last night which were like:
Con: 30
Lab: 21
LD: 16
Where the failure to coalesce behind one candidate kept a Conservative in power. Are there any seats which were the opposite where Con/Reform split the ticket?
My own one, for a start. Labour got the highest individual share, and therefore won the seat, but Tories + Reform = approx 51%
But what about the LibDem and Greens pushing it the other way?
Edit, never mind, i misread your post.
The chart is weird, and show how weird UK voting is Reform had a higher % than LibDem, but has only a tiny fraction of the seats LibDem won.
I have grave doubts about that.
I have a dumb question from the perspective of an American watching this play out; why did Rishi Sunak call the general election, knowing that his party was likely to lose control? I don’t think his term of office was over and I don’t think there was a vote of no confidence that forced the issue.