Yes, but we were electing three members - the top three get elected, so three votes. Incidentally, this would have been a perfect use for Approval Voting.
Yes, that’s what he meant. You have one vote, but you get to rank all three (or eight in my case) candidates.
EDIT: Actually, I got it wrong what he meant specifically
Yes, because you might dilute the “first preference” votes. They generally get around this by not just saying “Vote Jane & Jim” but “Vote Jane 1 & Jim 2”. ie the party will tell you their preferred order.
Mind you, not everyone will follow that, so having an excessive number of candidates is still bad. And, of course, there’s the cost of putting up candidates you know are never going to make the cut.
The clue is in the name “Single Transferable Vote”. You can have as many preferences within that single vote as there are candidates (or as few as one if you prefer).
Maybe, but we were electing three on the same ballot paper, so I got three votes. The STV system does work for multiple candidates.
I’ve just been told that a [del]Tory[/del] Unionist has won a seat in Glasgow.
It’s going to be interesting to see what the commentators make of yesterday’s election. In Scotland, my first thought is that the SNP seems to have done well and the Tories are consolidating the Unionist vote. We’ll see what better minds have to say.
Slightly surreal today to see Tories picking up seats in wards like Ferguslie Park, Shettleston and most of all Ravenscraig. I know it’s an artifact of the voting system, but still…
A bleak day UK-wide for Labour by the looks of it. They really ought to be gaining council seats at this stage of the cycle, but clearly the UKIP vote has largely transferred to the Conservatives. UKIP managed to lose all the seats they were defending (although they also contrived to win one from Labour).
Ultra Vires, you might find this thread from earlier this year interesting: Worldwide Dopers: How Accessible is your Head of State/Head of Government?
A couple of interesting articles from the New Statesman, about the implications of yesterday’s council elections for the general election, and arguing that the two referenda (Scottish independence and Brexit) have substantially revived the Conservative Party, which now has a clear unified voice as standing for the Union (in Scotland) and for Britain (against the EU), compared to the waffling by the Labour Party, and UKIP’s loss of its raison d’être:
Brexit and Jeremy Corbyn have paved the way for a new period of Conservative dominance
Two referendums have revived the Tories and undone Labour
The polls are showing that the Tories will likely gain several seats in Scotland, and Labour will likely not hold any, with the SNP having the majority, which is a major shift.
I found this particularly interesting:
This matches the experience in Canada with the issue of Quebec secession. From 1976 to 2014, provincial party politics in Quebec was aligned along the independence/federalism issue. That issue, not classic economic policy, dominated the discussion and was the major split between the parties. It looks like the British Tories have understood that, and Labour hasn’t. I’m not surprised that if they’re not clear on the dominant issue (Scottish independence v Union), then it really doesn’t matter what they have to say on secondary issues, like the economic ones.
And in the rest of the UK, if Labour doesn’t have a clear message on the major issue of Brexit, then they’re doomed.
Yes, so for example, when Canada wanted to have a free-trade agreement with the EU, it began negotiations in 2008. It took 8 years for the negations to reach a conclusion. Then the treaty had to be ratified, and since the treaty was considered a mixed treaty under the EU constitution, that meant that each of the EU nations had to ratify it. In turn, that meant that when the regional government of Walloonia (one of the Belgium provinces) objected to the treaty, it was on hold for several months until the Walloons accepted it.
So that’s the sort of thing that non-member sovereign states have to do to get free trade with the EU. As opposed to being a member of the EU…
Well, I’ve said elsewhere that it’ll take a decade for this all to settle out and the picture to become clear. To put that into perspective it’ll be about the time post-brexit that we are now post-creditcrunch.
A deal has been done though, it isn’t some form of arcane black-magic.
@Northern Piper: Does Canada have that deal in operation today? Or is it still somewhere in the constipated pipeline? If it’s still stuck, what’s the latest estimate for going live with the agreement?
@Novelty Bobble et al: The Canadians have the advantage that in 2008 when they started the EU free trade process and in 2015 when they’d not yet finished the process there was still an agreed set of rules under which they did in fact trade. Which rules? Whatever they were before the 2008 negotiations had started.
Its unclear to me, and perhaps other observers, that Britain will be “grandfathered” to use the current inside-the-EU rules once Britain is outside the EU until and unless whatever new agreement is reached whenever it’s reached.
Certainly the path of least bureaucratic effort = greatest bureaucratic inertia is “steady as she goes until the new deal is done.” But the fact of leaving is a massive shake to the logical and legal-technical underpinnings of the inside-the-EU rules. Such that this observer at least sees lots of likelihood that “steady as she goes” is vanishingly unlikely. IOW, IMO it’s not the most likely outcome. In fact it’s just about the least likely.
The deal is the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. Parts of it are in force already, but other parts come into force upon ratification locally.
As I understood it, the glitch last year was at the “approval in principle” stage, where the provincial government of Walloonia might have been able to veto it for all of the EU, which still seems very odd to me, 
but Justin of the Good Hair seems to have patched up that little disagreement.
And what happened with trade between 2008 and 2015? Did it happen or was there none?
There was already a raft of agreements in place on collaboration on resolving trade disputes.
Problem is the UK risks leaving with an entirely blank slate.
But the UK trades now with the EU under a set of harmonised and agreed regulations. It is arguable that there is far less work to do on both sides than with Canada et al.
Yes indeed, but the UK would be be subject to tariffs from its biggest market by far and will be changing some of those regs to appeal to other markets, and it will still take time and disrupt trade.
Oh, and we’ll no longer get to influence the direction of EU regulatory reform, so we will be losing sovereignty.
And the way this election is going, May seems determined to piss off the EU as much as possible, giving the EU no incentive to hurry along to a deal.
Do you actually have anything to back up that statement?
Accusing the EU of interfering in the election and promising to be bloody awkward?
You make politics seem like handbags on a Friday night out.