1st preference votes only?

Goibniu

If you look at recent opinion poles what would be the result if every voter gave only a first preference vote? Would this be the end of smaller parties or would it bring abou the demise of FF? Or would it have any effect on the make up of the Dáil?

Iwasfrozen

Goibniu wrote: »

If you look at recent opinion poles what would be the result if every voter gave only a first preference vote? Would this be the end of smaller parties or would it bring abou the demise of FF? Or would it have any effect on the make up of the Dáil?

It would destroy smaller parties in favour of the big ones.

imme

It´s an interesting question OP.

Sinn Fein generally get their reps elected on first prefs, as they don´t generally attract transfers, ie lower prefs.

FF, FG & Labour attract transfers, but FF & FG usually run a couple of candidates, depending on the constituency, so they´d get a number of TD´s elected per constituency regardless of transfers.
But transfers matter a great deal. Look at the case of (soon to be an after-thought, Cyprian Brady).

In the ´07 General Election Cyprian got 2.7% first prefs, yet went on to be elected to the final seat in the constituency. Because of Bertie´s surplus and transfers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Central_%28D%C3%A1il_%C3%89ireann_constituency%29
Crazy!!!!

Independents, Greens (formerly the PD´s) usually get through on last seats, so their number would be diminished if people didn´t assign anything other than 1st prefs.
Also, you`d have the weird case where most of the TD´s deemed elected wouldn`t have reached the quota, but would be elected because they had the highest 1st prefs and there was no surplus or furhter prefs to take into account in the counting process.

Your point though interesting would see the STV (Single Transferable Vote) become a meaningless title, it would be a default ´first past the post´ system in practice.

Goibniu

imme wrote: »

It´s an interesting question OP.


In the ´07 General Election Cyprian got 2.7% first prefs, yet went on to be elected to the final seat in the constituency. Because of Bertie´s surplus and transfers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Central_%28D%C3%A1il_%C3%89ireann_constituency%29
Crazy!!!!

This was the kind of thing I was thinking about when I posted the question. I don't believe Cyprian was very popular but the system got him elected.

imme wrote: »

Independents, Greens (formerly the PD´s) usually get through on last seats, so their number would be diminished if people didn´t assign anything other than 1st prefs.

Would this be a bad thing? What exactly have smaller parties / independants contributed over the last 2 decades? I'm not counting Labour as a smaller party here. It seems to me that the old wisdom that the smaller party in coalition is good because it polices the larger party is untrue. Also for independants they make national politics turn on local issues. Take the examples of Healy Rae or Lowry for example.

Having said that a first past the post system has major faults too with voter share not generally reflected in the number of seats each party wins.

Are there better alternatives?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Goibniu wrote: »

This was the kind of thing I was thinking about when I posted the question. I don't believe Cyprian was very popular but the system got him elected.

He is popular just people think of Bertie first. Every constituency likes having a leader of a party.

I'd vote for him if he wasn't in FF

ISAW

Goibniu wrote: »

If you look at recent opinion poles what would be the result if every voter gave only a first preference vote? Would this be the end of smaller parties or would it bring abou the demise of FF? Or would it have any effect on the make up of the Dáil?

It would be exactly the same as first past the post system. Assuming no candidate reached the quota and all were eliminated with no transferable votes the next preference of the lower candidates would not be counted and the highest first preference would win. ~Even if it was only say ten precent and all the others add up to ninety but none more then ten per cent.

ISAW

imme wrote: »

In the ´07 General Election Cyprian got 2.7% first prefs, yet went on to be elected to the final seat in the constituency. Because of Bertie´s surplus and transfers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Central_%28D%C3%A1il_%C3%89ireann_constituency%29
Crazy!!!!

Nothing crazy about it! The core vote was a FF vote. the surplus more then needed for Ahearn Transferred to Brady and to the other FF candidate and to others as well. Then the elimination of the other FF candidate transferred to Cyprian. That is entirely fair!

ISAW

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

He is popular just people think of Bertie first. Every constituency likes having a leader of a party.

I'd vote for him if he wasn't in FF

you could vote No 1 for a candidate who doesnt get in and your number two could transfer to Cyprian.

ISAW

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It would destroy smaller parties in favour of the big ones.

True uit would also enable majoprity governments and get rid of coalitions.

Bottle_of_Smoke

ISAW wrote: »

you could vote No 1 for a candidate who doesnt get in and your number two could transfer to Cyprian.

I don't get ya? I'd have to put him as my no2 for that to happen

woodchopper

First past the post is an electoral system which has its merits and flaws.
Firstly some critics argue that the system is somewhat undemocratic in that not all votes are politically counted. Mr A who has 5,000 votes in an electorate area and Mr B who has 3,000 votes are rendered useless if Mr C gets 12,000 votes. In this result 8,000 votes are flushed down the toilet. If there are only 20,000 votes in that area then 40% of the people are politically sidelined by the outcome. Is that Democratic?

Some proponents of the system argue that it results in strong governemnt.
PR with its multi party system weakens the overall capacity of the government as decisions have to be agreed upon across the board. This could effect the party manifesto which got them into power in the first place. By pursuing first past the post the government has full control over policy implementation.

Of course there should abide by the constitution and not proceed with demonological political agendas that could bring the entire state to its political knees.

oscarBravo

woodchopper wrote: »

Firstly some critics argue that the system is somewhat undemocratic in that not all votes are politically counted. Mr A who has 5,000 votes in an electorate area and Mr B who has 3,000 votes are rendered useless if Mr C gets 12,000 votes. In this result 8,000 votes are flushed down the toilet. If there are only 20,000 votes in that area then 40% of the people are politically sidelined by the outcome. Is that Democratic?

The bigger problem is a side-effect of this, which is that people realise that the votes for the minor parties (and independents) are effectively "wasted", and so they only vote for those whom they perceive as having a chance of winning. In this way, FPTP tends to cement two-party systems.

The (relative) success of the LibDems in the last UK election is an interesting counterpoint to that argument, of course - but it was pretty exceptional.

Some proponents of the system argue that it results in strong governemnt.
PR with its multi party system weakens the overall capacity of the government as decisions have to be agreed upon across the board. This could effect the party manifesto which got them into power in the first place. By pursuing first past the post the government has full control over policy implementation.

There's a strong case to be made for the idea that a single party's power should be held in check. Yes, each party to a coalition has to make compromises to its agenda, but that means that the final program for government is (at least in theory) a reflection of a broader spectrum of the electorate's views.

Knight990

I have to say, you really have hit on a very interesting political note, nice one. I stared at your post off in a political daze while I tried to think about how to answer the question.

I do reckon that it would mean the end of the small parties, because they thrive on latter-preference votes. There's a few ways to look at it though. On the one hand, only using first preference votes (say, for example, if we had that kind of political system) would, at a glance, most likely make the system much more efficient in terms of how our representatives are elected and how Governments are formed. Fragile coalitions would effectively be history, but on the flip side of that, its more power handed to one party.

Basically, the question in the above is: the possibility of many small parties sharing power (and thus any one of them could effectively take down the Government), or the possibility of one large party that would be difficult to remove from power if they ran out of control, but would make decisions easily. That's the choice, I reckon, and the use of latter-preference votes (or not using them) would be a huge deciding factor in this.

In contrast to the effect on smaller parties, first preference votes would definitely strengthen larger parties and if this was to be the method of voting in the coming election, I believe it would give FF more of a chance to survive (I offer no opinion on that matter by the way, simply looking at this as a theoretical discussion).

ISAW

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I don't get ya? I'd have to put him as my no2 for that to happen

When you stated "id vote for him" I thought you meant vote = no 1 preference

ISAW

woodchopper wrote: »

First past the post is an electoral system which has its merits and flaws.
Firstly some critics argue that the system is somewhat undemocratic in that not all votes are politically counted. Mr A who has 5,000 votes in an electorate area and Mr B who has 3,000 votes are rendered useless if Mr C gets 12,000 votes. In this result 8,000 votes are flushed down the toilet. If there are only 20,000 votes in that area then 40% of the people are politically sidelined by the outcome. Is that Democratic?

Well yes it it. and what about if Mr C gets 5,100 votes and gets elected when 8,000 people didn't vote for him?
This is effectively happens in the UK. One can get mid thirty percent nationally but still have a majority in parliament since none of the other candidates gets more than your candidate.