Strazdas wrote: » Yes to all that, but it also means they have no policies and don't believe in anything apart from staying in power. That is certainly true of Johnson, his only policy is to 'make Johnson great again'. You'd wonder though how long they can run a country like this before it crashes on the rocks.
hotmail.com wrote: » Fianna Fail had the same ideology - stay in power and shift positions to ensure they keep winning elections. Most countries have a 'party of government' that are seen as a stable force, that represent the middle ground. Cautious and prudent, reflective of the general population. Johnson on a personal high because of the vaccine success. That may wear off in time and the Tories will have no problem ditching him if he becomes a liability.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » No. Each candidate had the two boxes. You put an "X" in the left box for your preferred candidate and the right box of a different candidate to signify your second preference.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Whoosh. Thanks for the explanation. :rolleyes: Yes, it's a confusing ballot that I could make out because I'm not a moron and can read instructions. I'm not suggesting that you should put "1" and "2" in those boxes in clear contravention of the directions as given. I'm suggesting in designing the form anew that perhaps using "1" and "2" in a singular column of boxes (like we do in Ireland) might be clearer in deciding your preferences, ie. Your "first" and "second" choices. But thanks for making it clear that that point wasn't bleeding obvious. --- I've worked in the past on form simplification and plain English campaigns within the public sector. This wouldn't get out of the first of those meetings. It looks fairly malicious to me. Though I've not seen previous mayoral ballots.
breezy1985 wrote: » I always spend ages looking at them before handing them in. Some of those list and AP voting cards can be laid out or worded odd. Same goes for referendums. Last mayor's elections I seem to remember having a load of ballot cards. Mayor, list, assembly and Brexit and each one looked and operated nothing like the others
breezy1985 wrote: » I'm almost certain it was the same last time. I seem to remember doing a sort of double take when I read the instructions. I think though it probably looks more unusual to us than it would be to a London voter with no PR experience. Writing numbers would be the more unusual version for them
BonnieSituation wrote: » I'm suggesting in designing the form anew that perhaps using "1" and "2" in a singular column of boxes (like we do in Ireland) might be clearer in deciding your preferences, ie. Your "first" and "second" choices.
PommieBast wrote: » Using two columns is intended to make it easier to machine read the ballot papers. Having four columns rather than two like previous elections and making the 'A' and 'B' very small is rather suspicious..
BonnieSituation wrote: » Honestly, we should get the Brits over for our next election and show them how it's done. Don't forget that it was them that imposed it on us anyway to help Unionist minorities.
Sam Russell wrote: » I do not think they get proportional representation at all. The FPTP system has the single party candidate selected by a small constituency party committee. The European Parliament elections had to be proportional representation, so they had a list system that was entirely controlled by the political party. The system for the Scottish Assembly has a FPTP seat election (again party control) and then an opaque system of top up seats selected from a party list - again party control, but more importantly, designed to prevent a single party getting a majority. Democracy is not a strong point in the UK.
PommieBast wrote: » Make that English. Scotland uses STV for local elections and the Welsh assembly intends to introduce it.
breezy1985 wrote: » So Wales is finished with none of the final 8 list seats going to Labour for that 1 seat needed for a majority. I have tried but can't really understand the list thing and I'm surprised there isn't more uproar about it as on quick glance it looks fairly undemocratic to throw seats at the parties who can't get elected ( I know that's not what is happening but I can see how it would look that way to some)
Sam Russell wrote: » That is exactly what is happening. It is a system designed to prevent any party getting an overall majority. If they want proportional representation, then the best system is STV. It is easy to understand - vote No. 1 for you first preference, 2 for the next and so on. It only gets complicated when parties or voters want to manage the vote to get above their share of the result. Now counting is a different matter. The multiple seat variation puts the voter in charge rather than the party.
To paraphrase Oscar Wilde - To lose one Unionist leader is unfortunate, to lose two is carelessness. ... P.S This means the Chief Constable has now outlasted two of the three unionist leaders who called for his resignation. Politics is a funny old world sometimes isn't it? ... Unionism is celebrating the centenary of Northern Ireland by imploding. I’m half expecting Jim Allister to resign next
breezy1985 wrote: » I'm all for a list system where a voter gets a constituency vote and a list vote but this system almost seems designed to look shady to turn people against PR
Sam Russell wrote: » Or a deliberate perversion of democracy. If the list system was designed to balance the vagaries of FPTP - well maybe. However, it looks to deliberately pervert it. They would never use it for a Westminster election. That would be too much democracy - the voters could never understand it.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » It is designed to prevent a single party majority. The way to game the system is to have two parties. One for constituency and a parallel one for regions. Alba in theory might have been this but Greens more likely to get seats. Didn't Lib Dems insist on it when Labour granted devolution ? Otherwise it was expected Labour would have a majority.
breezy1985 wrote: » I don't fully understand it and I have tried so I can't imagine how it looks to the casual voter. Ide certainly cry foul if we had it here
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » There's no elections in Norn Iron so they've decided to have some of their own rather than feel left out.Steve Aiken to resign as UUP Leader The comments
ArmaniJeanss wrote: » The combined total of first preference constituency votes for SNP/Greens/Alba is probably the most relevant figure in terms of winning IndyRef#2, rather than exactly how many seats that percentage translates into. Seems to me that it will remain below 50% (albeit there will be small percentages of Labour & Liberal voters who would vote for independence, and also some Green voters who would vote against). But I'd still fear that they don't quite have enough to get Independence over the line, especially when the campaign rhetoric hots up.
