CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh

CEC election 2017 (May 4th)

(1269 posts)

No tags yet.


1…678…43

  1. ih
    Member

    The posts about 2 candidates from the same party in a ward sent me scurrying to the Internet to find out about the voting system. Looking at the 2012 results from my ward I can just about work out the basic principles of the single transferable vote system but there are many options in how the votes are counted. Paticularly, I can't understand how votes that have been transferred to a second choice candidate are transferred again after that candidate is eliminated, and I can't see where 3rd and subsequent choices come into the mix.

    Does anyone have a link to information on how Scottish local government elections are counted in detail?

    Posted 7 years ago #

  2. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    @ih

    By outsourcing, of course: http://www.idoxgroup.com/news-and-events/idox-news/71-idox-news/786-idox-e-counting-for-scottish-local-government-elections.html

    Northern Ireland still counts by hand even for STV elections: http://www.eoni.org.uk/Vote/Counting-the-votes

    Posted 7 years ago #

  3. Morningsider
    Member

    ih - try this from the Electoral Reform Society:

    http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/sites/default/files/What-is-STV.pdf

    Eye watering stuff.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  4. HankChief
    Member

    I couldn't see a easy guide but looking at the pdfs on CEC's website I think it goes like this...

    Count up the valid votes - say 10,000 and then calculate how many votes required to ensure victory = 2,501 votes in a 3 Cllr ward or 2,001 votes in a 4 Cllr ward. (If you have 2,501 votes, there can't be 3 others with more than you).

    This figure is key - we'll use 2,500 for simplicity.

    Any candidate(s) getting over this figure are elected and any surplus votes are apportioned over their 2nd preferences.

    So if they got 4,000 votes, they have 1,500 spare. So their 2nd choices are apportioned as 37.5% of a full vote (1,500/4,000 = 37.5%)

    If by getting the 2nd preferences votes a candidate gets over 2,500, say 3,000 votes, then they are elected and the 500 surplus is allocated to their 2nd preferences or 3rd preferences if they had voted for the first candidate originally.

    2nd preference votes weighted 16.7% (3,000/2,500)

    3rd preference votes weighted 6.2% (37.5% * 16.7%)

    And so it goes on.

    If at any stage no candidate has over 2,500 votes then the lowest scoring candidate is eliminated and their 2nd choices used.

    Simple...

    Posted 7 years ago #

  5. ih
    Member

    Thanks. With Morningsider's Electoral Reform Society link and HankChief's example, I've got it. It's complicated. Imo, if you follow the maths, there's not much point in voting for more than 2 choices, and none for voting for more than 3.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  6. acsimpson
    Member

    @ih. Can you explain your last comment? my understanding of it is that there is every point in voting for any candidate who you would be happy to have as a councillor over those you would rather remain unelected. Even if you're transferred option only counts for 6% it could swing a close election.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  7. Frenchy
    Member

    Thanks. With Morningsider's Electoral Reform Society link and HankChief's example, I've got it. It's complicated. Imo, if you follow the maths, there's not much point in voting for more than 2 choices, and none for voting for more than 3.

    Only if the candidates you're giving higher preferences are likely to get elected. It's so simple to just fill in the rest of the list that it's absolutely worth it anyway; it all counts.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  8. chdot
    Admin

    "It's so simple to just fill in the rest of the list that it's absolutely worth it anyway; it all counts."

    So if you put a number against people you really don't want to win you also increase their chances(?)

    I suppose there are people who will only vote for candidates from their favoured party.

    There will be people who vote '2nd vote Green' (other party options available). Obviously many people will vote Green as the first option. In theory if all candidates except Green got the same number of votes and every voter put Green 2nd, that wouldn't 'outvote' those with 1st preferences?

    That's obviously not realistic or 'relevant', but I'm not convinced that - in some circumstances - voting for more than the ones you really really want to see elected won't reduce their chances depending on how everyone else votes.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  9. Frenchy
    Member

    So if you put a number against people you really don't want to win you also increase their chances(?)
    Yes, but if you prefer candidate 7 to candidate 8, then you should vote as such.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  10. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Caroline Burgess – @VoteCarolineB

    Dedicated public servant, Edinburgh working mum, Babies on Buses campaigner, hoping to be LibDem council candidate for Corstorphine and Murrayfield!

    "

    https://mobile.twitter.com/VoteCarolineB

    Posted 7 years ago #

  11. ih
    Member

    @acsimpson

    I said, perhaps rather hastily, "...there's not much point in voting for more than 2 choices, and none for voting for more than 3."

    You said, very reasonably, "Can you explain your last comment? my understanding of it is that there is every point in voting for any candidate who you would be happy to have as a councillor over those you would rather remain unelected. Even if you're transferred option only counts for 6% it could swing a close election."

    I'm not suggesting the stv system is changed, it's probably as good as we can get if we want to achieve multi-party representation.

    However, if you look at the 2012 Council results, out of 17 wards, only 3 elected a member who would not have been elected on their first preference votes. These wards were Craigentinny/Duddingston, Forth, and Portobello/Craigmillar where in each case an SNP candidate who gained more first preference votes, was replaced by a Labour candidate. I suspect that this success for Labour was achieved by second preference votes from the other Labour candidate on the ballot, and other "same rough political ballpark" candidates such as Green, Socialist, Lib Dem. It might be that 3rd preferences played a very, very small part, but I expect any 4th preferences were negligible in their impact.

    I do agree though that you might as well vote for candidates that you feel comfortable with even if it has practically no effect, but where I disagree with @Frenchy is if you're selecting a fifth and subsequent preference you're basically voting for someone you don't want, so why help them?

    Posted 7 years ago #

  12. Frenchy
    Member

    so why help them?
    Because you still prefer them to the remaining alternatives.

    In a hypothetical election to a three councillor ward, we have candidates A, B, C, D and E. Purely coincidentally, that is my order of preference for them.

    In the first round of voting, candidates B and C get elected, but because I have unpopular political leanings, my preferred candidate is eliminated. Some fraction of my vote (the fraction which wasn't used getting candidates B and C elected) is still up for grabs. I don't actually want candidate D to be elected, but at this stage it's either that or the even worse option of candidate E. Abstaining at this stage doesn't make it less likely that candidate D is elected - whichever of the remaining candidates is in front after the last stage of voting gets elected, even if they don't meet the initial threshold.

    Does this make sense?

    Posted 7 years ago #

  13. chdot
    Admin

    Glasgow -

    "

    "The numbers Labour is fielding point to planning a repeat of the successful 2012 campaign but the projections, the changed dynamics and, if the SNP are brave enough to field three candidates and push Labour down, we’re talking a tally around the early 30s (from a total of 85 seats).”

    "

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14749060.Labour_power_hopes_pinned_on_Tory_deal_as_figures_show_council_election_meltdown

    Posted 7 years ago #

  14. HankChief
    Member

    I should add to my example that if yourequired candidate is eliminated because they are the lowest scoring at any stage (where nobody gets above 2,500), then your next preference gets the same weighting.

    So if your first preference is for the monster raving loony party (or equivalent), then you 2nd preference will get your whole vote when they enevitable get eliminated.

    So there is more merit in scoring all the way down the preference sheet if your first few votes are for candidates that are unlikely to be elected than if they are for likely Cllrs.

    That said, you might as well complete the list and help those candidates you prefer to have over those you wouldn't.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  15. Stickman
    Member

    The campaigns to be selected as candidates has begun. The LibDem potential candidate for Corstorphine/Murrayfield has set up a Twitter account and has followed everyone who has been commenting on the EW route, so she clearly sees it as a local issue to keep an eye on.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  16. chdot
    Admin

    "

    VOTERS will elect five extra councillors for the Capital when they go to the polls in next year’s local elections.

    The Scottish Government has approved a shake-up of Edinburgh’s council wards which includes boundary changes and the boost in numbers.

    ...

    The wards moving from three to four members are Almond, Pentland Hills, City Centre, Craigentinny/Duddingston and Portobello/Craigmillar.

    ...

    Other boundary changes see parts of Kingsknowe move from Pentland Hills ward to Fountainbridge/Craiglockhart; Morningside – no longer Meadows/Morningside – loses some of the Tollcross area but gains part of Comiston; and Forth ward loses part of Muirhouse Almond, but gains parts of Newhaven.

    "

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/capital-to-elect-extra-councillors-in-latest-shake-up-1-4233675

    Posted 7 years ago #

  17. acsimpson
    Member

    @ih, Thanks.

    The real world. It often trumps hypothetical situations.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  18. chdot
    Admin

    With maps

    http://www.lgbc-scotland.gov.uk/reviews/5th_electoral/edinburgh/

    Posted 7 years ago #

  19. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Tell Edinburgh Greens what is important for the 2017 council elections

    "

    http://www.edinburghgreens.org.uk/site/green-edinburgh-people-place-and-power

    Posted 7 years ago #

  20. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Controversial plans to end the council tax freeze next year in order to raise £100m for education have been backed at Holyrood today.

    Opposition MSPs claimed the move is "plundering" the coffers of local rate payers to fund a national initiative and undermines local democracy.

    But Finance secretary Derek MacKay's plans, which will raise the council tax in higher Band E-H properties, were passed by four votes to two on Holyrood's local government committee today.

    "

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/council-tax-rise-gets-green-light-from-msps-1-4249758

    Posted 7 years ago #

  21. chdot
    Admin

    "

    EDINBURGH’S education leader has become the latest senior councillor to announce he is to quit the City Chambers.

    Councillor Paul Godzik said he would not be standing in next year’s elections – and would leave his post as education convener at the end of the month.

    His decision comes after a string of high-profile Labour figures announced they would be stepping down, including former Lord Provosts Lesley Hinds and Eric Milligan and council leader Andrew Burns.

    "

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/our-region/edinburgh/education-boss-to-leave-post-within-a-month-1-4249409

    Posted 7 years ago #

  22. crowriver
    Member

    Again a pity, and again not surprising. Godzik has done a pretty decent job in my limited experience. He was knowledgable and listened to the voices of parents and teachers. Presumably his replacement next year will be from the SNP: I hope they can find someone with some qualities that will do the job effectively, not just toeing the party line.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  23. gembo
    Member

    Councillors burns, hinds and Godzik are our three strongest elected members. This is not about party politics it is about the quality of all representatives. Elsewhere on this forum you can easily find examples of the mad, bad and dangerous to know. Also the weak and feeble. See also bears way fiasco in east dunbartonshire

    Posted 7 years ago #

  24. Stickman
    Member

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/steve-cardownie-sues-councillor-over-online-posts-1-4251681

    I thought that defamation required that someone's reputation was harmed. What if that reputation was terrible already?

    Posted 7 years ago #

  25. chdot
    Admin

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/ex-lib-dem-councillor-to-quit-at-next-election-1-4262369

    Posted 7 years ago #

  26. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    Saw this in the Broughton Spurtle - appears to confirm, as many here would no doubt have predicted (or experienced), that Frank Ross has exceedingly bad patter...

    http://www.broughtonspurtle.org.uk/news/%E2%80%98lidl-broughton%E2%80%99-opens-its-doors

    "Having cut the ribbon, Ross – Deputy Leader of the Council, SNP Group Leader and former Economy Convener – chatted amiably to senior staff about how much better the store looked in reality than it had on the plans.

    Paul Lawrence – the Council’s Executive Director of Place – was, he assured them, a marvellously ‘open guy’ who ‘really gets Development … understands how important it is’ and is ‘streets ahead of the others’, whoever the others may be and whatever the streets that divide them. Not that we were eavesdropping from behind the biscuits or anything."

    Posted 7 years ago #

  27. PS
    Member

    I've heard good things about Paul Lawrence. His twitter feed suggests he "gets it"*. For instance, he retweeted this. And one of kaputnik's local transport schematics.

    Also appears to be a fan of the Dominion, Cameo, Bob Dylan and Tom Waits. He would fit right in as a CCE'er (if he doesn't already...)

    *No, DaveC, not that "it". ;-)

    Posted 7 years ago #

  28. Klaxon
    Member

    He is of course a civil servant so publicly will have to remain relatively neutral and his twitter reflects this in a 'look what this other person said' kind of way

    Posted 7 years ago #

  29. chdot
    Admin

    "

    SCOTTISH Labour is set to come third behind the Tories in next year’s council elections in a repeat of their humiliation at Holyrood, the country’s leading polling expert has said.

    Professor John Curtice said recent council by-election results had been “uniformly appalling” for Labour and indicated the party would suffer a 13 per cent swing to the SNP.

    That would see Labour’s vote share fall from the 31 per cent it achieved in 2012 to around 18 per cent, roughly the same as the Conservatives are expected to poll.

    "

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14812068.Kezia_Dugdale_s_Labour_facing_council_polls_meltdown

    I expect Edinburgh will be different (not least because Greens are likely to get quite a few seats).

    Posted 7 years ago #

  30. PS
    Member

    not least because Greens are likely to get quite a few seats

    Greens may well be best bet to preserve Labour's cycling commitments/achievements.

    Posted 7 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…678…43

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin