According to this New York Times story, the UKIP is polling at 13% for the next British House of Commons election. The UKIP promises to take Britain out of the European Union. The Conservative government merely promises a referendum on that. Labour is committed to keeping Britain in the European Union. Therefore, it is obvious that voters who vote UKIP would prefer the Conservatives to Labour.
In 2011, Britain voted on whether to use ranked-choice voting in House of Commons elections. The Conservative Party waged a ferocious campaign against that idea. The irony is that the Conservatives may now regret their stance. The next election will come sometime within the next seven months.
This is good news for the British people. I had earlier predicted in one of my replies the UKIP within a few decades (if not sooner) would be a major party in Great Britain.
Like many in the United States, many British citizens are opposed to any form of World Government (in their case the EU) and they are also tired of having to take care of more immigrants than they can handle. I may be wrong, but from my surfing the internet this is the impression I get.
I recently heard on a national TV newscast an estimated 25% of the American people would vote for secession of their respective state if given the opportunity. And most of these people are not “haters” as the liberal press attempts to imply. They, like myself, know we are all immigrants of one sort or the other. I think most people share the position of when you come here looking for a better life, do so the legal way and assimilate into the greater American Culture.
Am I wrong?
I wish the UKIP the best in their future elections.
Part of the coalition agreement was to have fixed-length parliaments. The election will be May 7, 2015.
Were I a patriotic Englishman, I would certainly be voting for the UKIP.
Is ranked-choice the correct term for what the recent referendum was on? I thought it was STV?
I use “ranked-choice voting” as a synonym for “instant-runoff voting.” I don’t perceive any difference in those two terms.
STV, as I understand, generally refers to elections in which more than one person is being elected. Obviously in British House of Commons elections, each district is only electing a single winner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011
The EVIL corrupt MONSTERS in the Brit House of Commons have BRAINWASHED the Brit voters for about 700 plus years.
Gerrymander stuff –
UNEQUAL votes for each district winner.
UNEQUAL total votes in each gerrymander district.
About 20 percent MINORITY rule – due to the 3-5 larger parties in each district
— 1/2 or less votes x 1/2 gerrymander districts = 1/4 or less control.
USA minority rule is about 30 percent — due to the oligarchs keeping minor parties and independents off the ballots.
——
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Under STV (Single Transferable Vote), each voter has a single vote, which can be transferred to other candidates if the voter’s preferred candidate is eliminated OR if the voter’s preferred candidate is elected, and has surplus support.
It is intended for use in multi-member districts, with an intent of producing a proportional or at least pluralistic result.
Mathematically, it is described in terms of the number of candidates to be elected from each district, N. A quota, Q, is then calculated based on the total votes cast divided by N+1. A candidate who receives a quota of votes is elected. You can have N candidates with a full quota, with votes left over that are slightly less than the quota.
If N=1, the algorithm degenerates to the same as instant-runoff voting, since the quota is the total vote, divided by two (1+1). Votes are transferred until a candidate receives a majority of the votes.
It is degenerate in both a mathematical and philosophical sense, since it certainly does not produce a pluralistic result. It was introduced in Australia, where it is known as Preferential Voting, deliberately to prevent the election of Labor candidates, when there was a split of support between the Country and National parties.
In Britain it is known as the Alternative Vote, (AV), when only a single candidate is elected.
The Lib Dems have long favored use of STV (multi-member districts). Arguably, they exist to promote its use. When the coalition agreement between the Conservatives and Lib Dems was hammered out, the Conservatives offered AV, rather than STV, and said that there would have to be a referendum, but individual MPs would be free to support or oppose the measure.
The Lib Dems hoped to get something, even if it was not want they wanted. And individual Conservative MPs did campaign against the measure.
Jim Riley: STV may be legal in some jurisdictions, but if I understand it the way you have explained it above, it sounds like a system which gives certain people an extra vote or making their vote count more. Above my pay grade for sure.
Now, I do believe in Instant Runoff. I wish we had such in all states, then I think the major parties wouldn’t have as much grounds to object in giving ballot access to 3rd parties.
One of their traditional arguments is, Republicans think a “conservative-like” 3rd party will siphon off votes they need, and Democrats think a “liberal-like” 3rd party will likewise siphon off votes they need. And there is some truth to this argument.
So Instant Runoff would be a win-win for everyone, but getting the major party leadership to sit down long enough to listen and understand, will take a miracle in some states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
Quite impossible in the USA due to the many MORON voters who can NOT correctly write 1, 2, 3, etc. —
even using high tech rigable evoting machines.
—–
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Imagine you wanted to elect 5 persons to a city council. You could elect all 5 at-large by position, with a voter getting one vote for each position. The 5 that are elected would tend to be quite similar in viewpoint. If a partisan election, quite likely all would be from the same party.
Or you could give each voter five votes to vote for five separate candidates, and the top 5 would be elected. Again in a partisan election, they would likely be from the same party.
Or you could elect them from 5 districts, with the voters of each district electing one.
All of these systems are used in the United States.
But let’s say that you have 1000 voters, and you want to let them form groups of 200, with each to choose one council member. And instead of an election, everyone gets together at a convention.
The candidates stand on platforms, and voters go stand next to the platform of the candidate they prefer. Each voter only gets one choice (or vote).
If a candidate gets 200 supporters, he is elected. If no one is elected, the candidate with the least support is eliminated, and his supporters may then choose a new candidate. They still only have one choice, or vote, because their initial choice was discarded.
But imagine a candidate has 300 initial supporters, a surplus of 100 beyond what he needs to be elected. Why not let 100 supporters go choose another candidate. They still only get one choice, because the vote for their first choice is not used.
That is essentially how STV works, except of voters meeting in a convention, they fill out ballots ranking the candidates in order of preference.
Instead of voters gathering next to a candidate, piles of ballots are created based on 1st preferences. If a pile has 200 ballots, the associated candidate is elected.
If no pile is large enough, we eliminate the candidate with the smallest pile. The ballots in the pile are transferred to the remaining candidates, based on the voter’s preference order. You can think of the ballot preferences as expressing directions to the election clerks. If my first choice of Smith is eliminated, change my support to 2. Wesson; 3. Colt; 4. Remington; etc.
If a pile has more than 200 ballots, then the excess or surplus of 100 ballots is redistributed, again based on preferences that were expressed by the voter.
Each voter only gets one vote.
Jim:
Back in my home town where I was raised, the voters used to elect the Town Council in a similar fashion, but it was a non-partisan election.
All candidates qualified and were listed on the ballot in alphabetically order. Regardless, the top 5 vote getters were elected, even though the leading vote getter of the 5 might have more votes than the candidate placing 5th.
Is this what you are speaking of?
Electing an entire town council that way is not too uncommon, particularly if the town is small. If the town is small, it might be hard to divide in to districts, or find council members from every district. And voters may know many of the candidates.
The board of supervisors of San Francisco (effectively its city council) was elected in the same manner until 2000. Half of the members (6 or 5) were elected every two years.
There, the downtown business interests would support a slate of candidates. A voter might cast a vote for a single independent candidate, but might use the remainder of their votes for slate candidates. It was difficult to defeat a single member of the slate.
An opposition slate might be portrayed as too radical since they were seeking to overturn the entire board of supervisors.
Senator Dianne Feinstein began her political career under this at-large electoral system.
STV is different. Instead of letting everyone cast 5 votes, each voter is given one vote, with the goal of 1/6th of the voters electing each member (if there are 5 to be elected).
Votes are transferred based on a preference ranking. If a candidate has more than enough votes to be elected, then the excess surplus of votes are transferred. And the votes of the last place candidates are transferred to help other candidates get elected.
Cambridge, MA uses STV to elect its city councils. San Francisco voters rejected use of STV, and then switched to district elections, where each district elects one supervisor.