View Full Version : Holyrood - So what happens now ?
What a mess!
I wonder what happens from now on. I suppose that there
are procedures to be followed and dates set for things to be done by but if anyone knows the details it would be really helpful if you can enlighten me :)
What happens for example if Labour+Lib Dem make an alliance, who would then be first Minister ?
I see the Sir Menzies Cambell has ruled out a coalition with SNP if they insist on holding to their election manifesto of offering the people a referendum on independence. Afraid to give people the choice to choose for themselves I suppose.
Who's going to be Firstminister? :confused
With all the fiasco, there will be the same disgruntled party politics that followed Bush's hijack of the Florida 2000 election because of the spoiled ballots. Legal challenges after legal challenge. :lol:
Gogglebox
04-May-07, 21:05
There will have to be a bit of horse trading now to secure 65 votes to elect a First Minister
If SNP asked Liberal and the Green MSPs to vote with SNP on its programme in return for seats in the cabinet and SNP supporting some of there policies or SNP offering to dilute some of theirs then a government will be formed
However the coallision can easily crash if there was a disagreement over a particular issue eg Independance and they have to renegotiate a coallision or go back to the electorate
In the unlikely event that the parties cannot agree a Fist Minister within 28 days then its got to go back to another election. Imagine how popular that would be so id imagine the will sort themselves out
Welcome to Banana Republic Politics! Should cause a few laughs if nothing else!
Jeemag_USA
04-May-07, 22:07
What a bunch of rubbish. The party with the most seats should have the minister, whats the 65 seat deal? It should be illegal to form a coalition after an election has taken place, if parties want to form a coalition it should be done before voting takes place, and I think they shoudl be made to wait for the next election to form any coalitions. What happened to majority rules, onlif its 65?
Confusing the hell out of me anyway :eek:
j4bberw0ck
04-May-07, 22:10
As a wiser man than me once said: "It doesn't matter who you vote for, the Government still gets in."
As a wiser man than me once said: "It doesn't matter who you vote for, the Government still gets in."
LOL ! A very wise man!
According to this article it seems that SNP had already accepted the possibility of going it alone as a minority government. Would that mean that getting extra seats by way of a coalition is something which might be nice, but is not absolutely essential ?
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=217782003
Swinney: Minority rule best for SNP
DAVID SCOTT
THE Scottish National Party is preparing to go it alone and form a minority administration if it becomes the largest party in the parliament after the Holyrood elections in May.
John Swinney, the party leader, has concluded that a minority government is the party’s best option, senior SNP sources confirmed last night.
The only coalition the SNP would contemplate is with the Liberal Democrats, but Jim Wallace, the Scottish Lib Dem leader, has angered Nationalists by refusing to consider such a pact, saying the possibility does not arise because the SNP has no chance of being the largest party.
Mr Swinney has told aides: "Don’t presume that a coalition is my favoured option."
His proposals would create difficulties for an SNP administration in pushing through its election pledges, especially its commitment to holding a referendum on independence.
But the SNP leader has privately told his allies in the party that a minority government could bring benefits by freeing the parliament from the restrictions of a coalition and allowing it to "breathe".
The chances of the Nationalists becoming the largest party could be influenced by the situation in Iraq during the run-up to the poll on 1 May.
Tony Blair’s tough line and divisions within Labour on the issue have already produced signs of a collapse in the party’s popularity in Scotland, although opinion polls have brought mixed results for the SNP.
Earlier this month, a poll by NFO System Three revealed a sudden eight-point drop in Labour support. However, an opinion poll for Scotland on Sunday, the sister paper of The Scotsman, in January, showed Labour is on course to remain the largest party.
So far, the only party the SNP has publicly declared it would not be prepared to join in a coalition is the Tories.
Officially, the SNP is presently unwilling to comment publicly on the prospect of forming a minority government.
A party spokesman said: "Discussions about any possible coalition negotiations after the SNP victory in May are best had at that time and not now."
However, Mr Swinney is currently talking up the prospect of a minority government with his senior colleagues and advisers, saying it could liven up the Parliament, encourage genuine debate and make it more democratic.
Critics of the scheme are likely to dismiss it as a proposal that would lead to unstable government and as a possible cop-out for Mr Swinney on the controversial issue of a referendum on independence.
The SNP leader has been criticised by opponents within and outwith the party, as being lukewarm on independence. The creation of a minority government could allow Mr Swinney to argue that there would be no point in pressing ahead with the party’s referendum policy because it could not be approved by the Parliament.
But SNP sources stress that Mr Swinney is totally committed to a referendum and that, even in a minority government situation, there would be no backtracking. They have confirmed the party leader will attempt to lead a bill through the Scottish parliament if he becomes First Minister.
zenmaster
04-May-07, 22:34
The SNP leader has been criticised by opponents within and outwith the party, as being lukewarm on independence.
In his latest bbc interview his preference is for a coalition to create "stable government". He knows that he has to appear moderate so that the SNP credibility can be embedded in general voters opinion. Any referendum is some way off I think.
I feel really miffed, the SNP came to the electorate on an Independence ticket seems to be unlikely to honour its election promises!!
Wind of change my left foot...[disgust]
zenmaster
04-May-07, 23:16
I wouldn't be suprised if Salmond is engouraged by the top European Union guys who may take the view that the break up of the UK makes it easier to expand the Euro Union.
Jeemag_USA
04-May-07, 23:53
I wouldn't be suprised if Salmond is engouraged by the top European Union guys who may take the view that the break up of the UK makes it easier to expand the Euro Union.
I'd go for it on condition the currency can be called the McEuro :)
I wouldn't be suprised if Salmond is engouraged by the top European Union guys who may take the view that the break up of the UK makes it easier to expand the Euro Union.
How much independence will Scotland have in an expanded EU whilst shackled to the Euro?
Cedric Farthsbottom III
04-May-07, 23:58
Can somebody shed some light on this for me.Does the result 47 SNP and 46 LAB include the party list votes as well?:confused Man,I thought voting was supposed to be easy.:confused
According to this article it seems that SNP had already accepted the possibility of going it alone as a minority government. Would that mean that getting extra seats by way of a coalition is something which might be nice, but is not absolutely essential ?
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=217782003
Swinney: Minority rule best for SNP
DAVID SCOTT
THE Scottish National Party is preparing to go it alone and form a minority administration if it becomes the largest party in the parliament after the Holyrood elections in May.
John Swinney, the party leader, has concluded that a minority government is the party’s best option, senior SNP sources confirmed last night.
And so on.
Yay! Scorrie's steam powered Tardis is working overtime tonight.
I wouldn't be suprised if Salmond is engouraged by the top European Union guys who may take the view that the break up of the UK makes it easier to expand the Euro Union.I would be. The arch expansionist is our very own Tony Blair. :roll:
He's busy hanging on to sell us out with the new European Constitution - sorry, that word is not to be mentioned any more - European Treaty.
Remember, the promise of a referendum only applies specifically to a proposed "Constitution", now a "Treaty", well he never promised one for that did he? The arrangements are to be made in June (when is he talking about going?) with details thrashed out later but that should be done in secret
The "Treaty" is to be re-worded so it does the same thing as the former "Constitution" without appearing to do so. It will, of course, still include having an EU Foreign Minister to make Foreign Policy and represent Europe at the UN and, more importantly it is intended to create a European --- wait for it --- President!
Now I wonder who is busy buttering up European Leaders and is going to be available to be the President of the United States of Europe?
Does anybody need more than one guess about who that might be?
JAWS,
President Tony has been my suspicion for many years.
Mind you, I have read he might become the worlds messiah by resolving all the differences religion raises....
Gogglebox
05-May-07, 20:48
Unbelievable!!
On Radio 5 it just said that Labour are considering taking legal action against the spoilt votes in the Scottish Election
Now I could understand any of the other partys considering it but Labour who are the incumbent in Scotland who denied the Tory motion in Holyrood run the Council Elections on a different day which seems to have caused all the problem and it was Labour London who run the Scottish Office that ran the elections.
They are desperatelly trying to hang on to power, Very unseemly!
I wonder what the backlash would be against the partys if a rerun was called for!!!
I feel really miffed, the SNP came to the electorate on an Independence ticket seems to be unlikely to honour its election promises!!
Wind of change my left foot...[disgust]
It can hardly have an election referendum without a majority................and a majority means a coalition with parties who won't wear a referendum...............Catch 22?
At least they would have a reason for reneging on manifesto commitments...........unlike other Governments who just conveniently put them on the back burner, and hope nobody notices.
As a nationalist, and somebody who'd like nothing more than Independence, I'm inclined to think that, given two thirds of the electorate voted for unionist parties, they'd be more sensible to put off the Independence vote until another time in order to become the Government and show they aren't the scary people that the Unionist parties make them out to be.
The change will be no cosy meetings at Westminster so that Bliar or Brown can give them their instructions for the next month! [lol]
Can somebody shed some light on this for me.Does the result 47 SNP and 46 LAB include the party list votes as well?:confused Man,I thought voting was supposed to be easy.
It does, Cedric.
And I noticed that most of the Councils in Scotland are like the Scottish Parliament now, with no overall control on most of them......the next four years should be fun! :confused
How much independence will Scotland have in an expanded EU whilst shackled to the Euro?
Would Scotland be shackled to the Euro............I wasn't aware that that was a decision already made?
And I guess they'd have as much independence as the UK does! :roll:
100,000 Votes is quite an amount though.
According to one of the Scottish Labour daily newspapers (The Sun) today it was the Lib Dem's who requested the Council votes should be done at the same time. They also say Scotland was used as guinea pigs to try out the new electronic voting system. This would not surprise me as Scotland always seems to be guinea pigs for Westminster and the poll tax and smoking ban also springs to mind. I wonder what would happen if Scotland had independence who would they experiment on then?
I see the usual Greens (Lib Dem's) managed to get back in here with their 100% renewables pledge and can now expect a sea of windmills popping up all over the county. It must be great being a Lib Dem as you always return to power regardless due to the stupid 65 seat rule. Their hero Tavish Scott of Shetland managed to get elected again but lets all hope Alex keeps him on the straight and narrow with hair brained schemes like charging motorists by the mile if a coalition with the Lib Dem's is on the cards. What if Labour stick with them as they were quite cushy with them before the election?
j4bberw0ck
05-May-07, 23:42
And I guess they'd have as much independence as the UK does! :roll:
No, not really. If Scotland joins the EU as a nation state and adopts the euro then it'll be like Portugal or Ireland; a small country with no effective voice trying to manage with a one-size-fits-all economic management system based in Brussels. Economic policy (interest rates) is set to suit the German economy as Portugal and Ireland have found to their cost in the last few years. Even the French are struggling to have enough influence to have the ECB take their economy into account. Italy (always a basket case) is on its economic knees trying to live within a system geared for Germany.
The UK, as you may have noticed, sets its own interest rates and so has managed to avoid some of the problems of the eurozone. Not that it didn't have Gordon Brown creating a different set of troubles.....
No, not really. If Scotland joins the EU as a nation state and adopts the euro then it'll be like Portugal or Ireland; a small country with no effective voice trying to manage with a one-size-fits-all economic management system based in Brussels.
And that is any different to what happens to Scotland at the moment..just replace based in Brussels with based in London and the South of England for Germany? :roll:
And do we have any voice in it at all?
Anyway, there would likely be a referendum about joining the Euro (SNP policy at least)........so it'd be up to us.
Unbelievable!!
On Radio 5 it just said that Labour are considering taking legal action against the spoilt votes in the Scottish Election
It is funny how we in Scotland think that Bush hijacked the 2000 election for the very same reason.
It can hardly have an election referendum without a majority................and a majority means a coalition with parties who won't wear a referendum...............Catch 22?
At least they would have a reason for reneging on manifesto commitments...........unlike other Governments who just conveniently put them on the back burner, and hope nobody notices.
As a nationalist, and somebody who'd like nothing more than Independence, I'm inclined to think that, given two thirds of the electorate voted for unionist parties, they'd be more sensible to put off the Independence vote until another time in order to become the Government and show they aren't the scary people that the Unionist parties make them out to be.
The change will be no cosy meetings at Westminster so that Bliar or Brown can give them their instructions for the next month! [lol]
They have failed democracy.
32% of the votes were for the SNP, 50% of the electorate voted, which means 16% are responsible for Salmond's pseudo-presidential outbursts.
j4bberw0ck
06-May-07, 00:14
And that is any different to what happens to Scotland at the moment..just replace based in Brussels with based in London? :roll:
Well, yes, actually, it's different. Interest rates are set for the UK economy which )including Scotland) is far more of a services-based economy than most in Yurp. Scotland's prosperity has been intertwined with the rest of the UK's. Having economic conditions set for the German economy might be very much worse.
And do we have any voice in it at all?Now, now, your paranoia is showing :lol: <-----humour. Yes, actually. The Bank of England regularly sends members of the Monetary Policy Committee to meet. businesspeople, Enterprise companies and the like all over the UK. I've been to three such meetings in Kirkwall, most recently chaired by the Deputy Governor. And they do listen.
Also Edinburgh as a centre of financial services is important enough to be very much on the Treasury radar. Plus of course, the Labour party has in recent years had a lot of people to keep in jobs there.
Anyway, there would likely be a referendum about joining the Euro (SNP policy at least)........so it'd be up to us.Yes, but a referendum doesn't mean the best business / economic decision would be taken. The down side of democracy is that the loonies are indeed free to take over the asylum if they can; but everyone should be free to shoot themselves in the foot if they wish.
Sorry, I know I'm mixing my metaphors, but it's getting late.
Just so long as voters understand that once in to the euro, there's no way out - and all voters should clearly understand what happened to Portugal under the euro. When Brussels decided the Portuguese were being very naughty and not listening (to Brussels), they simply took over the running of the Portuguese economy for a while, slashed spending, raised taxes and made a lot of people jobless. So much for independence, huh?
The eurocrats won't be impressed by blue woad, raised kilts and a lot of patriotic fervour.......
Bring on the EU!! I love all their foibles. Which part of Scotland can a haggis only be made??
They have failed democracy.
32% of the votes were for the SNP, 50% of the electorate voted, which means 16% are responsible for Salmond's pseudo-presidential outbursts.
Who have failed democracy?
The Executive who wouldn't listen when they were advised not to have both elections on the same day?
Or the LibDems who were the prime movers in the STV for councillors as a condition of their coalition with Labour last time round leading to the two different methods of voting?
Or the Scotland Office who forgot to tell Councils about the change in the Postal Ballot papers so that all the ballot forms weren't available at the correct time to ensure that they all got out and back?
Or the Scottish Office and Executive who decided on electronic vote counting?
Who are you talking about?
Who have failed democracy?
The Executive who wouldn't listen when they were advised not to have both elections on the same day?
Or the LibDems who were the prime movers in the STV for councillors as a condition of their coalition with Labour last time round leading to the two different methods of voting?
Or the Scotland Office who forgot to tell Councils about the change in the Postal Ballot papers so that all the ballot forms weren't available at the correct time to ensure that they all got out and back?
Or the Scottish Office and Executive who decided on electronic vote counting?
Who are you talking about?
The difference in the vote from labour and SNP was ~50,000, spoilt ballots was 100000.
The difference in the vote from labour and SNP was ~50,000, spoilt ballots was 100000.
True................but are you really telling me that if the situation was reversed, and Nulabour.............or any other party come to that.....was in the same position they'd do any differently..................and would you even have mentioned it if it hadn't been the SNP who won? :roll:
That's the system in place...........and one set up by Nulabour at that...........so shouldn't the consequences have to be lived with..as they have to be every time Nulabour does something monumentally stupid?
And you are, of course, assuming that 100,000 extra votes would have made a difference to the final result.......and it might well not have.
The problems most of the various forms of Proportional Representation Systems eventually have is already showing up with Holyrood.
Not even two of the larger parties, which are the ones the vast majority of people voted for, can command an overall majority in the Parliament. This means that the three MSPs from the Greens, it just happens to be the Greens in this case, can make demands, threats and cause untold disruption out of all proportion to the amount of support they got from the Electorate.
They can, in effect, make it almost impossible for any coalition to operate without their consent.
The only way to stop them is for Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dems all to be in agreement on any particular piece of legislation.
Can anybody really see that happening? I certainly can't!
dunderheed
06-May-07, 07:22
does anyone know how many papers were spoiled in the cunningham north seat? this seems to be the seat that labour are protesting about as the snp majority was only 48.
peter macdonald
06-May-07, 10:36
Originally Posted by Oddquine
Who have failed democracy?
The Executive who wouldn't listen when they were advised not to have both elections on the same day?
Or the LibDems who were the prime movers in the STV for councillors as a condition of their coalition with Labour last time round leading to the two different methods of voting?
Or the Scotland Office who forgot to tell Councils about the change in the Postal Ballot papers so that all the ballot forms weren't available at the correct time to ensure that they all got out and back?
Or the Scottish Office and Executive who decided on electronic vote counting?
Who are you talking about?
"The difference in the vote from labour and SNP was ~50,000, spoilt ballots was 100000."
The first thing regarding this mess was that the people who organised it were not in Edinburgh but in Westminster who as oddquine says didnt bother to listen and when it went pearshaped promptly decided to blame Edinburgh The main organiser was a Nu Labour MP in Westminster called Douglas Alexander ie the brother of MSP Wendy I suggest you email him and ask why he didnt listen to what was being said
Regarding the popular vote ...It may be best if you found out how many labour governments were in power whilst having most MPs did not have the most votes in the country ??? the answer is not very many !!!
After the Banana Republic style referendum in the 70s it is a piece of pure hypocracy for Labour to complain about this result or is it sour grapes that the Lanarkshire "Sopranos" were not able to lean on enough voters to support them They fairly managed it with the media though the Sun Record et all s headlines on voting day were a disgrace but then again it matched Scottish Labours campaign of negativity Funny how the BBC coverage changed after McConnell complainned about bias A bias no one else except the Greens and Tommy Sheridan seemed to notice ...but wait they were saying it was a pro Scottish Labour bias!!!!!
It should be noted that there is a party in the Scottish parliament who have come out of this enhanced in my opinion for the way they have conducted themselves both in the last parliament and in the run up to the election and that is the Tories who have been constuctive and forcefull ...unlike some others!!!
PM
j4bberw0ck
06-May-07, 11:09
assuming that 100,000 extra votes would have made a difference to the final result.......and it might well not have.
does anyone know how many papers were spoiled in the cunningham north seat? this seems to be the seat that labour are protesting about as the snp majority was only 48.
I'm just fascinated by the assumption that it seems to be mainly Labour voters who are so stupid they can't read and follow some of the simplest instructions I've ever seen :lol::lol:
True................but are you really telling me that if the situation was reversed, and Nulabour.............or any other party come to that.....was in the same position they'd do any differently..................and would you even have mentioned it if it hadn't been the SNP who won? :roll:
That's the system in place...........and one set up by Nulabour at that...........so shouldn't the consequences have to be lived with..as they have to be every time Nulabour does something monumentally stupid?
And you are, of course, assuming that 100,000 extra votes would have made a difference to the final result.......and it might well not have.
90% of the electorate could work it out. If the other 10% could not work it out due to education/language reasons, socio-economic groups being as they are, the Labour vote would have suffered most.
You seem to be coming out with all the same excuses that the Bushies used when Bush won in Florida.
I'm just fascinated by the assumption that it seems to be mainly Labour voters who are so stupid they can't read and follow some of the simplest instructions I've ever seen :lol:
I made no such assumption.............I said may well...........not wouldn't......there were Greens, Libdems, Tories and others in this election, as well as Labour and SNP you know.
By the way, Rheghead.......in 2003, 31.95% of the votes were for NuLabour (same as for the SNP on Thursday), less than 50% of the electorate voted, which means less than 16% were responsible for Joke McConnels last four years...........the four years which prompted the 2007 result.
The only difference is that it isn't Nulabour who came first! :roll:
Dunderhead, don't think Labour is contesting it, I think it is the Labour candidate as an individual.
j4bberw0ck
06-May-07, 14:27
I made no such assumption.............I said may well...........not wouldn't......there were Greens, Libdems, Tories and others in this election, as well as Labour and SNP you know.
That wasn't aimed at you, Oddquine. It was just a general observation. If Labour lose by 50,000 votes, 100,000 votes are allegedly spoiled, and Labour feel that democracy hasn't been served and they might actually have won, so they must think majority of spoiled votes must be from Labour voters..... :lol:
Glad to see at least one MSP, who does a good job got elected. Margo Macdonald an all round good egg and a fine judge of a football team:lol:
Jeemag_USA
06-May-07, 19:16
Just got done talking to mither on the phone, first call since she had to vote and she was telling me about the Ballot slip. Is it true what she is saying that they had it set up so you had to put a figure in each box for who you wanted to be first choice, who second who third etc.........?
WHo in the hells idea was that, is it a Fantasy Politics League or what? What happened to you get one slip, you check the box for the guy you want and leave. My mum is 68 years old, she has to put on two pairs of glasses just to read the dang thing, and she is one of the slips that was messed up? I mean whose brilliant idea was that. Let me guess some had a meeting and didn't really have much to talk about but felt they had to make a decision on something so they said hey I know, lets make the ballot slip a little more fancy we can have numbers instead of X's
I have never heard anything so ridiculous in my life, really? :roll:
j4bberw0ck
06-May-07, 19:23
That was the ballot for local councillors, with the numbered preferences.
The vote for constituency and regional MSPs was the same as ever; one cross for each.
I don't deny it's an odd voting system, but the instructions were fine.
That was the ballot for local councillors, with the numbered preferences.
The vote for constituency and regional MSPs was the same as ever; one cross for each.
I don't deny it's an odd voting system, but the instructions were fine.
Hmmm, well, sorry j'w0ck, I don't think it odd, but I did find it confusing[disgust] ....
IMO changing the listing of constituency and regional parliamentary candidates to one ballot paper (albeit in two different shades), and implementing the new system of enumerating councillors at the same time was a mistake.
I would have certainly preferred for the council elections to have been held separately.
Hmmm, well, sorry j'w0ck, I don't think it odd, but I did find it confusing[disgust] ....
IMO changing the listing of constituency and regional parliamentary candidates to one ballot paper (albeit in two different shades), and implementing the new system of enumerating councillors at the same time was a mistake.
I would have certainly preferred for the council elections to have been held separately.
Me too Angela, but if we had the elections on different days the electorate would get fed up and not bother voting
I think that was the reason for having both on the one day.
And I understood the difference between the two systems of voting, and I am owld :roll:
Me too Angela, but if we had the elections on different days the electorate would get fed up and not bother voting
I think that was the reason for having both on the one day.
And I understood the difference between the two systems of voting, and I am owld
I know, poor owld mannie...but no doubt Mrs golach would have been able to keep you right ;)
I'm sure that was the reasoning behind having it all on the one day, but I'm not at all certain how many will bother to turn out next time....:confused
peter macdonald
06-May-07, 20:25
Tavish Scott (lib dem ) was on BBC Scotland news confirming that the Lib Dems will NOT be going into coalition with Scottish Labour ...The Greens have begun talks with the SNP
j4bberw0ck
06-May-07, 21:02
The Greens have begun talks with the SNP
Awww nooooo........ tell me it ain't so........ :eek::eek:
Didn't feel too badly, actually, about the SNP. Could have been worse, and they'll find it difficult to be worse than Labour. But the Greens - now we could be in trouble. I'm sorry to see that Salmond is so desperate to exercise power that he'll seriously entertain allowing that bunch of loonies within 20 paces of the bedroom, let alone hopping into bed with him.
Peter, are you serious?
I suspect there were more than a few who misread the instruction that you had two votes for Holyrood as meaning that you had two votes in each column. I suppose there was also the possibility that some thought you could use both votes in one column and none in the other.
I don't know if there was much of a problem with the Local Elections and numbering the Candidates in order of preference, that did seem simple enough to understand.
Jeemag_USA
06-May-07, 21:38
I suspect there were more than a few who misread the instruction that you had two votes for Holyrood as meaning that you had two votes in each column. I suppose there was also the possibility that some thought you could use both votes in one column and none in the other.
I don't know if there was much of a problem with the Local Elections and numbering the Candidates in order of preference, that did seem simple enough to understand.
Just curious, what was the purpose of numbering people in order of preference, what purpose did it serve?
Well, what isn't going to happen is a coalition with the LibDems.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6631053.stm
They are so feart of letting the Scots choose for themselves that they wouldn't even wear an additional question proposing increased devolved powers rather than independence.
Could somebody please explain to this dummy WHY everybody who thinks that the Scots wouldn't vote for Independence anyway be running so scared of actually asking us? :confused
I'd have thought that it could possibly get rid of the question for another generation...........which you'd have thought would suit everybody but the SNP.
Just curious, what was the purpose of numbering people in order of preference, what purpose did it serve?
If the voter's first choice candidate because he or she has too few votes to be elected, then the vote is transferred to the voter's second choice candidate, and so on.
That way most of the votes help to elect a candidate and far fewer votes are wasted..............and we get lots of councils which will need coalitions to do anything.
Jeemag_USA
06-May-07, 22:19
If the voter's first choice candidate because he or she has too few votes to be elected, then the vote is transferred to the voter's second choice candidate, and so on.
That way most of the votes help to elect a candidate and far fewer votes are wasted..............and we get lots of councils which will need coalitions to do anything.
That is totally ludicrous, so what you do is vote for the one you want, and then if you feel he might not win you pick someone else to stop some ither erse you don't like getting it. I never heard of anything so stupid. Whats the problem with letting people make one vote, and the guy who gets the most votes wins. :confused Only councils could come up with such a stupid voting system. If you vote for someone because you really want them to be elected but they only get 400 votes, then your vote is not wasted because you did what YOU want with it, not what the people organising the poll want to do with it?
That is totally ludicrous, so what you do is vote for the one you want, and then if you feel he might not win you pick someone else to stop some ither erse you don't like getting it. I never heard of anything so stupid. Whats the problem with letting people make one vote, and the guy who gets the most votes wins. :confused Only councils could come up with such a stupid voting system. If you vote for someone because you really want them to be elected but they only get 400 votes, then your vote is not wasted because you did what YOU want with it, not what the people organising the poll want to do with it?
No, you vote for the one you want first, then the one you'd like if the first one doesn't get in.............and so on.............but you don't have to vote for more than one if you don't want to do that. I only voted for 3 in my councillors list.
It wasn't the Councils.................it was one of the demands by the LibDems for propping up Nulabour last time round. They like PR, because it often makes them feel important by being "kingmakers".
Jeemag, as far as I'm aware there was no need to vote for more than one candidate unless you chose to. If you did that your vote couldn't be transferred to anyone else.
I selected three (out of 12) and put them in my order of preference...my first choice didn't get in...my second choice did, so my vote counted towards his total...and that was better from my point of view than one of the 9 I didn't fancy at all!
I don't think it was at all well explained that you could just choose one, or more, as long as you numbered your choices. I think some folk thought you had to give every single one a number....:confused
Jeemag_USA
06-May-07, 23:41
Ah ok, I didn't know that, so you just need to put a 1 in the box for who your voting for and the rest is optional. Got it ;)
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.