- Overwhelming vote against West Sussex Conservatives gives them overwhelming victory
- FPTP robs Cambridgeshire Greens
- Tories win Kent although 6 out of 10 voted against them
- SV (silly voting) in Doncaster
- DIY AV election in Isle of Wight!
- Dorset’s democratic deficit
- Thatcher/Blair legacy
- Jersey reform
- Illusion of English democracy
- Main advantages of the Single Transferable Vote (STV)
SV = Silly Voting; 15 November as Annual Wasted Votes Day?
A million wasted votes! More than half the winners may not have been the voters’ real choice.
The main complaint of the news media and some reform organizations about the Police and Crime Commissioners’ (PCCs’) elections last Thursday is the abysmally low turn-out; in effect that so many citizens did not use their votes, but what about the votes wasted - more than a million- by those who did vote? They deserve better.
Research by Dr David Hill, a former member of the Electoral Reform Society’s Council, has revealed that 1,078,987 were wasted in those of the PCC elections in
which there were more than three candidates and a further 20,540 were wasted in Bristol’s mayoral election on the same day, making a total of 1,099,527 wasted votes in one day.
Dr Hill treated as "wasted" the difference between the total number voting and those used at the final stage for the candidates who came first and second in the first round of counting and were therefore in the runoff count. Although some of the votes may have been wasted by voters themselves by not expressing a second preference, it seems likely that most were waste because of the way SV (Supplementary Voting) works. With SV, second preference votes for candidates who do not reach the runoff are wasted – not by the voters but by the system.
In 22 voting areas including Bristol for the mayoral election, the number of wasted votes was higher than the winning majority. In other words, if votes had not been wasted, the result might have been different; 22 of the 42 winners may not have been the real choices of the voters.
Among the worst examples were:
- Cambridgeshire where there were 31,849 wasted votes but the winner’s majority was only 6,526;
- Devon and Cornwall where there were 84,003 wasted votes but the winner’s majority was only 32,176;
- Essex where there were 47,220 wasted votes but the winner’s majority was only 3,686;
- Humberside where there were 51,665 wasted votes but the winner’s majority was only 2,231;
- Bristol’s mayoral election where there were 20,540 wasted votes but the winner’s majority was only 6,094.
AV (Alternative Vote) would solve the problem. Second preference – and, indeed later preferences – could all count. None need be wasted and the winner would really represent the majority.
It is curious, to put it mildly, that Mr Cameron and others, who championed First Past The Post (FPTP) against AV last year, have conceded so soon that FPTP is unsatisfactory but, rather than admit the merits of AV, they have forced the really miserable compromise of SV upon us. It acknowledges the faults of FPTP but fails to solve them.
If electoral reformers want an annual event to celebrate the reform movement – to give them a cause to march, hold rallies, write to the media and MPs etc - what about 15 November (the date of this year’s PCC elections) each year as Annual Wasted Votes Day?
SV reduced turnout from 14.9% to 11.4%
In a leading article on 17 November 2012 entitled "Police and the People" The Times questioned the legitimacy of those who have been elected as Police and Crime Commissioners, because of the low turnout. Their legitimacy should also be questioned on the basis of the "Supplementary Vote" system used, which, once again, has shown its absurdity.
Ignoring the 6 areas where there were fewer than 4 candidates, there were 35 elections. In 21 out of these 35, the winning margin was less than the number of votes wasted by the system, because those voters had not mentioned either of the leading two candidates (on the first count) as either of the two choices they were allowed. The worst case was Suffolk, where the winning margin was only 1941, while 13217 voters (who took the trouble to vote) had their wishes ignored in the second count. How can the winner be regarded as having any mandate?
An alternative way of putting it is to say that the low turnout, of only 14.9%, was bad enough, but the SV system reduced the effective turnout to only 11.4%.
The same fault applies to the election for Mayor of Bristol, on the same day, whose winning margin was only 6094, while 20540 votes were wasted by the system. Is there any hope that this miserable system will be replaced by something better, namely "Alternative Vote" which remains a good system? The earlier referendum may have ruled out AV for the foreseeable future for electing MPs, but the (mostly false) reasons given against it in that campaign do not apply to Mayors or Police Commissioners.
(Posted on behalf of Dr. David Hill)
Non-transferable won!
As I put it in Cambridgeshire, Non-transferable won. The total first preference votes that didn't count in the run off was 31843. The winner got 31640. The form of publication deliberately hides this information, another SV scandal.
(Posted on behalf of Colin Rosenstiel)