Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK Election Tech Handbook

electiontechhandbook.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–49 of 49 posts

Re: UK Election Tech Handbook

#41

Post by tialaramex »

mhh__ wrote: post #26
obayesshelton wrote: post #10

My only concern is that the people who run the tools etc. have their political view. For example " https://tacticalvote.co.uk" is clearly against the Conservative party. So that tool is straight away biased.

Think about the name... You have to vote tactically against something ergo someone

Or _for_ something. All electoral systems have flaws, all the ones that would be practical for this purpose (election of individual candidate representatives from a list by the general population) are subject to tactical voting of some sort.

In this case - FPTP - the tactics are to identify the (usually two) candidates that most plausibly could win in your district and pick from those, ignoring all other candidates. If Apples win with 310 votes and Bears had 290 votes, those Apple-haters who gave Cheese 60 votes to come in a distant third are kicking themselves.

For many (millions of?) voters in the UK the idea is to achieve a specific outcome on a single issue (Brexit) which is not actually on the ballot at all, so tactics come into deciding how to vote so as to make your preferred outcome more likely to occur.

Re: UK Election Tech Handbook

#42

Post by tialaramex »

mantap wrote: post #35
blibble wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I personally believe is that we should have proportional representation, and that mass tactical voting is an important step towards progressive candidates and progressive parties before we can reach a full PR system. Mass tactical voting applies pressure and encourages progressive behaviour. > My contribution then, is towards fairer election systems. if this is the case the site should allow you to select who…

If you want the tories to win you don't need a website to tell you how to vote.

It might be more complicated than you realise, depending on where the voter lives.

There are plenty of places where voting Tory stands essentially no chance of resulting in a Tory being elected, especially in this election. So then you need to figure out who could win, and what the effect on prospects for a future Tory government would be for those options - and vote for the one most likely to lead to overall Tory victory, not for the Tory on the ballot.

Re: UK Election Tech Handbook

#43

Post by Wildgoose »

Pete_D wrote: post #39
specialist wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"alternative vote" If you mean switch from FPTP to some form of RCV for executive positions or proportional representation (PR) for assemblies, then I agree. For RCV, I strongly prefer Approval Voting, which best balances fairness and simplicity. But we'll get the most benefits from PR.

"alternative vote" is the term the UK ended up using for instant-runoff voting when it had a referendum a few years back. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vot...

Not quite. I think the proposals only affected the top two ranked candidates in the first round, i.e. arguably no better than First Past the Post.

Approval Voting would be simple, easy to understand and a vast improvemnet.

Re: UK Election Tech Handbook

#44

Post by n4r9 »

marksweston wrote: post #37
n4r9 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: the Tories are the largest benefactors of an unfair fptp-based gerrymandered voting system. In 2017 they received 5% more votes than Labour but 20% more MPs. They're the most obvious target for someone interested in tactical voting, regardless of their political persuasion (they're very unlikely to be a Tory voter).

This is simply not true. FFTP is biased in favour of the party with the largest share of the vote, or perhaps another way of putting is that the relationship between vote share and number of MPs is not linear. And beyond this, the British electoral system has consistently favoured Labour for decades (as Boundary Commission changes fall behind demographic change and population movement) https://www.independent.co.uk/v…

Thanks for the link. I've read the Independent article, clicked through and read the author's Facebook "footnote", and also read the paper referenced in that.

I can't see anything that disputes the claim "The Tories are the clearest benefactors" of the UK's electoral system.

The author makes a repeated assertion that boundaries are currently biased "15 seats" against the Tories, but I cannot tell where this number is coming from.

The fact remains that the Tories have won the last few elections by receiving a disproportionate number of MPs relative to their vote share. Moreover, polling suggests that they will continue to have the highest vote share.

Re: UK Election Tech Handbook

#46

Post by marksweston »

n4r9 wrote: post #44
marksweston wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is simply not true. FFTP is biased in favour of the party with the largest share of the vote, or perhaps another way of putting is that the relationship between vote share and number of MPs is not linear. And beyond this, the British electoral system has consistently favoured Labour for decades (as Boundary Commission changes fall behind demographic change and population movement) https://www.independent.co.uk/v…

Thanks for the link. I've read the Independent article, clicked through and read the author's Facebook "footnote", and also read the paper referenced in that. I can't see anything that disputes the claim "The Tories are the clearest benefactors" of the UK's electoral system. The author makes a repeated assertion that boundaries are currently biased "15 seats" against the Tories, but I cannot tell where this number is…

it is utterly bizarre that you're treating the fact that the party that got the most votes won the most seats as evidence that the electoral system is biased towards them.

Have you considered adding elections when the Conservatives didn't win the most votes to your data set?

Re: UK Election Tech Handbook

#47

Post by n4r9 »

marksweston wrote: post #46
n4r9 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the link. I've read the Independent article, clicked through and read the author's Facebook "footnote", and also read the paper referenced in that. I can't see anything that disputes the claim "The Tories are the clearest benefactors" of the UK's electoral system. The author makes a repeated assertion that boundaries are currently biased "15 seats" against the Tories, but I cannot tell where this number is…

it is utterly bizarre that you're treating the fact that the party that got the most votes won the most seats as evidence that the electoral system is biased towards them. Have you considered adding elections when the Conservatives didn't win the most votes to your data set?

That's a disappointing misrepresentation of my premise, which is that the system is biased so that high vote shares confer disproportionately many seats.

Re: UK Election Tech Handbook

#48

Post by dangerface »

specialist wrote: post #31
dangerface wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our representative democracy is setup as a two party system (first past the post elections) if we want a more representative outcome we should switch to a direct democracy or implement the alternative vote. Free exchange of ideas is my ultimate goal but the average voter doesn't share this goal, they get their information from "authoritative" sources such as "their" party or the mass media. We did have a vote to brin…

"alternative vote" If you mean switch from FPTP to some form of RCV for executive positions or proportional representation (PR) for assemblies, then I agree. For RCV, I strongly prefer Approval Voting, which best balances fairness and simplicity. But we'll get the most benefits from PR.

> If you mean switch from FPTP

Yup don't really care what the new vote is. I live in Northern Ireland where we have single transferable vote I think its great.

It hasn't fixed our two party system but I have noticed a dramatic change in the way people think about voting.

For the most part people no longer feel the need to vote against some one and now vote for who they want, I have also noticed people seem to feel their vote is worth more as a result.

Re: UK Election Tech Handbook

#49

Post by n4r9 »

marksweston wrote: post #37
n4r9 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: the Tories are the largest benefactors of an unfair fptp-based gerrymandered voting system. In 2017 they received 5% more votes than Labour but 20% more MPs. They're the most obvious target for someone interested in tactical voting, regardless of their political persuasion (they're very unlikely to be a Tory voter).

This is simply not true. FFTP is biased in favour of the party with the largest share of the vote, or perhaps another way of putting is that the relationship between vote share and number of MPs is not linear. And beyond this, the British electoral system has consistently favoured Labour for decades (as Boundary Commission changes fall behind demographic change and population movement) https://www.independent.co.uk/v…

I know this conversation has gone slightly stale but I've reread that John Rentoul piece a couple of times, and it's very wishy washy but as far as I can make out his argument is this:

1. The Conservative party has proposed some new boundaries.

2. The new boundaries would have given the Conservatives 15 extra seats, according to the 2017 vote share.

3. The current boundaries are very out of date.

4. The new boundaries follow stricter rules about constituency size variation.

5. The new boundaries lead to a reduced number of MPs.

6. 3-5 imply that the new boundaries are fairer than current boundaries.

7. 2 and 6 imply that the current boundaries are biased 15 seats towards Labour.

The hole is in statement 6; points 3 and 5 are irrelevant to the question of fairness and point 4 is weak as there are plenty of ways to gerrymander the boundaries whilst equalising constituency size. What's "utterly bizarre" is that Rentoul expects many people to swallow such a flawed argument.

Post reply on HN