Wings Over Scotland

I’m not sure it’s really a problem. For all parties other than the SNP (and perhaps the Lib Dems in the Highlands and Islands), the number of seats they win is solely determined by the list vote. The only effect the constituency vote has is to cause some candidates to be elected rather than others.

Given that Labour got more constituency seats than list seats, one might even argue that it would actually be in their interest to stop putting forward constituency candidates altogether.

Anyway, I agree the voting system should be changed, but I don’t like STV, either.

As to “liking a candidate ” and voters rejecting a candidate .
I would argue voters dont really know them so it does not matter .

Apart from the party leaders , I doubt if I could name an MSP

Or a decent Scottish footballer , currently playing for the National team .

(Could be a clue there , if they were any good they might stick out ) .

I voted STV because, after 17 years it is clear that Scotland’s electorate can’t fully grasp d’Hondt. If an effective education programme could be run to convince people that list votes aren’t second preferences I might support one of the other options.

Having said that, the varieties of d’Hondt proposed above will do nothing about tactical voting for FPTP seats or smaller parties trying to game the list system, so I think I’ll stick with my STV choice just the same.

Prefer NEEPS masel’: North East Ethnic Pairty.

Sorry to hear it is raining in Barf. Maybe they could use the watter.

They’re not trying to do anything about those things.

I didn’t say they were, but the fact that they don’t influences my choice.

My former sitting MSP M. McMahon (Lab) was defeated by Richard Leonard (SNP) I notice that McMahon did not stand on the list. I suspect that he saw the writing on the wall and decided it was time to get out.

Probably the most astute decision that he took during his period in office.

“Then why is is always lower for Holyrood than Westminster? Scottish MPs can generally achieve nothing at Westminster, being just 59 out of 650. At Holyrood they control health, education and taxation, to name just three major things that affect people’s daily lives. By almost any measure, voting in Holyrood elections should matter more to Scots than in UK elections.”

That’s what you may think, but since the start HL has had average turnout low 50%, GE low 60%

Using your logic, people interact with their local council far more than their Govt. (bins,council tax , pot-holes,etc)

Yet TO (for councils elections ) is round 40%, lower still when you interact more ?

I can’t vote in that poll, as my preferred option (which I was trying to punt on Twitter yesterday) is to bar incumbent constituency MSPs from standing on the list.

Added to that I would suggest a limit on the number of terms an MSP can serve as a list member. Two, or perhaps three? If they haven’t secured a constituency by then, maybe it’s time for some new blood.

I would exempt from that second stricture, members standing for parties which have won no constituencies at all during the period in question (two or three terms, whatever). That would allow small parties without enough support to win constituencies to support a stable parliamentary presence without having to keep changing their personnel.

I’m just sorry Stuart either didn’t understand what I was proposing, or took heed of a different and less workable proposal from someone else.

Common sense would suggest if someone is not supported in the constituency seat by such a margin they should not be allowed to get in by the back door.

Much with the same idea as a lost deposit if a candidate loses by a certain percentage of the vote in a constituency then that should immediately bar him from standing on the list.

It would make party’s consider more carefully where they stand candidates.

Technically if the tories had pol pot and hitler getting not a single vote in there constituency vote which no one would argue they should get any votes but if there on the list they get in.

Even something as simple as “losing candidates must achieve a minimum of 30% votes of the winners total (so if the winner got 100,000 votes the list msp must get 30,000 minimum) or even 50%. Failure to get that reasonable number should be heard as the voice of the electorate not supporting that candidate.

Just an idea.

Given that I can’t get my head round the list system, it may not be a good idea for me to vote here.

I don’t like the STV, it usually means you end up with the candidate that the fewest voters didn’t want.

Not sure about the “no sitting MSP’s either. All they need to do is resign their seat a week before the election, and there you go…

So I’ve voted for the restricted loser’s spots option.

Although I can’t for the life of me see why the party that receives the most votes in a region shouldn’t get one seat, but like I said earlier I don’t understand the system so their must be a reason.

I voted for STV. I think the link with constituencies is overrated. Basically, with STV you have a chance of personalising the system, meaning that individual candidates have to compete on genuine popularity amongst the electorate.

Another feature is that you can go to the MSP of your choice when it comes to getting help. What is not to like about that?

Common sense would suggest if someone is not supported in the constituency seat by such a margin they should not be allowed to get in by the back door.

I don’t really think common sense suggests anything of the sort. There are always going to be seats that are unwinnable for a particular party, and yet they want to field a complete slate of constituency candidates. I don’t see why someone who agrees to fight the impossible constituency should be barred from the list as a punishment for doing that.

The problem is failed sitting constituency MSPs using the list to get back in when their constituents have indicated they no longer want them. That’s the thing to focus on. Not people who have rather heroically fought difficult or unwinnable constituencies for their party.

I favour dispensing with the second vote and applying D’Hondt and the list system to the total constituency vote in a region. Advantages:
1.It forces parties to contest constituencies and not rely on piggybacking.
2. Only one vote required.
3. Genuinely proportional to votes cast, not “let’s think about this again.”

Hmmm… these unelected MSP’s still given a seat in parliament beyond the reach of the electorate’s power to oust them…

Easy solution. Round them up, call them lords, and stick them in a second chamber where they can mill around all day half pissed or fully asleep and nobody has to listen to them.

What could possibly be wrong with that idea?

Ruth Davidson says she sacked the whole list of Tory candidates and selected these people herself. So one person appointed them to parliament, even though thousands of voters rejected them.

Just out of curiosity, is it possible to extrapolate how Holyrood would look if the recent election had been first past the post?

Pool list seats nationally instead of by region. There’s no real reasons to tie them to regions anyway, as we have seen with candidates running for list seats many miles from their actual homes.

That’s quite a good idea I think. Any further thoughts anyone?

I’d make 2 changes, firstly it would have to be either a constituency candidate or list but never both, how can it be right being rejected or coming last can still get you elected.

Secondly list MSPs when it comes to voting on matters in Holyrood, their vote should only count as half a vote, seems only fair to me.

Why should someone who fights an unwinnable or very difficult seat for their party be barred from standing on the list? That’s precisely the route many of the SNP’s big hitters took to the position they’re in now. Fought unwinnable seats, got in on the list, worked hard in their region to show voters what they were capable of, and finally won these “unwinnable” seats. It’s a strength of the system, not a weakness.

And it’s monstrous to suggest that list MSPs should have only half a vote. It entirely negates the proportionality of parliament. Would you have suggested than in 1999 or 2003 when the SNP was mostly list MSPs? Then, Labour and the LibDems were pouring scorn on list members for being second-class. It wasn’t true then and it isn’t true now.

Should the loser spots on the list, or rather the ranking of them on the list, be based upon votes? This would be fair as it should only allow those narrowly defeated, or at least garnering a reasonable vote share, to top the list?

Surely there is at least one SNP as well Rev ?

Under FPTP Nicola could have had a constituency seat earlier. She was not rejected and sneaked back in the list. She stood in a seat she had not won constituency ever. She was not elected and them rejected to 3rd or 4th. No one had ever experienced her ever winning a constituency seat. She did not sneak back in in any way. She had never won a constituency seat because of Holyrood Electoral system.

These ignoramouses are being elected on to Constituency seat, totally insulting the electorate verbally and with actions and being totally rejected and then come back in. Time and time again. How do you get rid of them? It is different. She also was not picking and choosing a seat to get in. A total farcical insult.

It is different – proving your worth on a list seat and then winning a Constituency seat.

I voted keep the existing system. D’Hondt is a good compromise between having a constituency MP while keeping it proportional.

Would we complain about it if, say, Swinney had lost narrowly in Perthshire this time round, and got in on the list?

While it is frustrating that absolute chancers like Tomkins can get in, my opinion is coloured by the fact that I think he’s an arse.

Maybe it wouldnt be so bad if he had at least come second – is there a way of putting a bar on them like a minimum number of votes, and if they dont achieve that they drop down the list?

The most important thing though is an education campaign on how the system works. It should be emphasised that the list vote is key to the make up of the parliament. It should NOT be called the second vote.

STV is abysmal, and Im afraid we might find out why, next year.

Ken500: “To get over 50% of votes and not have a complete majority is more than annoying and frustration. It should be illegal. “

Nobody has ever gotten over 50% of the votes at Holyrood.

As Doug Daniel says, one answer is to have ‘open lists’ rather than ‘closed lists’, so the voters can decide for themselves the order in which a party’s candidates get elected in any particular region.
The Scotland Act 2016 devolves control of the electoral system so it can now be changed by Holyrood rather than Westminster.

I’d suggest Scotland adopt the system used in Finland, a country with a similar size of population. The country is divided into multi-member constituencies, preserving the connection of elected members with constituents. In each constituency, each party (sometimes small parties can form an electoral pact with a larger one to increase their chances) puts forward a list of candidates. Each candidate has their personal number, and the voters vote for the candidate they want. So the electorate decides the order of candidates on the list. Each party is allocated a number of seats corresponding to said party’s total percentage vote in the constituency (say 5 seats). The 5 most popular candidates from that party are duly elected. I think it’s a great system. No system is perfect, but this one is good.

I like the idea of restricting the number of Consituency MSP’s being entered on the list. Of course we will end up with all the Generals being on the list but the young spotty Cannon Fodder chosen to replace them will gain experience and we may even occasionally end up with an accidental MSP. The downside is that stronger established politicians such as Yousaff, Sturgeon etc will end up being opposed by Tory boy’s and girls barely of the age of consent, and in their case the age of consent is not being their main barrier to an active sex life. So a ‘shoey-in’ for established MSP’s is a downside but way better than being guaranteed to be an MSP by merely standing regardless of the vote.

It would be interesting to see (not to mention very time consuming!) if the past Scottish election results were fed into 3 of the options proposed and how it would have turned out…

Aye Rev its a bit of a shambles ,i havnt voted because you left out the it doesnt matter as you aint getting to change it Scotland under westminster box.

We will just have to live with crappy electoral systems until we can tell westminster to get lost.

None of these systems would be relevant in indy Scotland to start with we will need to break up the existing constituancies to make FPTP MSP`s or we would only have the places to fill half the seats in our parliament.

Nope i vote for FPTP its the only fair way to ensure that deadwood politicians cant sneak in the back door,they might sneak in the front door but at least then they would have the support of the voters who voted for them and need to campaign hard to win their place in our parliament.

And you are right its not so much as people dont care they just cant be bothered with all the electoral bullshit,why vote when its clear that our parliament is a joke and there is no way to get rid of politicians they no longer want to serve their constituancies,the whole thing is designed to breed apathy.

PS its sunny in Scotland Rev get your butt up here lol

“Dr Jim says:
11 May, 2016 at 12:53 pm
Whatever system you come up with, one thing is clear, we get people we didn’t vote for, moreover we get people we voted against and that’s bad for voter confidence because you can’t keep saying to people you must get out and vote because your vote counts when clearly it doesn’t”

Exactly , i voted Lib Dem then Tory, and got a Lib Dem MSP, and 24% of my MSP’s are Tory

So I am reasonably satisfied.

Everybody gets a vote , and it does not bother me that 45% voted SNP, as I like our FM (very well turned out,articulate,and conciliatory)

basically SNP tax policy ideas are in line with my own , keep it low and make the best of what you have spending wise.

I care passionately for those that are unfortunate to use a “Foodbank”, i just don’t want to pay £2 a week extra in tax to help them.

So I am like the vast majority of Scots (SNP+Tory ) 65% of electorate.

O/T More to the point, after watching “Scottish questions” (from ENGERLISH MPs) with the ignorant runt Mundel bad mouthing his own country and countrymen with the help of the nasty Nat basher Ian Murray. Then they have a go at belittling and bad mouthing the daft jocks in PMQs. They and the EBC go on about the second referendum. They are trying to trap Scotland into this situation so they can slam the door in our faces, then the whips will come out and we will be very sorry.

I have said constantly the WESTMINSTER GOVERNMENT WILL NOT let Scotland go at any price they will do ANYTHING TO KEEP US IN THIS SORDID CORRUPT UNION. Read into that what you will!

Hello again Stu

I was chatting with a few people about the list and what I found was quite interesting and its left me wondering if any of your other readers are finding the same.

It seemed that before Scotland’s political awakening most folks didn’t pay much heed to list candidates concentrating more on the how’s and the whys each party gets awarded the seat.

The Scottish election last week has now brought into focus who actually gets the seat.

The general feeling is its a bit of a anomaly that you can stand for both.

Surely a simple way to correct this is too change the rules so an individual cannot stand in election for both ?

In this way you would have the fptp constituency vote and campaign as normal and then for the regional list votes each party would select there candidates for the list seats
These candidates would then campaign for the list votes. The voting slip for the list would have each party and a number. The voter can then vote for an individual candidate on the list.

This would probably also have problems which I’m sure my fellow wingers will point in due course ??
The point I think is that people are not very happy with politicians and parties using the list vote in a way that is undemocratic and not the in the spirit of the way it’s devised.

I’ve been reading wings since it started and this is my first comment although I did send the Rev an email the other day about another matter (possibly for another day Stu?)
Thanks to all for reading and glad to be part of the debate rather than following

It’s a pathetic system that rescues discredited, voter rejected candidates, and stops fresh talent from access.

Unless we can alter it for the better, Billy Connolly’s unforgiveable insult is given credence, “It’s a pretendy parliament”.

Single vote.
100 odd constituencies. Won by first past post.
Parties get voting power based on % of national vote.
1 vote each FPP – MSP the other % votes used by party/group leader.

Parties get vote share of power.
But those heard in debates and able to influence have to get public approval to get a seat in the chamber.

Rev Stuart: “voters rejecting a candidate hasn’t prevented them strolling into the Parliament anyway, sometimes having won as little as 8.6% of the vote.”

The voters didn’t reject them if the voters knew that the candidates were also on the list and the voters then voted for them in sufficient numbers on that regional list.

You shouldn’t be dividing the AMS system into two for the purposes of making a judgement on the system as a whole. That’s unreasonable.

The system as a whole works perfectly well and can’t be blamed for political parties making bad decisions in terms of who goes on lists.

Moreover, the SNP had people fighting on the constituency side who were also on the list. By doing that they endorse the system and exhibit a willingness to do what we are now criticising others for.

The biggest loser in this election was RISE, not Labour. Why? Because the system is designed to give representation to smaller parties. Despite that bias, RISE failed to win a single seat.

The electorate expressed something important with that judgement. RISE and others should listen to the electorate.

As I just said to Grouse Beater next door, it suits us if the same tired old failed morons are representing Labour. We should celebrate that and attack anyone who dares tinker with this system.

The electoral system is our best and biggest friend, apart from Wings (of course). Thus far, it’s the only institutional construct that hasn’t screwed us. Love it.

This wholesale fiddling of the vote must be what’s meant by Ulsterisation.

Losing constituency candidates haven’t been ‘rejected’ by voters they just didn’t come first in a FPTP contest. Personally I don’t think much of J. Lamont but 31% of Pollok voted for her. The idea of a PR voting system is that these 31% are entitled to representation in parliament.

However the current system is too compicated. I can’t see why we need TWO votes on TWO different ballot papers? Why can’t we have a system with a single constituency vote electing constituency MSPs by FPTP as at present – and then simply allocate additional regional seats by summing the total constituency votes for each party and allocating regional seats on a proportional basis? ONLY candidates who had stood in a constituency in that region could be on the list and they would be ranked in order of the percentage of votes they had received in the constituency vote.

A precondition of standing for MSP is to pass an IQ test with a score of at least 54 which is the mark just above the “Severely Challenged” interval.

So, that would possibly rule out Johann “Stairheid Rammy” Lamont, Jackie “Five Bellies” Baillie & Willie “Pet Friendly” Rennie.

What’s the downside?

The more you learn about this system. The more you realise the unionists corrupted it to stop the SNP. They could never have imagined the SNP on 47% of the vote and still 2 short of a majority. Cameron has 37% and a majority of 10 or so.

I voted STV but would rather have additional members on top.

The way it’d work is that you have a single ballot paper. Entries are for all parties standing in the region with only those contesting the seat named.

The first round of votes might pick a winner but regardless of that votes get saved for later. The election in the constituency then goes ahead as normal.

One all constituencies are filled you proceed to the regional list. The STV election might be slightly slower but the regional list has already been counted so overall it’s faster.

The criticism of AV/STV is that it might favour compromise candidates or still be unfair to minorities. However if it results in a more proportional result you might be justified in fewer list seats.

For the next election I’d go for the same numbers of constituency and list MSPs. Especially if there is a unionist conspiracy to freeze the SNP out.

The main improvement is that it’s always your first vote that counts.

The answer is fairly simple.
Scrap the constituency seat. It is utterly unnecessary.
This leaves just the party lists.
OK. Now how do you get rid of someone you don’t want.
The answer is found in Norway.
In Norway you cross off the candidates you do not want to vote for.
This was used very effectively by the feminists in the eighties. They were sick of the fact that women were not being elected so they started a campaign telling women to vote for whatever party they wanted, but to start at the top of the list and cross off names until they came to the first woman. This basically placed the woman at the top of the list.
The result was a sort of “feminist coup d’etat”. A large number of rather surprised men suddenly found themselves without a seat and the same number of equally surprised women found themselves with one.
I said the eighties. Crossing off candidates then only applied to local elections. The present government has recently changed the election law so that crossing off candidates now applies to the General Elections as well. How this is going to play out I do not know. But it does mean that there are no truly safe lists. Voters can get the party of their choice in and remove a particular candidate if they wish. Or if you prefer, they can have their cake AND eat it…
Coincidently, the “Coup” in the eighties forced the parties in Norway to ensure they had balanced lists and resulted in a general increase in the number of women in politics.

I’m slightly worried by some people’s approach, especially those who want full FPTP. Folk seem to want to base the voting system on the current situation. Have we learned nothing from the mistakes of the unionists?

If Holyrood had been purely FPTP in 2007, Labour would have won. It’s only because of the list element that the SNP was able to get 47 MSPs and become a minority government in the first place.

Labour and Tories have always favoured FPTP because it has allowed them to get parliamentary majorities without getting a majority of the vote. That’s why the system will never change at Westminster.

Just because FPTP would suit the SNP right now, doesn’t mean it always will. That kind of hubris is what led to Labour’s downfall, as they assumed the system they put in place to give them a permanent advantage would always give them a permanent advantage. Labour have effectively been hung by their own petard.

Let’s not be like them, eh?

Morag @ 12:19

If someone got near to winning there constituency and only lost by a small margin then that qualifies them to a list seat. But if someone loses spectacularly like many of the list msps then the voters have clearly rejected the idea of them as an msp.

So I stand by the statement that is common sense.

So it should have been SNP1/Ruth Davidson CON UNI2 in order to kick the Tories out of Holyrood?

Even if the parties in Holyrood agree to a different system (fat chance) would it not require the nod from Westminster?

Best to leave as is until we, in an independent Scotland, can start on a fresh page.

PS:
Murdo (tory) and Elaine (lab) throw their hats into the ring now.

The Presiding officer is ‘neutral’ and doesn’t vote having resigned from the party which we all know but the other two deputies can retain their party allegiance and vote.

link to parliament.scot

PPS:
New ship (not built in Scotland) will be anchoring somewhere in the West of the Shetlands soon to exploit (not Scotland’s oil)
and tax of this oil will be going to WM (not Scotland’s friend)

But never mind Eh! We voted NAW!

link to archive.is

PPPS:
Gordon has spoken darn Sarf! Can you hear me running?

Good song…Mike and mechanics.

Swear allegiance to the flag
Whatever flag they offer
Never hint at what you really feel
Teach the children quietly
For some day sons and daughters
Will rise up and fight while we stood still

Doug Daniel

“Just because FPTP would suit the SNP right now, doesn’t mean it always will. That kind of hubris is what led to Labour’s downfall, as they assumed the system they put in place to give them a permanent advantage would always give them a permanent advantage. Labour have effectively been hung by their own petard.

Let’s not be like them, eh?”

Prescient words, the writing is on the wall.

Control over the electoral system has been devolved to Holyrood, subject to a 2/3 majority in Parliament for any changes.

As follows:

Section B3 of the Scotland Act 1998 reserves to Westminster

“Elections for membership of the House of Commons, the European Parliament and the Parliament, including the subject-matter of—
(a)the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002.
(b)the Representation of the People Act 1983 and the Representation of the People Act 1985, and
(c)the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986,”

The Scotland Act 2016 Section 3 (1) amends the Scotland Act 1998 by removing the words ‘The Parliament’. (the Scottish Parliament) from 1998 B3

Therefore the provisions of the three Acts a, b and c above are no longer reserved to Westminster, and are now controlled by Holyrood

These three acts basically are the whole of electoral law.

Section 11 (5) of the 2016 Act gives the Presiding Officer the duty to require a super-majority of 2/3 of MSPs before an act changing any of:

“a)the persons entitled to vote as electors at an election for membership of the Parliament,
(b)the system by which members of the Parliament are returned
(c)the number of constituencies, regions or any equivalent electoral area, and
d)the number of members to be returned for each constituency, region or equivalent electoral area.”

The Scotland Act 2016, Section 11 (5)(b) is the method of election.

Elect via, D’Hondt AMS, STV, first past the post, best of five scissors paper stone., whatever. Want to ban postal voting on demand? Require ID to vote?

All that is enabled by this section, if 2/3 of MSPs support it.

Greetings from Raleigh, North Carolina. I haven’t voted the other side of the pond since the late 1990’s and in Scotland since 1987. I’m sure things have changed. Is technology properly utilised? If not, why not?

I think most of us could agree that too many people do not understand what they are voting for. So use technology to make it simpler. You go to a booth with a computer screen. Computer guides you through your choices. Constituency is easy. Then select the party you want on the list. From there, rank the candidates. As others have mentioned, this is used in Scandinavia. The next bit is crucial. Once the voter has cast their votes, a print-out is provided. This way, programming errors do not affect the result (it has happened here, where technology is widely-used). Feed the ballot into a scanner, which counts the votes.

This, of course, does not solve the issue of postal votes. If it were up to me, I would return to the rule that a postal vote is for the elderly or infirm, or those who are travelling for work. Do as is done in most states here – have early voting for a couple of weeks before the election. Here in Wake County, NC (about the size and population of Lothian Region) one can vote early at any early voting site in the county. All sites are open on the weekend and most are open until around 7pm on weeknights. Proper use of technology makes it possible. They have every possible combination of ballots available – one year I had Version 32, covering over a dozen races.

The idea behind D’Hondt is that the list vote is a list for the party. I believe that Helmut Kohl never won an election in his life. So make the rejected candidates work for their list votes from those who support that party. I know this system is not perfect. How does the average voter rank a dozen candidates of the same party? It would, though, give a voice to the electorate in deciding whether or not those rejected in the constituency should also be rejected on the list.

You do know that all your great ideas are pointless,in 2014 we voted as a country to remain in the UK so until that changes discussing electoral systems inside the UK is pissing in the wind.

But think of it this way that could have been the last time we ever use that system because by the time we have to do it again we might be free,so if anything we have possibly one more election like this.

I thought Davidson stood as a constituency candidate as well as list Number 1?

there was no mention of electoral reform on any party manifesto

gutted that the labour old guard got in, even a few disgruntled ex slab constituency msps who got the dunt tweeted that kez hadnt even bothered to phone them to comissorate with them since friday

indeed, they also tweeted that kez had not phoned them since the slab list had been published a few months back. an indication that slab had gerry mandered the lists and not everyone was happy

anyways, surely this discussion should have been had before the election? ukip have been whining since 2015 that they got far fewer seats than the snp with a bigger share of the vote. then again, the snp did have electoral reform on its 2015 manifesto, PR and the abolition of the HOL, er, ukip didnt.

this election is past, this thread is for the next election in 2021

time would be better spent discussing the 2017 electoral process, i put forward a motion to the snp spring conference for a line to be added to the council reform section of the manifesto to include reform of the council electoral system. it was rejected. we have no mandate now to reform the council electoral system and will just have to use it.
an explaination of how it works would be more useful

I think one change which should be made is that the party with the largest number of votes gets first list msp before being devided which will give a stronger parliament and these votes would not be wasted as they have been when voting for the snp on the list this year in most areas.

Why do we want a parliament which is proportional and cant get things done? Westminster is FPTP so that it doesnt produce a coalition but somehow Scotland should almost always have a coalition!

@Grouse Beater

Of course when Billy Connolly made his unforgivable remark about Scotland’s “Pretendy Parliament” he perhaps should have ruminated on the fact that one day he might be a “Pretendy Comedian” and in that, he has succeeded

Modern lights get brighter with use whereas older lights fade away and burn out (That’s my wee profoundy bit)

Why not simply reduce the number of available list seats relative to constituency seats, thereby increasing the value of winning the constituency seat?

Everyone seems to be proud of the fact that Scotland has proportional representation. You may not like D’Hondt but “it does what it says on the tin” as it allocates seats roughly in proportion to how the electorate voted. Living currently under the FPTP system & cognisant of its failings, I would certainly welcome D’Hondt system as a clearly better way to reflect voters wishes.

Surely it’s not too difficult to find a way around the seatwarmers problem. FPTP system just encourages careerists & seatwarmers-once in a seat it’s difficult to get rid of them.

Another option which you appear to have overlooked Stu is that no candidate should be allowed to stand on both the constituency FPTP AND the list.

None of the above. In terms of sitting MSP’s on the list, only party leaders and deputy leaders should be allowed.

PS the weather here in Tarbert, Argyll has been braw and looks good for another couple of days… You should have come up for a break….

Had two BBQ dinners already & looking forward to another couple….

I rather like our system but agree that the list should open.

In the Netherlands all candidates are listed in their party column in the order selected by the party.

You can either tick the box at the top for the party or tick an individual name. The personal votes can then move a candidate up the list.

In practice most would probably just tick the party. Others would vote for the family, friend or name that they recognise.

I would think that the list MSPs would probably look much the same because it is voters who support that party who are voting for them.

If, say Sarwar, is as unpopular with current Labour voters as he is with non-labour voters then someone else would be voted up the list.

Andy Wightman could have been voted up the list and got in if the Greens had only won one list seat but only if the people voting for the Greens wanted him not because people from other parties think he would be better.

You need another option Stu, as is but with open list.

O/T

Billy Connolly: He’s made it VERY clear that he doesn’t want Scotland to be Independent. The Scotland that helped him on his way to be (financially) Independent through using us Scots, in a jokey way, by highlighting at every turn how wee, poor and stupid we are.

tipping down?

MUST LIVE IN ANOTHER COUNTRY!!!

Like the article though, nice cool drink in the sun reading it through.

The glare is a bit of a bugger though.!!

where’s the factor 50?

O/T. Came out of Scottish Parliament yesterday (don’t ask) and passed a wee huddle of folk including Johann Lamont and Patrick Harvie. Sure I heard Patrick promising to get the Greens to vote for her as Presiding Officer. You heard it here!

For those of you who think FPTP is not the correct way i only have one thing to say the reason FPTP does not work in the UK is because of boundary changes.

This allows sitting MP`s to remove areas inside their constituancy that did not vote for them or bring in areas that backed their party but might have lost that ward ,making it almost impossible for the opposition to win back the ward,FPTP UKOK corrupt style is not what i am suggesting.

Boundary changes are the biggest UKOK fruad on democracy ever and is why most UK governments get 2-3 terms in office regardless if they are complete idiots,it becomes almost impossible to remove them as they can manipulate the vote.

Boundary changes should never be the choice of government but of the constituancy affected it should be their choice if an area should move to another constituancy not a political party.

FPTP does work just not when you let political parties who have won elections change the goal posts.

The last Labour government in Westminster legislated to prevent candidates standing for both constituency and list seats in Wales (when Peter Hain was Secretary of State for Wales. This rule applied to the 2011 election but was repealed by the Tories just before the recent Assembly election. Interesting that the same issue now arises in Scotland.

tarlair

jethro tull played there in the 90s

crowd on the rock cliffs around like a natural ampitheatre

I don’t see this as being a problem with the system.

If the Unionist parties want to foist these deadwood politicians on their supporters by list, if they cannot do it by constituency, that is their prerogative. I doubt that it will attract a rush of new members to their parties and that is just fine with me.

I suspect that many of the dyed-in-the-wool Unionist voters do not care about the name or calibre of the person who sits in Holyrood, just so long as they are “their Party” and not SNP.

Life as a list MSP a lot harder than being a Constituency MSP. There is a much larger area to cover, and no more time to do it in. The ex-constituency MSPs are going to find the travelling a burden, if they do the job properly. It will be up to the constituents to see that they do.

Billy Connolly stopped being funny when he stopped talking about where he came from.

I believe it was probably the late Eighties when he was Billy big time doon sooth. The exact moment was when he made a joke about Johoba Shampoo. Then it was onto hanging about wth Charles, making films about Queen Victoria and being seen with the luvvies.

The guy is an oxymoron. He says he believes in less bureacracy and detests patriotism. So he wants power over Scotland centralised in London. Long to reign over us. The moncarchy are the most patriotic and anachronistic relic of nationhood still in existance. He likes them but hates Scotland taking democracy back to the people who live there.

He is to understanding politics as Donald Trump is to understanding world peace.

A massive injustice in electoral terms, mainly for the people of those constituencies, but also for the parties themselves surely.

The simplest change to make of course is not to allow the same name to appear in both positions. If there is no new talent, then there is no new talent to put forward in that region and that is down to that party’s choice. What you cannot do IMO is put forward the same bod twice effectively giving them two bites at the proverbial. If a person is rejected by the population of a constituency its a pretty safe bet they have a good reason for rejecting that person. To then float them on the list party ticket is simply throwing their vote back in their face.

Personally, from the choices above, I quite like the Rev’s idea as a replacement for the current system.

There are moves afoot to bring the Tralair swimming pool back to public use. There has been for some time. There could be plans coming in the pipe line depending on budgetary constraints etc. A nice area for a visit.

I confess to being a bit of an anorak – I like the D’Hondt system.

It has a decisive constituency element. It gives a considerable degree of proportional fairness. It’s hard to “game” successfully as we have discovered.

I think the Party lists should be “open”. It’s not only party members who vote for the parties’ candidates, and this would allow new blood in and prevent abuse by party hacks with deep pockets or a notebook full of other people’s indiscretions.

It avoids all the “cunning plan” attempts to get round who we would have liked to have benefitted, while chucking out our list of those we like to hate.

If D’Hondt is complicated it’s probably best not to make it worse by too many extra combinations/ exclusions/extra rules for those we don’t like. The party list exists – people have an idea who is top of it – so ticking the candidate on your list wouldn’t be much of a stretch.

I don’t like STV – too easy to “game” – a two-edged sword.

BBC QT this week in Aberdeen Ruth D from winning party in recent Scottish elections is on …..sound man at BBC beware as she is known to be often very shouty (with an ‘ou’ not an ‘i’ and double ‘t’) ,constantly interrupts and is generally very badly behaved in what is supposedly meant to be a civilised debate but in reality is a glorification of all things unionist.

Can we expect a rerun of Dundee QT audience with different people ( perhaps) but same voices ? I say watch the audience and note their names and follow the line of questioning….I sense a Tory revival theme and the appetite for independence is now diminishing mantra, people want to move on, hold SNP to account ( that old yoon chestnut…again…. yawn… but not mention WM Govt. policies or Euro Tory infighting ok),perhaps a sprinkling of what’s happened to Labour party…is it the Corbyn factor? no mandate second referendum in fact a Tory unionist political propaganda broadcast.

And if that was not enough to tempt you they also have Alex Massie …yeh….Lord Falconer…yeh…no Lib Dem…aw….or UKIP….aw….and last but not least Lesley Riddoch and John Nicolson , the two token pro Indy panelists, which is fair enough as Scotland is now a Pro Unionist country what with Tories winning election last week.

And lets not forget impartial Dimbleby ….what the friggen hell is not to like eh…you tell me….must see TV…replace yir tin foil hat with a union jack cap….cause they will be rolling out da barrel and we’ll have a barrel of fun , roll out da barrel cause we’ve got the BLUES on da run…

I have lost the friggin plot …stop the world….don’t want to get off just want a real dose of reality Scottish style which sadly ain’t gonna come from watching BBC QT…Abloodymen to that.

The other point about Connolly is his support of Celtic!

His love of the union, if we can call it that. Does not sit well with the working class traditions of Celtic. Mind you the same could be said for warmonger John Reid.

They appear to support one thing and then another contradictory thing at the same time. Cognotive Dissonance.

That could describe the entire Scottish Labour party.

Boundary changes are necessary because of rise and fall of population in different areas as per representative members. Representation is links to population. It is supposed to bring a regulated elected members to numbers of the electorate. E.g. 1 representative to the same number proportionate of the electorate. I.e. 1 representative per the same % of the electorate.

It is supposed to be nothing to do with the Gov at all. Their only responsibility is to make sure the organisational elements conform to the guidelines. To give conformity of representation. 1 rep per same proportionate number of the electorate (as a %). 1 rep per x thousand? of electorate – in unison. For equality and fairness.

Could religion be kept out of politics? If possible. Thanks – same for football. Or even American citizens who are irrelevant to Holyrood Elections. Don’t even have a vote.

Connolly even stated, – he was staying completely out of it? ‘No comment’. Did he? He could be extremely when reminiscing. He brought a lot of money – trade into Scotland. Worldwide sales etc. tourism. Ex pats. The disaporia

Legerwood, yep and it seems the only Lib Dem voted with Labour to keep Leanne out.

How did Kez vote, Rev?

Oh wait….

Out of interest, how many goes did it take before Nicola Sturgeon managed to win a FPTP election?

Dave I am surprised it’s only 36%!

I voted restricting losers seats… but think the number should be limited to one per region… 7 in total nationwide.