Sinn Fein seem to have gotten very confused, hence the fact that they'll end up with fewer seats than FG and FF despite winning the popular vote.
Also, studies tend to show that people can cope with ranking their first two or three choices, max, and the resort to filling out the ballot from top to bottom.
Finally, any system where you get statements like "Leo Varadkar has been elected on the fifth count" is by necessity confusing. How the hell are voters supposed to draw a link between the votes they and their neighbours vast, and the people who end up in Parliament, when things like that are happening?
Granted, single member constituencies resolve the first and last points, but also don't tend to give very "proportional" outcomes.
Sinn Fein expected to get far fewer votes (say 15%) but knew that if their votes were split they could potentially get fewer people elected than would be the case if they stood a single candidate in every constituency.
That plan only back fired once they got beyond 20-21% of the vote which came as a surprise to everyone including RTE who only a week ago had to change the final TV debate.
It just shows no voting system is perfect - single member constituencies end up with no-one apart from the winning side being happy, other methods result in gaming in multiple different ways to maximise the chances of getting the result you want
With STV is there any guarantee that the proportion of seats won is in relation the first preferences cast? Sinn Fein appear to be heading for more than 24% of seats at the moment although it could be misleading at this stage.
There's no guarantee, but generally the Irish system is surprisingly proportional once a party exceeds about 6% of the first-vote prefs, provided the parties field the right number of candidates (which they usually do) .
In this particular election, Sinn Féin didn't field enough candidates, because they weren't expecting to get this level of support. So they will underperform relative to their vote share.
The current figures are misleading precisely because of that underperformance - they won't get second seats in constituencies where they could have done so, so their candidates have disproportionately been elected in the early rounds of voting. (For example, in a four-member seat, if you have only one candidate to whom all of your 25% first-pref support goes, you'll win on the first round. If you have two candidates, they might get only 12.5% each initially, and not get elected until a later round where other candidates have been eliminated).
Sinn Fein seem to have gotten very confused, hence the fact that they'll end up with fewer seats than FG and FF despite winning the popular vote.
Also, studies tend to show that people can cope with ranking their first two or three choices, max, and the resort to filling out the ballot from top to bottom.
Finally, any system where you get statements like "Leo Varadkar has been elected on the fifth count" is by necessity confusing. How the hell are voters supposed to draw a link between the votes they and their neighbours vast, and the people who end up in Parliament, when things like that are happening?
Granted, single member constituencies resolve the first and last points, but also don't tend to give very "proportional" outcomes.
Sinn Fein expected to get far fewer votes (say 15%) but knew that if their votes were split they could potentially get fewer people elected than would be the case if they stood a single candidate in every constituency.
That plan only back fired once they got beyond 20-21% of the vote which came as a surprise to everyone including RTE who only a week ago had to change the final TV debate.
It just shows no voting system is perfect - single member constituencies end up with no-one apart from the winning side being happy, other methods result in gaming in multiple different ways to maximise the chances of getting the result you want
And to add - possibly the worst thing FG and FF could do would be to allow a second immediate election. Sinn Fein now know where to stand 2+ candidates and double their seat count with little risk.
Bercow is an arrogant turd and the only reason for denying him a seat with the existing HoL turds is that it would disproportionately increase the turdishness quotient to an unacceptable level.
The reason for denying him a seat is as an IS unit for measuring how payback is a bitch.
A law-change was announced after an evacuated patient staying at Arrowe Park hospital on The Wirral tried to leave before completing the 14-day stay after his return from China, MailOnline understands.
The British government spend a bloody fortune getting this person back to the UK, give them really good lodgings, food, etc, and all they have to do is spend 14 days watching Netflix. Now the government are having to change the law to stop idiots doing this.
Good job he wasn't in China when they tried to do this, he would be in some re-education camp before they knew it.
What a total and utter muppet,. His actions are probably going to lead to deterioration in condition and an an increase in security cost for everyone else - whose voluntary quarantine just got turned into involuntarily quarantine.
Although, if you are Government, you will have been itching for an excuse to upgrade to involuntary. And "utter muppet" just gave it to them.
It does show the general level of selfishness in the population that people think they have the right to be protected from a life-threatening virus, as long as it doesn't actually stop them doing what they want to do or go where they want to go.
If the government are kind enough to risk their own people to pull you out of a dangerous situation abroad, the least you can do to show your gratitude is not bring the danger back with you. Anyone who travels abroad should know this! Grr, idiotic Brits again.
It’s not as if it’s prison either, although it’s clearly not The Ritz. They have facilities and internet, can speak to friends and it’s only for a couple of weeks, not months on end.
A law-change was announced after an evacuated patient staying at Arrowe Park hospital on The Wirral tried to leave before completing the 14-day stay after his return from China, MailOnline understands.
The British government spend a bloody fortune getting this person back to the UK, give them really good lodgings, food, etc, and all they have to do is spend 14 days watching Netflix. Now the government are having to change the law to stop idiots doing this.
Good job he wasn't in China when they tried to do this, he would be in some re-education camp before they knew it.
What a total and utter muppet,. His actions are probably going to lead to deterioration in condition and an an increase in security cost for everyone else - whose voluntary quarantine just got turned into involuntarily quarantine.
Although, if you are Government, you will have been itching for an excuse to upgrade to involuntary. And "utter muppet" just gave it to them.
It does show the general level of selfishness in the population that people think they have the right to be protected from a life-threatening virus, as long as it doesn't actually stop them doing what they want to do or go where they want to go.
Entitlement is objectionable and as rampant today as it has ever been in my lifetime.
And to add - possibly the worst thing FG and FF could do would be to allow a second immediate election. Sinn Fein now know where to stand 2+ candidates and double their seat count with little risk.
Which is why there is not going to be an early second election.
“I think,” Caron said, “I’m going to vote in the primary for Bernie.”
And in November?
No question. Trump.
“I don’t see him,” she said of Sanders, “swinging me away.”
MAGA world is quite enthusiastic about Bernie - part of it is tactical, as he'll be a weak opponent to Trump, and part of it is liking the anti-establishment angle, and left-populist having a fair bit of genuine overlap with right-populist.
What a total and utter muppet,. His actions are probably going to lead to deterioration in condition and an an increase in security cost for everyone else - whose voluntary quarantine just got turned into involuntarily quarantine.
There was a similar case in Japan where they flew a bunch of Japanese nationals out of Wuhan and tried to test them for the virus, and two of them refused to be tested. After that they changed the rules so you had to sign the consent form before they'd let you on the plane...
All those British evacuated had to sign a form as well, and it was very clearly explained to them what was going to happen and it was their choice.
I mean FFS, it is just selfish to then try and leave. It isn't 6 star luxury hotel, but they have pretty nice accommodation, they can get outside and wander around, they have the t'interweb, food etc. Its hardly Steve McQueen being put in solitary with just his baseball.
And it's a walk in the park compared to an inside cabin on a cruise ship.
Yes, I saw that. I couldn't decide whether a) this was possibly a poor move in PR terms or b) sucha bafflingly odd insult that it transcends mere positive or negative or c) whether they just do things differently in America.
The Democrats are collectively going bonkers. Pelosi has been having a row with Twitter and Facebook since yesterday, because she wants them to take down Trump’s video of her ripping up his speech.
Biden’s clearly starting to lose his sound mind, he should have stood in 2016 but he’s clearly not up to it any more, sadly.
A law-change was announced after an evacuated patient staying at Arrowe Park hospital on The Wirral tried to leave before completing the 14-day stay after his return from China, MailOnline understands.
The British government spend a bloody fortune getting this person back to the UK, give them really good lodgings, food, etc, and all they have to do is spend 14 days watching Netflix. Now the government are having to change the law to stop idiots doing this.
Good job he wasn't in China when they tried to do this, he would be in some re-education camp before they knew it.
What a total and utter muppet,. His actions are probably going to lead to deterioration in condition and an an increase in security cost for everyone else - whose voluntary quarantine just got turned into involuntarily quarantine.
Although, if you are Government, you will have been itching for an excuse to upgrade to involuntary. And "utter muppet" just gave it to them.
It does show the general level of selfishness in the population that people think they have the right to be protected from a life-threatening virus, as long as it doesn't actually stop them doing what they want to do or go where they want to go.
If the government are kind enough to risk their own people to pull you out of a dangerous situation abroad, the least you can do to show your gratitude is not bring the danger back with you. Anyone who travels abroad should know this! Grr, idiotic Brits again.
It’s not as if it’s prison either, although it’s clearly not The Ritz. They have facilities and internet, can speak to friends and it’s only for a couple of weeks, not months on end.
I'm surprised Channel 4/5 haven't sent in TV cameras in an attempt to livestream the whole thing.
If the government had only thought ahead slightly, the rights might even have paid off the cost of the evacuation. Stupid not-profit-focused-enough right wingers.
And to add - possibly the worst thing FG and FF could do would be to allow a second immediate election. Sinn Fein now know where to stand 2+ candidates and double their seat count with little risk.
Which is why there is not going to be an early second election.
Though equally if FF and FG team up to ensure SF are locked out and official opposition then the chances are they'll do even better at a future election.
Boris allegedly thinks it'll shore up the union. I hae me doots, in 20 years time it will make us a land bridge between two EU countries. For that reason Remainers and rejoiners should support this plan.
A law-change was announced after an evacuated patient staying at Arrowe Park hospital on The Wirral tried to leave before completing the 14-day stay after his return from China, MailOnline understands.
The British government spend a bloody fortune getting this person back to the UK, give them really good lodgings, food, etc, and all they have to do is spend 14 days watching Netflix. Now the government are having to change the law to stop idiots doing this.
Good job he wasn't in China when they tried to do this, he would be in some re-education camp before they knew it.
What a total and utter muppet,. His actions are probably going to lead to deterioration in condition and an an increase in security cost for everyone else - whose voluntary quarantine just got turned into involuntarily quarantine.
Although, if you are Government, you will have been itching for an excuse to upgrade to involuntary. And "utter muppet" just gave it to them.
It does show the general level of selfishness in the population that people think they have the right to be protected from a life-threatening virus, as long as it doesn't actually stop them doing what they want to do or go where they want to go.
If the government are kind enough to risk their own people to pull you out of a dangerous situation abroad, the least you can do to show your gratitude is not bring the danger back with you. Anyone who travels abroad should know this! Grr, idiotic Brits again.
It’s not as if it’s prison either, although it’s clearly not The Ritz. They have facilities and internet, can speak to friends and it’s only for a couple of weeks, not months on end.
I'm surprised Channel 4/5 haven't sent in TV cameras in an attempt to livestream the whole thing.
"It's Day 12 in the Big Bother House - and it's kicking off. Yes, everyboody was Kung Flu fighting....."
"Under proportional representation, the party with the most votes won't get the most seats"
STV: Nonsense on stilts.
I'd love to learn about your alternative system that gives parties more seats than they stood for.
If you only stand for a quarter of the seats, the most you can win is [checks notes] a quarter of the seats...
d'Hondt with party primaries to determine the candidate order on the list.
Constituencies of around 10 seats to give proportional results.
d'Hondt is fine if you're willing to give up the connection between voters and individual candidates. That would be a big loss, but it's still better than the status quo in the UK. (But 10 seats per constituency, meaning that there were nearly 1 million people in each constituency, would be too many.)
However, I find it bizarre that someone who would advocate this system can despise STV with such a passion, especially on the grounds that it's confusing!
PR is clearly less confusing than STV. The issue I have with D'Hondt that voters still have to try and work out, based on polling, which parties are actually most likely to be in contention for the last seat to be awarded, or their vote is "wasted".
Make the constituencies too small, and this effect becomes magnified - eg the 3 seats awarded to the North East at the last EU elections. Make them too big, and you set the bar too high for smaller and regional parties to gain any seats at all.
STV isn't confusing. You just vote in order of preference 1,2 3 etc. What's confusing about that?
While STV and d'Hondt are both clearly more complex than FPTP or AV, I think "it's confusing" is mainly just a stock expression of opposition that can be applied to anything that can't be condensed into three words.
For example, there were certainly valid criticisms to be thrown at Labour's policy of having a second referendum on Brexit and being neutral on it, but "it's confusing" wasn't one of them, yet I heard it many times.
A few threads back, I gave a three sentence explanation of how transfers work in STV and got a similar response from someone who is now advocating d'Hondt. This, despite the fact that the d'Hondt method cannot be explained any more succinctly, and indeed should be called the Jefferson method after the man who invented it, but because d'Hondt used different mechanics to reach the same result, nobody realised that he had reinvented the wheel!
'The Orkney and Shetland Movement, a coalition of independence movements in Orkney and Shetland, contested the Orkney and Shetland constituency in the 1987 general election. It saw as its models the Isle of Man and the Faroe Islands, an autonomous dependency of Denmark.[24] The Scottish National Party chose not to contest the seat to give the movement a "free run". Their candidate, John Goodlad, came 4th with 3,095 votes, 14.5% of those cast, and it did not stand in any subsequent election.'
'Wir Shetland was a pressure group demanding greater autonomy for Shetland, an archipelago of Scotland. It was launched in October 2015, and campaigned for British Crown Dependency status for Shetland, which would separate it from Scotland. It compared itself to the Shetland Movement active in the 1980s and 1990s. It backed Tavish Scott, the Liberal Democrat MSP for Shetland, in the 2016 Scottish Parliament election, causing resignations from the group. The group seems to have ceased to exist.'
Oh, well that's okay then. At what point would an entity be considered worthy of sovereignty over the right to have a vote on independence from Scotland?
As per my previous , please show how England would give any region a vote on independence from England.
We wouldn't (at least, I don't think we would), but we're not the ones complaining about the lack of a right to decide when to hold a vote.
You totally miss the point, it is not up to England whether Scotland wants to vote on independence. Fact that they are insistent on denying democracy shows it is not a union but that England is acting as a colonial power, desperately trying to keep its Empire afloat.
Bercow is an arrogant turd and the only reason for denying him a seat with the existing HoL turds is that it would disproportionately increase the turdishness quotient to an unacceptable level.
The reason for denying him a seat is as an IS unit for measuring how payback is a bitch.
Yes, I saw that. I couldn't decide whether a) this was possibly a poor move in PR terms or b) sucha bafflingly odd insult that it transcends mere positive or negative or c) whether they just do things differently in America.
'The Orkney and Shetland Movement, a coalition of independence movements in Orkney and Shetland, contested the Orkney and Shetland constituency in the 1987 general election. It saw as its models the Isle of Man and the Faroe Islands, an autonomous dependency of Denmark.[24] The Scottish National Party chose not to contest the seat to give the movement a "free run". Their candidate, John Goodlad, came 4th with 3,095 votes, 14.5% of those cast, and it did not stand in any subsequent election.'
'Wir Shetland was a pressure group demanding greater autonomy for Shetland, an archipelago of Scotland. It was launched in October 2015, and campaigned for British Crown Dependency status for Shetland, which would separate it from Scotland. It compared itself to the Shetland Movement active in the 1980s and 1990s. It backed Tavish Scott, the Liberal Democrat MSP for Shetland, in the 2016 Scottish Parliament election, causing resignations from the group. The group seems to have ceased to exist.'
Oh, well that's okay then. At what point would an entity be considered worthy of sovereignty over the right to have a vote on independence from Scotland?
As per my previous , please show how England would give any region a vote on independence from England.
We wouldn't (at least, I don't think we would), but we're not the ones complaining about the lack of a right to decide when to hold a vote.
You totally miss the point, it is not up to England whether Scotland wants to vote on independence. Fact that they are insistent on denying democracy shows it is not a union but that England is acting as a colonial power, desperately trying to keep its Empire afloat.
Try that line in America, or Spain, or almost any other federation.
Boris allegedly thinks it'll shore up the union. I hae me doots, in 20 years time it will make us a land bridge between two EU countries. For that reason Remainers and rejoiners should support this plan.
Yes, I saw that. I couldn't decide whether a) this was possibly a poor move in PR terms or b) sucha bafflingly odd insult that it transcends mere positive or negative or c) whether they just do things differently in America.
It's a quote from an old movie, said in a clearly tongue in cheek way.
Boris allegedly thinks it'll shore up the union. I hae me doots, in 20 years time it will make us a land bridge between two EU countries. For that reason Remainers and rejoiners should support this plan.
LOL it is not impossible that, by the time it was actually finished, Scotland could have voted for independence and Northern Ireland could have voted for reunification with the Republic of Ireland. It could end up as a bridge between two countries no longer part of the UK....
And to add - possibly the worst thing FG and FF could do would be to allow a second immediate election. Sinn Fein now know where to stand 2+ candidates and double their seat count with little risk.
Which is why there is not going to be an early second election.
Though equally if FF and FG team up to ensure SF are locked out and official opposition then the chances are they'll do even better at a future election.
Yes, indeed. There are no good options for FF and FG, and no bad options for SF.
And to add - possibly the worst thing FG and FF could do would be to allow a second immediate election. Sinn Fein now know where to stand 2+ candidates and double their seat count with little risk.
Which is why there is not going to be an early second election.
Though equally if FF and FG team up to ensure SF are locked out and official opposition then the chances are they'll do even better at a future election.
The CDU and SPD have done the same in Germany to keep out the AfD and the AfD not doing much better than the last general election despite being the main opposition party
Only with respect to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The lack of an English Parliament means the UK is not one.
Get off your harrises and do something about it then, there has never not been a majority of English MPs in the UK parliament.
If the UK was in any sense federal, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would not hold their devolved powers at the whim of central government.
The English majority is because England is a majority, nothing else.
Does the Scottish government hold its devolved powers at the whim of the central government? I don't think the central government can that easily suspend or abolish Holyrood.
Reserved matters are not devolved but then they're reserved. Even under what you would call a proper federal system states can't exercise central powers.
They have taken back lots of powers under the guise of Brexit, ie labeling of food so that they can do dodgy deals with USA etc and fudge the crap being signed up to. Many other instances , so they have no intention of having an equal union. A devolved power is just a reserved power as they can take it back or meddle in it any time they like. Current lot are crapping all over us.
Yes, I saw that. I couldn't decide whether a) this was possibly a poor move in PR terms or b) sucha bafflingly odd insult that it transcends mere positive or negative or c) whether they just do things differently in America.
It's a quote from an old movie, said in a clearly tongue in cheek way.
'The Orkney and Shetland Movement, a coalition of independence movements in Orkney and Shetland, contested the Orkney and Shetland constituency in the 1987 general election. It saw as its models the Isle of Man and the Faroe Islands, an autonomous dependency of Denmark.[24] The Scottish National Party chose not to contest the seat to give the movement a "free run". Their candidate, John Goodlad, came 4th with 3,095 votes, 14.5% of those cast, and it did not stand in any subsequent election.'
'Wir Shetland was a pressure group demanding greater autonomy for Shetland, an archipelago of Scotland. It was launched in October 2015, and campaigned for British Crown Dependency status for Shetland, which would separate it from Scotland. It compared itself to the Shetland Movement active in the 1980s and 1990s. It backed Tavish Scott, the Liberal Democrat MSP for Shetland, in the 2016 Scottish Parliament election, causing resignations from the group. The group seems to have ceased to exist.'
Oh, well that's okay then. At what point would an entity be considered worthy of sovereignty over the right to have a vote on independence from Scotland?
As per my previous , please show how England would give any region a vote on independence from England.
We wouldn't (at least, I don't think we would), but we're not the ones complaining about the lack of a right to decide when to hold a vote.
You totally miss the point, it is not up to England whether Scotland wants to vote on independence. Fact that they are insistent on denying democracy shows it is not a union but that England is acting as a colonial power, desperately trying to keep its Empire afloat.
Try that line in America, or Spain, or almost any other federation.
WE are not in any of those and what you are talking about are states , not countries. Totally different situation. PS: Who do you think should decide if Scotland wants to be an independent country , people of Scotland or England. Why does England want to deny Scotland its democratic rights under International Law.
"Under proportional representation, the party with the most votes won't get the most seats"
STV: Nonsense on stilts.
I'd love to learn about your alternative system that gives parties more seats than they stood for.
If you only stand for a quarter of the seats, the most you can win is [checks notes] a quarter of the seats...
d'Hondt with party primaries to determine the candidate order on the list.
Constituencies of around 10 seats to give proportional results.
d'Hondt is fine if you're willing to give up the connection between voters and individual candidates. That would be a big loss, but it's still better than the status quo in the UK. (But 10 seats per constituency, meaning that there were nearly 1 million people in each constituency, would be too many.)
However, I find it bizarre that someone who would advocate this system can despise STV with such a passion, especially on the grounds that it's confusing!
PR is clearly less confusing than STV. The issue I have with D'Hondt that voters still have to try and work out, based on polling, which parties are actually most likely to be in contention for the last seat to be awarded, or their vote is "wasted".
Make the constituencies too small, and this effect becomes magnified - eg the 3 seats awarded to the North East at the last EU elections. Make them too big, and you set the bar too high for smaller and regional parties to gain any seats at all.
STV isn't confusing. You just vote in order of preference 1,2 3 etc. What's confusing about that?
Have a read of the comments from RLB supporters below this tweet.
The consensus is that they won't put down a second preference because it will hurt THEIR OWN first preference.
And to add - possibly the worst thing FG and FF could do would be to allow a second immediate election. Sinn Fein now know where to stand 2+ candidates and double their seat count with little risk.
Which is why there is not going to be an early second election.
Though equally if FF and FG team up to ensure SF are locked out and official opposition then the chances are they'll do even better at a future election.
It will give them time to shred the "troubles" files (or any conspiracy theory of SF's choice).
With STV is there any guarantee that the proportion of seats won is in relation the first preferences cast? Sinn Fein appear to be heading for more than 24% of seats at the moment although it could be misleading at this stage.
There's no guarantee, but generally the Irish system is surprisingly proportional once a party exceeds about 6% of the first-vote prefs, provided the parties field the right number of candidates (which they usually do) .
In this particular election, Sinn Féin didn't field enough candidates, because they weren't expecting to get this level of support. So they will underperform relative to their vote share.
The current figures are misleading precisely because of that underperformance - they won't get second seats in constituencies where they could have done so, so their candidates have disproportionately been elected in the early rounds of voting. (For example, in a four-member seat, if you have only one candidate to whom all of your 25% first-pref support goes, you'll win on the first round. If you have two candidates, they might get only 12.5% each initially, and not get elected until a later round where other candidates have been eliminated).
Yes. Looking at the way remaining seats are panning out, it looks pretty clear that SF will get 37 in total out of 160. i.e. 23% from 24.5% of the vote. The others are harder to read, but as a guesstimate, I think that FF will end up getting close to 50 from 22.2% and FG will also get well above 40 from <21%.
"Under proportional representation, the party with the most votes won't get the most seats"
STV: Nonsense on stilts.
I'd love to learn about your alternative system that gives parties more seats than they stood for.
If you only stand for a quarter of the seats, the most you can win is [checks notes] a quarter of the seats...
d'Hondt with party primaries to determine the candidate order on the list.
Constituencies of around 10 seats to give proportional results.
d'Hondt is fine if you're willing to give up the connection between voters and individual candidates. That would be a big loss, but it's still better than the status quo in the UK. (But 10 seats per constituency, meaning that there were nearly 1 million people in each constituency, would be too many.)
However, I find it bizarre that someone who would advocate this system can despise STV with such a passion, especially on the grounds that it's confusing!
PR is clearly less confusing than STV. The issue I have with D'Hondt that voters still have to try and work out, based on polling, which parties are actually most likely to be in contention for the last seat to be awarded, or their vote is "wasted".
Make the constituencies too small, and this effect becomes magnified - eg the 3 seats awarded to the North East at the last EU elections. Make them too big, and you set the bar too high for smaller and regional parties to gain any seats at all.
STV isn't confusing. You just vote in order of preference 1,2 3 etc. What's confusing about that?
Have a read of the comments from RLB supporters below this tweet.
The consensus is that they won't put down a second preference because it will hurt THEIR OWN first preference.
What a moron, what boost will that give us , thousands of Irish lorries polluting our roads.
You're so right. Scottish roads should be left empty and scenic. All that nasty economic activity cluttering up the nice scenery. Because Scotland's economy is so obviously overheating...
Dail election. Why don't they use computers to work out the results at the count? It's ridiculous to take two days to do a job that should take two hours.
'The Orkney and Shetland Movement, a coalition of independence movements in Orkney and Shetland, contested the Orkney and Shetland constituency in the 1987 general election. It saw as its models the Isle of Man and the Faroe Islands, an autonomous dependency of Denmark.[24] The Scottish National Party chose not to contest the seat to give the movement a "free run". Their candidate, John Goodlad, came 4th with 3,095 votes, 14.5% of those cast, and it did not stand in any subsequent election.'
'Wir Shetland was a pressure group demanding greater autonomy for Shetland, an archipelago of Scotland. It was launched in October 2015, and campaigned for British Crown Dependency status for Shetland, which would separate it from Scotland. It compared itself to the Shetland Movement active in the 1980s and 1990s. It backed Tavish Scott, the Liberal Democrat MSP for Shetland, in the 2016 Scottish Parliament election, causing resignations from the group. The group seems to have ceased to exist.'
Oh, well that's okay then. At what point would an entity be considered worthy of sovereignty over the right to have a vote on independence from Scotland?
As per my previous , please show how England would give any region a vote on independence from England.
We wouldn't (at least, I don't think we would), but we're not the ones complaining about the lack of a right to decide when to hold a vote.
You totally miss the point, it is not up to England whether Scotland wants to vote on independence. Fact that they are insistent on denying democracy shows it is not a union but that England is acting as a colonial power, desperately trying to keep its Empire afloat.
Try that line in America, or Spain, or almost any other federation.
WE are not in any of those and what you are talking about are states , not countries. Totally different situation. PS: Who do you think should decide if Scotland wants to be an independent country , people of Scotland or England. Why does England want to deny Scotland its democratic rights under International Law.
Catalonia was an Independent Republic under French protection in the 17th century and Texas was an Independent Republic too in the early 19th century
We're not the ones complaining about not having sovereignty. Heck, we don't even have our own parliament.
We have Westminster at the minute. English Tory MPs control an absolute majority of Westminster. That's not normally the case though.
It may not be the case even now. There are 352 Tory MPs representing English constituences, but some are "migrant Scots" and it's more common for a Scottish MP to represent an English constituency than the other way round. [*] A source - possibly written by someone who had too much time on his hands - states that in 2012 there were 33 Scottish MPs representing seats outside of Scotland and most were Tories.
(*) No prizes for guessing why.
If a Scottish person is an MP for an English seat then they are an English MP responsible for and to English voters.
Sanders has just overtaken Biden in the South Carolina Primary, 2.26 : 2.3
I still can't accept that the Dems are stupid enough to put Sanders as nominee.
Well if the Democratic Party itself had their choice they wouldn't. It is like Corbyn here, the yuff are enthused by the Magic Grandpa routine, promising free everything, high pay, all by bashing a few billionaires.
"Under proportional representation, the party with the most votes won't get the most seats"
STV: Nonsense on stilts.
I'd love to learn about your alternative system that gives parties more seats than they stood for.
If you only stand for a quarter of the seats, the most you can win is [checks notes] a quarter of the seats...
d'Hondt with party primaries to determine the candidate order on the list.
Constituencies of around 10 seats to give proportional results.
d'Hondt is fine if you're willing to give up the connection between voters and individual candidates. That would be a big loss, but it's still better than the status quo in the UK. (But 10 seats per constituency, meaning that there were nearly 1 million people in each constituency, would be too many.)
However, I find it bizarre that someone who would advocate this system can despise STV with such a passion, especially on the grounds that it's confusing!
PR is clearly less confusing than STV. The issue I have with D'Hondt that voters still have to try and work out, based on polling, which parties are actually most likely to be in contention for the last seat to be awarded, or their vote is "wasted".
Make the constituencies too small, and this effect becomes magnified - eg the 3 seats awarded to the North East at the last EU elections. Make them too big, and you set the bar too high for smaller and regional parties to gain any seats at all.
STV isn't confusing. You just vote in order of preference 1,2 3 etc. What's confusing about that?
Have a read of the comments from RLB supporters below this tweet.
The consensus is that they won't put down a second preference because it will hurt THEIR OWN first preference.
'The Orkney and Shetland Movement, a coalition of independence movements in Orkney and Shetland, contested the Orkney and Shetland constituency in the 1987 general election. It saw as its models the Isle of Man and the Faroe Islands, an autonomous dependency of Denmark.[24] The Scottish National Party chose not to contest the seat to give the movement a "free run". Their candidate, John Goodlad, came 4th with 3,095 votes, 14.5% of those cast, and it did not stand in any subsequent election.'
'Wir Shetland was a pressure group demanding greater autonomy for Shetland, an archipelago of Scotland. It was launched in October 2015, and campaigned for British Crown Dependency status for Shetland, which would separate it from Scotland. It compared itself to the Shetland Movement active in the 1980s and 1990s. It backed Tavish Scott, the Liberal Democrat MSP for Shetland, in the 2016 Scottish Parliament election, causing resignations from the group. The group seems to have ceased to exist.'
Oh, well that's okay then. At what point would an entity be considered worthy of sovereignty over the right to have a vote on independence from Scotland?
As per my previous , please show how England would give any region a vote on independence from England.
We wouldn't (at least, I don't think we would), but we're not the ones complaining about the lack of a right to decide when to hold a vote.
You totally miss the point, it is not up to England whether Scotland wants to vote on independence. Fact that they are insistent on denying democracy shows it is not a union but that England is acting as a colonial power, desperately trying to keep its Empire afloat.
Try that line in America, or Spain, or almost any other federation.
WE are not in any of those and what you are talking about are states , not countries. Totally different situation. PS: Who do you think should decide if Scotland wants to be an independent country , people of Scotland or England. Why does England want to deny Scotland its democratic rights under International Law.
Who do I think should determine it? In my opinion I think Scotland should, I respect Scotland's decision. I also think Catalonia etc should too.
Didn't realise there was a biography of Bercow on its way, due out 19 March. May be a rather more interesting read than Bercow's own chunterings about himself.
Boris allegedly thinks it'll shore up the union. I hae me doots, in 20 years time it will make us a land bridge between two EU countries. For that reason Remainers and rejoiners should support this plan.
LOL it is not impossible that, by the time it was actually finished, Scotland could have voted for independence and Northern Ireland could have voted for reunification with the Republic of Ireland. It could end up as a bridge between two countries no longer part of the UK....
I doubt it as Boris will block indyref2 and a border poll and by then the whole UK could be back in the single market under PM Starmer anyway
Didn't realise there was a biography of Bercow on its way, due out 19 March. May be a rather more interesting read than Bercow's own chunterings about himself.
I really like grands projet like this, and there are precedents. If you're going to have a PM that thinks big, this is the kind of thing he should be doing. Build it and we'll worry about the cost later. Yes they cost, but my goodness they last.
WE are not in any of those and what you are talking about are states , not countries. Totally different situation. PS: Who do you think should decide if Scotland wants to be an independent country , people of Scotland or England. Why does England want to deny Scotland its democratic rights under International Law.
Sorry I hit reply early so you only got half of my response.
England doesn't want to deny Scotland its democratic rights under International Law. Firstly England isn't making a decision here, England has no voice. Secondly Scotland rightly or wrongly has no democratic rights under International Law which is why Catalans can't appeal to the Hague etc to assert their rights under International Law.
Didn't realise there was a biography of Bercow on its way, due out 19 March. May be a rather more interesting read than Bercow's own chunterings about himself.
On the Coronavirus mortality rate statistics: one factor which slightly worries me is that the patients outside China are currently almost all receiving particularly high-quality care in specialised units, and therefore you might expect their recovery rates to be as good as they possibly could be. However, if the number of cases increases substantially, there may not be the resources to provide such intensive treatment, and therefore one might expect the mortality rates to be higher as the disease becomes more widespread.
The Straits Times reports the mortality rate in Hubei at 2% but outside Hubei 0.2% - so that may be the difference between a health service taking it in its stride and one thats struggling. Hubei accounts for nearly 30,000 of the global 40,000 cases,
Dail election. Why don't they use computers to work out the results at the count? It's ridiculous to take two days to do a job that should take two hours.
Because... have you been following the Iowa Democratic caucus?
Dail election. Why don't they use computers to work out the results at the count? It's ridiculous to take two days to do a job that should take two hours.
Because... have you been following the Iowa Democratic caucus?
What is the problem that a bridge between Larne and Portpatrick is the solution to? Because it isn't "how to get from Belfast to Glasgow faster" and it isn't "how to get from Belfast to London faster".
Sanders has just overtaken Biden in the South Carolina Primary, 2.26 : 2.3
I still can't accept that the Dems are stupid enough to put Sanders as nominee.
Well if the Democratic Party itself had their choice they wouldn't. It is like Corbyn here, the yuff are enthused by the Magic Grandpa routine, promising free everything, high pay, all by bashing a few billionaires.
Yep. I can't face putting money on Trump, but it does look like he has secured four more years at this rate.
"Under proportional representation, the party with the most votes won't get the most seats"
STV: Nonsense on stilts.
I'd love to learn about your alternative system that gives parties more seats than they stood for.
If you only stand for a quarter of the seats, the most you can win is [checks notes] a quarter of the seats...
d'Hondt with party primaries to determine the candidate order on the list.
Constituencies of around 10 seats to give proportional results.
d'Hondt is fine if you're willing to give up the connection between voters and individual candidates. That would be a big loss, but it's still better than the status quo in the UK. (But 10 seats per constituency, meaning that there were nearly 1 million people in each constituency, would be too many.)
However, I find it bizarre that someone who would advocate this system can despise STV with such a passion, especially on the grounds that it's confusing!
PR is clearly less confusing than STV. The issue I have with D'Hondt that voters still have to try and work out, based on polling, which parties are actually most likely to be in contention for the last seat to be awarded, or their vote is "wasted".
Make the constituencies too small, and this effect becomes magnified - eg the 3 seats awarded to the North East at the last EU elections. Make them too big, and you set the bar too high for smaller and regional parties to gain any seats at all.
STV isn't confusing. You just vote in order of preference 1,2 3 etc. What's confusing about that?
Have a read of the comments from RLB supporters below this tweet.
The consensus is that they won't put down a second preference because it will hurt THEIR OWN first preference.
Dail election. Why don't they use computers to work out the results at the count? It's ridiculous to take two days to do a job that should take two hours.
Dail election. Why don't they use computers to work out the results at the count? It's ridiculous to take two days to do a job that should take two hours.
Because... have you been following the Iowa Democratic caucus?
Computers and democracy should not intersect.
The Irish general election count is a completely different electoral animal from the Iowa caucuses. It should be a straightforward process to transfer the preferences from the ballot papers onto computer, and then the entire country's results would be worked out in a flash. Of course you'd have safeguards to ensure the data was entered correctly and calculated correctly, but it's not rocket science, and obviously much more accurate than counting by hand.
Dail election. Why don't they use computers to work out the results at the count? It's ridiculous to take two days to do a job that should take two hours.
I think it's fine the way they do it, STV will always take longer than FPTP. 2 days is fine to work out a national result, we won't have full California results in 2 days.
Sanders has just overtaken Biden in the South Carolina Primary, 2.26 : 2.3
I still can't accept that the Dems are stupid enough to put Sanders as nominee.
Well if the Democratic Party itself had their choice they wouldn't. It is like Corbyn here, the yuff are enthused by the Magic Grandpa routine, promising free everything, high pay, all by bashing a few billionaires.
Yep. I can't face putting money on Trump, but it does look like he has secured four more years at this rate.
I wouldn't go that far. But all they had to do is pick somebody who is sane, comportment, with a set of policies that generally wouldn't scare the horses, while not obsessing over identity politics and stayed away from calling anybody who previously voted Trump a racist deplorable moron, they would walk it.
If what I just overhead from the (indiscreet) staffers in front of me in Portcullis House is true then Liz Truss is for the chop and Michael Gove is being put in charge of International Trade.
What is the problem that a bridge between Larne and Portpatrick is the solution to? Because it isn't "how to get from Belfast to Glasgow faster" and it isn't "how to get from Belfast to London faster".
The problem that it is the solution to is "How do we increase the probability that Northern Ireland remains within the United Kingdom?". And, frankly, considering Boris's treatment of NI, it's overdue.
What is the problem that a bridge between Larne and Portpatrick is the solution to? Because it isn't "how to get from Belfast to Glasgow faster" and it isn't "how to get from Belfast to London faster".
Johnson seems to think it would reduce flights between NI and UK iirc.
Dail election. Why don't they use computers to work out the results at the count? It's ridiculous to take two days to do a job that should take two hours.
Because... have you been following the Iowa Democratic caucus?
Computers and democracy should not intersect.
The Irish general election count is a completely different electoral animal from the Iowa caucuses. It should be a straightforward process to transfer the preferences from the ballot papers onto computer, and then the entire country's results would be worked out in a flash. Of course you'd have safeguards to ensure the data was entered correctly and calculated correctly, but it's not rocket science, and obviously much more accurate than counting by hand.
I take it you don't work in IT....
It only looks easy to transfer preferences from paper to computer.
Plus it's a lot safer to have humans manually count with witnesses compared to computer code where you need 1 expert to write it and at least a second expert to read the code and ensure it hasn't got problems.
If what I just overhead from the (indiscreet) staffers in front of me in Portcullis House is true then Liz Truss is for the chop and Michael Gove is being put in charge of International Trade.
What is the problem that a bridge between Larne and Portpatrick is the solution to? Because it isn't "how to get from Belfast to Glasgow faster" and it isn't "how to get from Belfast to London faster".
It’s political. It physically unites the UK and makes the NI feel more connected to the rest of it rather than a world apart.
What is the problem that a bridge between Larne and Portpatrick is the solution to? Because it isn't "how to get from Belfast to Glasgow faster" and it isn't "how to get from Belfast to London faster".
How can I drive the length and breadth of my country, the United Kingdom?
Dail election. Why don't they use computers to work out the results at the count? It's ridiculous to take two days to do a job that should take two hours.
Because... have you been following the Iowa Democratic caucus?
Computers and democracy should not intersect.
The Irish general election count is a completely different electoral animal from the Iowa caucuses. It should be a straightforward process to transfer the preferences from the ballot papers onto computer, and then the entire country's results would be worked out in a flash. Of course you'd have safeguards to ensure the data was entered correctly and calculated correctly, but it's not rocket science, and obviously much more accurate than counting by hand.
Setting aside the question of what possible safeguards you could put in place to ensure the data is transmitted correctly, I'm curious as to how you think that process could possibly be done, validated and audited in much under two days anyway?
Sanders has just overtaken Biden in the South Carolina Primary, 2.26 : 2.3
I still can't accept that the Dems are stupid enough to put Sanders as nominee.
Well if the Democratic Party itself had their choice they wouldn't. It is like Corbyn here, the yuff are enthused by the Magic Grandpa routine, promising free everything, high pay, all by bashing a few billionaires.
Yep. I can't face putting money on Trump, but it does look like he has secured four more years at this rate.
I wouldn't go that far. But all they had to do is pick somebody who is sane, comportment, with a set of policies that generally wouldn't scare the horses, while not obsessing over identity politics and stayed away from calling anybody who previously voted Trump a racist deplorable moron, they would walk it.
If what I just overhead from the (indiscreet) staffers in front of me in Portcullis House is true then Liz Truss is for the chop and Michael Gove is being put in charge of International Trade.
We love a bit of indescreet overheaings on here.....
Sanders has just overtaken Biden in the South Carolina Primary, 2.26 : 2.3
I still can't accept that the Dems are stupid enough to put Sanders as nominee.
Well if the Democratic Party itself had their choice they wouldn't. It is like Corbyn here, the yuff are enthused by the Magic Grandpa routine, promising free everything, high pay, all by bashing a few billionaires.
Yep. I can't face putting money on Trump, but it does look like he has secured four more years at this rate.
Betfair have a Winning Party market, and laying the Democrat party is only a fraction worse price than backing Trump - for anyone who can't stomach betting for Trump directly (or thinks that for any reason DT might not make the election).
What is the problem that a bridge between Larne and Portpatrick is the solution to? Because it isn't "how to get from Belfast to Glasgow faster" and it isn't "how to get from Belfast to London faster".
How can I drive the length and breadth of my country, the United Kingdom?
How do you show the country is a single country.
Followed by because it will have Boris's name on it.
"Under proportional representation, the party with the most votes won't get the most seats"
STV: Nonsense on stilts.
I'd love to learn about your alternative system that gives parties more seats than they stood for.
If you only stand for a quarter of the seats, the most you can win is [checks notes] a quarter of the seats...
d'Hondt with party primaries to determine the candidate order on the list.
Constituencies of around 10 seats to give proportional results.
d'Hondt is fine if you're willing to give up the connection between voters and individual candidates. That would be a big loss, but it's still better than the status quo in the UK. (But 10 seats per constituency, meaning that there were nearly 1 million people in each constituency, would be too many.)
However, I find it bizarre that someone who would advocate this system can despise STV with such a passion, especially on the grounds that it's confusing!
PR is clearly less confusing than STV. The issue I have with D'Hondt that voters still have to try and work out, based on polling, which parties are actually most likely to be in contention for the last seat to be awarded, or their vote is "wasted".
Make the constituencies too small, and this effect becomes magnified - eg the 3 seats awarded to the North East at the last EU elections. Make them too big, and you set the bar too high for smaller and regional parties to gain any seats at all.
STV isn't confusing. You just vote in order of preference 1,2 3 etc. What's confusing about that?
Have a read of the comments from RLB supporters below this tweet.
The consensus is that they won't put down a second preference because it will hurt THEIR OWN first preference.
Sanders has just overtaken Biden in the South Carolina Primary, 2.26 : 2.3
I still can't accept that the Dems are stupid enough to put Sanders as nominee.
Well if the Democratic Party itself had their choice they wouldn't. It is like Corbyn here, the yuff are enthused by the Magic Grandpa routine, promising free everything, high pay, all by bashing a few billionaires.
Yep. I can't face putting money on Trump, but it does look like he has secured four more years at this rate.
Betfair have a Winning Party market, and laying the Democrat party is only a fraction worse price than backing Trump - for anyone who can't stomach betting for Trump directly (or thinks that for any reason DT might not make the election).
And to add - possibly the worst thing FG and FF could do would be to allow a second immediate election. Sinn Fein now know where to stand 2+ candidates and double their seat count with little risk.
Which is why there is not going to be an early second election.
Though equally if FF and FG team up to ensure SF are locked out and official opposition then the chances are they'll do even better at a future election.
Yes, indeed. There are no good options for FF and FG, and no bad options for SF.
The best option for them is for FF to make an arrangement with SF and hope that SF suffer in the usual way from being the (slightly) smaller party in such an arrangement. There are already noises that they might give up on their opposition to ever working with SF.
But of course SF know that and may not agree to it, or may extract a high price for it.
If what I just overhead from the (indiscreet) staffers in front of me in Portcullis House is true then Liz Truss is for the chop and Michael Gove is being put in charge of International Trade.
What is the problem that a bridge between Larne and Portpatrick is the solution to? Because it isn't "how to get from Belfast to Glasgow faster" and it isn't "how to get from Belfast to London faster".
It’s political. It physically unites the UK and makes the NI feel more connected to the rest of it rather than a world apart.
What is the problem that a bridge between Larne and Portpatrick is the solution to? Because it isn't "how to get from Belfast to Glasgow faster" and it isn't "how to get from Belfast to London faster".
Johnson seems to think it would reduce flights between NI and UK iirc.
I can't see it making a major difference. It's an 8 hour drive from Portpatrick to Trafalgar Square. It's well over 2 hours from Portpatrick to Glasgow. Add an hour to each of those for the journey from Belfast to Larne and over the bridge.
If you're coming from/going to London from NI, a flight is only an hour - the longest part is getting to / from and hanging around the airport.
Dail election. Why don't they use computers to work out the results at the count? It's ridiculous to take two days to do a job that should take two hours.
Because... have you been following the Iowa Democratic caucus?
Computers and democracy should not intersect.
The Irish general election count is a completely different electoral animal from the Iowa caucuses. It should be a straightforward process to transfer the preferences from the ballot papers onto computer, and then the entire country's results would be worked out in a flash. Of course you'd have safeguards to ensure the data was entered correctly and calculated correctly, but it's not rocket science, and obviously much more accurate than counting by hand.
It is only more accurate if the data is both accurate and secure. There are way more ways to unobtrusively hack and manipulate data in electronic form. No system is 100% secure, and no system can eliminate the human element.
I'd prefer a hybrid system - an electronic booth with prints out a paper copy which the voter confirms before the electronic vote is submitted, and then the paper copy is deposited in the ballot box. That way, if there is any doubt about manipulation of the electronic count, the paper count can be the final arbiter.
If what I just overhead from the (indiscreet) staffers in front of me in Portcullis House is true then Liz Truss is for the chop and Michael Gove is being put in charge of International Trade.
What is the problem that a bridge between Larne and Portpatrick is the solution to? Because it isn't "how to get from Belfast to Glasgow faster" and it isn't "how to get from Belfast to London faster".
It’s political. It physically unites the UK and makes the NI feel more connected to the rest of it rather than a world apart.
Dail election. Why don't they use computers to work out the results at the count? It's ridiculous to take two days to do a job that should take two hours.
Because... have you been following the Iowa Democratic caucus?
Computers and democracy should not intersect.
The Irish general election count is a completely different electoral animal from the Iowa caucuses. It should be a straightforward process to transfer the preferences from the ballot papers onto computer, and then the entire country's results would be worked out in a flash. Of course you'd have safeguards to ensure the data was entered correctly and calculated correctly, but it's not rocket science, and obviously much more accurate than counting by hand.
It is only more accurate if the data is both accurate and secure. There are way more ways to unobtrusively hack and manipulate data in electronic form. No system is 100% secure, and no system can eliminate the human element.
I'd prefer a hybrid system - an electronic booth with prints out a paper copy which the voter confirms before the electronic vote is submitted, and then the paper copy is deposited in the ballot box. That way, if there is any doubt about manipulation of the electronic count, the paper count can be the final arbiter.
Furthermore, neither speed nor absolute accuracy are the most important thing in an election count - faith in the system is.
Dail election. Why don't they use computers to work out the results at the count? It's ridiculous to take two days to do a job that should take two hours.
Because... have you been following the Iowa Democratic caucus?
Computers and democracy should not intersect.
The Irish general election count is a completely different electoral animal from the Iowa caucuses. It should be a straightforward process to transfer the preferences from the ballot papers onto computer, and then the entire country's results would be worked out in a flash. Of course you'd have safeguards to ensure the data was entered correctly and calculated correctly, but it's not rocket science, and obviously much more accurate than counting by hand.
It is only more accurate if the data is both accurate and secure. There are way more ways to unobtrusively hack and manipulate data in electronic form. No system is 100% secure, and no system can eliminate the human element.
I'd prefer a hybrid system - an electronic booth with prints out a paper copy which the voter confirms before the electronic vote is submitted, and then the paper copy is deposited in the ballot box. That way, if there is any doubt about manipulation of the electronic count, the paper count can be the final arbiter.
You haven't allowed for the customs queues at Portpatrick....
If what I just overhead from the (indiscreet) staffers in front of me in Portcullis House is true then Liz Truss is for the chop and Michael Gove is being put in charge of International Trade.
What is the problem that a bridge between Larne and Portpatrick is the solution to? Because it isn't "how to get from Belfast to Glasgow faster" and it isn't "how to get from Belfast to London faster".
It’s political. It physically unites the UK and makes the NI feel more connected to the rest of it rather than a world apart.
With STV is there any guarantee that the proportion of seats won is in relation the first preferences cast? Sinn Fein appear to be heading for more than 24% of seats at the moment although it could be misleading at this stage.
There's no guarantee, but generally the Irish system is surprisingly proportional once a party exceeds about 6% of the first-vote prefs, provided the parties field the right number of candidates (which they usually do) .
In this particular election, Sinn Féin didn't field enough candidates, because they weren't expecting to get this level of support. So they will underperform relative to their vote share.
The current figures are misleading precisely because of that underperformance - they won't get second seats in constituencies where they could have done so, so their candidates have disproportionately been elected in the early rounds of voting. (For example, in a four-member seat, if you have only one candidate to whom all of your 25% first-pref support goes, you'll win on the first round. If you have two candidates, they might get only 12.5% each initially, and not get elected until a later round where other candidates have been eliminated).
Having 2 candidates in any size of STV seat (2 to n candidates) should never decrease the number of TDs you get. I think "going for 3" CAN but those seats are rare.
Comments
That plan only back fired once they got beyond 20-21% of the vote which came as a surprise to everyone including RTE who only a week ago had to change the final TV debate.
It just shows no voting system is perfect - single member constituencies end up with no-one apart from the winning side being happy, other methods result in gaming in multiple different ways to maximise the chances of getting the result you want
https://slate.com/culture/2020/02/joe-biden-dog-faced-pony-soldier-john-wayne-tyrone-power.html
In this particular election, Sinn Féin didn't field enough candidates, because they weren't expecting to get this level of support. So they will underperform relative to their vote share.
The current figures are misleading precisely because of that underperformance - they won't get second seats in constituencies where they could have done so, so their candidates have disproportionately been elected in the early rounds of voting. (For example, in a four-member seat, if you have only one candidate to whom all of your 25% first-pref support goes, you'll win on the first round. If you have two candidates, they might get only 12.5% each initially, and not get elected until a later round where other candidates have been eliminated).
"It's the full Bercow."
It’s not as if it’s prison either, although it’s clearly not The Ritz. They have facilities and internet, can speak to friends and it’s only for a couple of weeks, not months on end.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/feb/10/brexit-labour-treasury-minister-dismisses-claims-that-setting-up-free-ports-could-facilitate-tax-avoidance-live-news?page=with:block-5e413c648f086a28115a8e89#block-5e413c648f086a28115a8e89
Government officials working on plans for bridge linking Scotland to Ireland, No 10 confirms
Biden’s clearly starting to lose his sound mind, he should have stood in 2016 but he’s clearly not up to it any more, sadly.
If the government had only thought ahead slightly, the rights might even have paid off the cost of the evacuation. Stupid not-profit-focused-enough right wingers.
For example, there were certainly valid criticisms to be thrown at Labour's policy of having a second referendum on Brexit and being neutral on it, but "it's confusing" wasn't one of them, yet I heard it many times.
A few threads back, I gave a three sentence explanation of how transfers work in STV and got a similar response from someone who is now advocating d'Hondt. This, despite the fact that the d'Hondt method cannot be explained any more succinctly, and indeed should be called the Jefferson method after the man who invented it, but because d'Hondt used different mechanics to reach the same result, nobody realised that he had reinvented the wheel!
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1226776841966493696
it is not impossible that, by the time it was actually finished, Scotland could have voted for independence and Northern Ireland could have voted for reunification with the Republic of Ireland. It could end up as a bridge between two countries no longer part of the UK....
PS: Who do you think should decide if Scotland wants to be an independent country , people of Scotland or England. Why does England want to deny Scotland its democratic rights under International Law.
The consensus is that they won't put down a second preference because it will hurt THEIR OWN first preference.
https://twitter.com/suziegeewizz/status/1226272450633138176
https://twitter.com/sebwhale/status/1166609703411027978?s=20
PS Severn barrage.
England doesn't want to deny Scotland its democratic rights under International Law. Firstly England isn't making a decision here, England has no voice. Secondly Scotland rightly or wrongly has no democratic rights under International Law which is why Catalans can't appeal to the Hague etc to assert their rights under International Law.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.128161111
It only looks easy to transfer preferences from paper to computer.
Plus it's a lot safer to have humans manually count with witnesses compared to computer code where you need 1 expert to write it and at least a second expert to read the code and ensure it hasn't got problems.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ca/california_democratic_primary-6879.html
Followed by because it will have Boris's name on it.
https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1226817917301534721?s=20
But of course SF know that and may not agree to it, or may extract a high price for it.
If you're coming from/going to London from NI, a flight is only an hour - the longest part is getting to / from and hanging around the airport.
I'd prefer a hybrid system - an electronic booth with prints out a paper copy which the voter confirms before the electronic vote is submitted, and then the paper copy is deposited in the ballot box. That way, if there is any doubt about manipulation of the electronic count, the paper count can be the final arbiter.
USA – Recession? - Will there be a US recession by the end of 2020?
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.162087290
Contrary to some of the replies, it does look like those backing candidates other than the top two knew how the system worked (!)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51447761
Bugger