Brexit & British Politics

[JasonEvans]

The field is set at 8. Big hitters Ben Wallace, Priti Patel, Sajid Javid and Grant Shapps all decide not to run. Shapps and Javid will help Sunak. Patel helps Liz Truss. I don't know where Wallace goes but probably not to camp Sunak. He could be a king maker and has had tension with Rishi. I feel he would be camp Penny Mordaunt. Also against Rishi is Boris who he blames for his downfall.

Sunak, Truss and Mordaunt start 1, 2, 3 in publicly-declared support from Tory MP.

First round of MP voting starts today with last place and any one with less than 30 votes eliminated.

Results will be announced at noon ET. Though a few as one candidate could be eliminated, the expectation is that we could lose 2.

Eventually, they will get to a final 2 and then the entire conservative party membership will vote. Expectations are they will name a new PM on Sept 5th.

[Bluedog]

Is it just me or does it feel like a lot of other countries have recalls/resignations/new elections for the Presidents/PMs relative to the U.S. where it basically never happens? I guess different government structures/standards/approaches. Or maybe we just hear about/notice the ones that change a lot, but those are the exceptions rather than the norm.

I look at Japan and they've had 6 (!) PMs since 2007. The longest-lasting one was 482 days, not even 1.5 years...I thought that they're elected for 4 years though, but could be wrong.

I was hoping Ben Wallace would provide some quality defense for the UK based on what I saw in Detroit. Ironically, the UK Ben Wallace IS the "defence minister."

[Kdogg]

Is it just me or does it feel like a lot of other countries have recalls/resignations/new elections for the Presidents/PMs relative to the U.S. where it basically never happens? I guess different government structures/standards/approaches. Or maybe we just hear about/notice the ones that change a lot, but those are the exceptions rather than the norm.

I look at Japan and they've had 6 (!) PMs since 2007. The longest-lasting one was 482 days, not even 1.5 years...I thought that they're elected for 4 years though, but could be wrong.

I was hoping Ben Wallace would provide some quality defense for the UK based on what I saw in Detroit. Ironically, the UK Ben Wallace IS the "defence minister."

That happens in parliamentary systems. I've lost count of how many elections Israel has had in the last five years and they are having another one.
Republics like the US and France don't have that issue.

First round over. Nadhim Zahawi and Jeremy Hunt are out. Down to six.

Rishi Sunak - 88 votes
Penny Mordaunt - 67 votes
Liz Truss - 50 votes
Tom Tugendhat - 37 votes
Kemi Badenoch - 40 votes
Suella Braverman - 32 votes

Also during today's PMQ Boris says he's "leaving with my head held high." I really want to live in this fantasy world. I bet there are unicorns.

[Bluedog]

That happens in parliamentary systems. I've lost count of how many elections Israel has had in the last five years and they are having another one.
Republics like the US and France don't have that issue.

First round over. Nadhim Zahawi and Jeremy Hunt are out. Down to six.

Rishi Sunak - 88 votes
Penny Mordaunt - 67 votes
Liz Truss - 50 votes
Tom Tugendhat - 37 votes
Kemi Badenoch - 40 votes
Suella Braverman - 32 votes

It could be a "feature" rather than an "issue" depending on how you look at it. But thanks for the explanation.

"It's not a bug, it's a feature."

[camion]

It could be a "feature" rather than an "issue" depending on how you look at it. But thanks for the explanation.

"It's not a bug, it's a feature."

I learned this when I was troubleshooting a problem in Windows 8 and discovered that the entire operating system was a feature.☹️

[dudog84]

Also during today's PMQ Boris says he's "leaving with my head held high." I really want to live in this fantasy world. I bet there are unicorns.

He's lucky it's not being held high on a pike. Ah, how I long for the Middle Ages. I think they had dragons then, not sure about unicorns.

[OldPhiKap]

He's lucky it's not being held high on a pike. Ah, how I long for the Middle Ages. I think they had dragons then, not sure about unicorns.

Sometimes a good defenestration does wonders.

[Bluedog]

Why don't they just do RCV (ranked choice voting) so they can do instant runoffs? Rather than eliminating the lowest vote-getter(s) each time and requiring them to hold multiple voting sessions...

[Kdogg]

Why don't they just do RCV (ranked choice voting) so they can do instant runoffs? Rather than eliminating the lowest vote-getter(s) each time and requiring them to hold multiple voting sessions...

It’s called alternative vote in the UK. It was used in later rounds thirty years ago (Thatcher to Major) but the rules have been changed because you can’t play politics that way. Now with each round of votes there are back room horse trades, back stabbing and other machinations. Political and personal beefs are going to be settled.

[OldPhiKap]

Everything’s gone off the rails. (language warning in posting traducing text video)


https://twitter.com/jonathanpienews/...7_-WxUb4hA-KcQ

It’s a dust-up about wanting another Scottish independence referendum.

[Kdogg]

Suella Braverman (the AG and self proclaimed only "authentic Brexiteer candidate" ) is out. Down to five. Next ballot Monday with TV debates tomorrow. The standings are the same as the previous vote. Lot of reports of dirty tricks and dark arts within the Tory MPs. Nadihm Zahawi's campaign site (NZ4PM.com) redirected to Mordaunts campaign. I did not know Zahawi founded the polling firm Yougov. It was reported that he would have made Boris a minister if elected. He's anti-Sunak and Sunak is behind in all the Yougov polls from general Tory membership. I'm sure there is nothing there.

Rishi Sunak - 101 votes
Penny Mordaunt - 83 votes
Liz Truss - 64 votes
Kemi Badenoch - 49 votes
Tom Tugendhat - 32 votes

[PackMan97]

Why don't they just do RCV (ranked choice voting) so they can do instant runoffs? Rather than eliminating the lowest vote-getter(s) each time and requiring them to hold multiple voting sessions...

I'm a huge fan of both ranked choice voting (also known as instant runoff voting).

It's not perfect. There are quite often times where if you knew your candidate was out, and this candidate was close to winning, you might vote for your third choice instead of your second choice that round. In fact changing your vote from '2nd best' to 'lesser of two evils". While I think elections aren't typically that close, it is a legit beef with the voting method.

...and as mentioned, you can do all sorts of political machinations if you do it round by round. Let the politicians have their fun, I guess.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I'm a huge fan of both ranked choice voting (also known as instant runoff voting).

It's not perfect. There are quite often times where if you knew your candidate was out, and this candidate was close to winning, you might vote for your third choice instead of your second choice that round. In fact changing your vote from '2nd best' to 'lesser of two evils". While I think elections aren't typically that close, it is a legit beef with the voting method.

...and as mentioned, you can do all sorts of political machinations if you do it round by round. Let the politicians have their fun, I guess.

It's fun to think about that the last place candidate in a ranked choice election is literally "Anybody But That Guy".

[Skydog]

I'm a huge fan of both ranked choice voting (also known as instant runoff voting).

It's not perfect. There are quite often times where if you knew your candidate was out, and this candidate was close to winning, you might vote for your third choice instead of your second choice that round. In fact changing your vote from '2nd best' to 'lesser of two evils". While I think elections aren't typically that close, it is a legit beef with the voting method.

...and as mentioned, you can do all sorts of political machinations if you do it round by round. Let the politicians have their fun, I guess.

I would like to propose an almost certainly not new (?) voting system that I think solves the ranked choice issue you just pointed out. Assume there are N candidates. Each voter >must<rank each candidate from 1 to N for their vote to count. After collecting the votes simply add up the ranks for each candidate — lowest total wins.

This system would elect politicians who were both (a) liked by a whole lot of voters but also (b) NOT disliked by a lot of voters.

It seems this voting method would de-polarize elections, decrease election outcome anger and reward political platforms that appeal broadly rather than the inflammatory partisan platforms that work under traditional election methods. This system would not elect the candidate most favored by one party, instead it would elect the candidate with the highest average popularity among ALL voters.

It would also kill off demagogues. Politicians could no longer win by deliberately enraging their base by against the “ other side.” Instead candidates who appeal or are at least acceptable to both sides of the political spectrum would come out on top.

(This is off the top of my head and I don’t have time to Wikipedia it right now. I’m guessing it is a well known voting system that has been used in many settings and may have it’s own issues. But at first glance it seems like a great idea. No?)

[snowdenscold]

I would like to propose an almost certainly not new (?) voting system that I think solves the ranked choice issue you just pointed out. Assume there are N candidates. Each voter >must<rank each candidate from 1 to N for their vote to count. After collecting the votes simply add up the ranks for each candidate — lowest total wins.

I haven't thought through this too much, but I'm curious which would be best (or if it matters):

1) Equal spacing of ranks (e.g., 1..2..3..4... and so on)
2) Increasing spacing of ranks (e.g., 1..2..3..5..8..13 [Fibonacci] or 1..2..4..8..16.. [exponential])
3) Decreasing spacing of ranks (e.g., 5..9..12..14..15)

I'm sure there are academic papers out there on all of this...

[camion]

I haven't thought through this too much, but I'm curious which would be best (or if it matters):

1) Equal spacing of ranks (e.g., 1..2..3..4... and so on)
2) Increasing spacing of ranks (e.g., 1..2..3..5..8..13 [Fibonacci] or 1..2..4..8..16.. [exponential])
3) Decreasing spacing of ranks (e.g., 5..9..12..14..15)

I'm sure there are academic papers out there on all of this...

After a quick think I came up with these think thoughts.

1) Final results not far from what we have now.

2) Unknown candidates fare better. Better known candidates have more haters and so will be less likely to be elected. Also, the more candidates in the race the worse the best known candidates do.

3) Well known candidates fare better.

Now if you don’t have to rank every candidate then things could get weird(er).

[camion]

Gratuitous link with where it all could lead.

[Skydog]

I haven't thought through this too much, but I'm curious which would be best (or if it matters):

1) Equal spacing of ranks (e.g., 1..2..3..4... and so on)
2) Increasing spacing of ranks (e.g., 1..2..3..5..8..13 [Fibonacci] or 1..2..4..8..16.. [exponential])
3) Decreasing spacing of ranks (e.g., 5..9..12..14..15)

I'm sure there are academic papers out there on all of this...

Would hinge on how you want to weight popularity among base vs. unpopularity with the rest of the voters. Option 2 would ensure hated politicians would never win but also de-emphasize popularity among supporters. Candidate A may be preferred over B by most but if A evoked ire from a few more voters, B could win. Option 3 would have opposite effect - being hated would have a smaller effect than popularity among supporters.

If you think about it the US does use an extreme bastardization of option 3 with the ranks weighted 1,0,0,0. So being hated has no effect on electibility.

I think option 2 might elect someone like Romney (not really hated by many ) while your version of option 3 would might elect someone like Bernie Sanders (many Dems and independents liked Sanders a lot).

I like option 1. If used in the US primaries and in the general I think we would have much more balance in both our candidates and in party platforms. Same for your PM selection, maybe?

[Bluedog]

I would like to propose an almost certainly not new (?) voting system that I think solves the ranked choice issue you just pointed out. Assume there are N candidates. Each voter >must<rank each candidate from 1 to N for their vote to count. After collecting the votes simply add up the ranks for each candidate — lowest total wins.

This system would elect politicians who were both (a) liked by a whole lot of voters but also (b) NOT disliked by a lot of voters.

It seems this voting method would de-polarize elections, decrease election outcome anger and reward political platforms that appeal broadly rather than the inflammatory partisan platforms that work under traditional election methods. This system would not elect the candidate most favored by one party, instead it would elect the candidate with the highest average popularity among ALL voters.

It would also kill off demagogues. Politicians could no longer win by deliberately enraging their base by against the “ other side.” Instead candidates who appeal or are at least acceptable to both sides of the political spectrum would come out on top.

(This is off the top of my head and I don’t have time to Wikipedia it right now. I’m guessing it is a well known voting system that has been used in many settings and may have it’s own issues. But at first glance it seems like a great idea. No?)

I think the challenge with this is it requires voters to rank all candidates, right? Otherwise, if someone only votes their top choice, you don't know if everyone else is second or last. And if you allocate points of second to ALL other candidates, you essentially increase the voting power for that voter. If you allocate points of last to all other candidates, then you magnify the first place vote getter even more and diminish the rest. If you say the ballot doesn't count at all, well you're going to disenfranchise a lot of voters as people aren't smart enough to know all the rules.

In other words, your method requires a more informed votership and would likely result in a lot of votes getting thrown out OR gamemenship of the math by not voting for all candidates. At least with RCV, which people already complain is too complicated, it's basically impossible for your ballot to get thrown out. If you want to only vote for one candidate, you can do so without an impact on all the other math. That simply removes that voter's ability to auto-vote in the runoff should their first choice be eliminated first.

[Skydog]

I think the challenge with this is it requires voters to rank all candidates, right? Otherwise, if someone only votes their top choice, you don't know if everyone else is second or last. And if you allocate points of second to ALL other candidates, you essentially increase the voting power for that voter. If you allocate points of last to all other candidates, then you magnify the first place vote getter even more and diminish the rest. If you say the ballot doesn't count at all, well you're going to disenfranchise a lot of voters as people aren't smart enough to know all the rules.

In other words, your method requires a more informed votership and would likely result in a lot of votes getting thrown out OR gamemenship of the math by not voting for all candidates. At least with RCV, which people already complain is too complicated, it's basically impossible for your ballot to get thrown out. If you want to only vote for one candidate, you can do so without an impact on all the other math. That simply removes that voter's ability to auto-vote in the runoff should their first choice be eliminated first.

Good point about the disenfranchisement issue. Easy fix: If a voter leaves some candidates unranked then those candidates are assigned the average of the unused ranks. Say 8 candidates, voter only ranks four of them, giving them ranks 1 through 4. Then all unranked candidates are assigned rank of (5+6+7+8)/4=6.5. I think that would ensure that the voter had no more influence than any other voter.

And yes it is true that ranking candidates would encounter some resistance because it is a little harder than putting a checkmark by a single candidate. But the combination of the current US voting system (starting with base driven primaries in increasingly non-competitive gerrymandered districts), “engagement seeking” algorithm driven social media information silos and the growth of the outrage news industry are all working synergistically to tear the US into two hostile but cohabiting nations. Unless something is changed we will see ever increasing electoral success for polarizing demagogue candidates. So asking a bit more effort from voters is a small price to pay to disincentivize the cynical and destructive “promote turnout by creating outrage in base” approach to campaigning that plagues today’s elections.