News0 min ago
Mayor For Fall River Ousted And Re-Elected At Same Time
https:/
It's hard to know what to make of this story beyond inevitably pointing out the inherent flaw in any first-past-the-post electoral system. The story is pretty simple: the voters were asked two questions, at the same time: do you want the old mayor to remain in office? The overwhelming answer was no. The second question was, who should be the new mayor? Nothing stopping the old one from running again, the answer was... the mayor the town had just overwhelmingly rejected.
The Spoiler Effect demonstrated as clearly as is possible.
It's hard to know what to make of this story beyond inevitably pointing out the inherent flaw in any first-past-the-post electoral system. The story is pretty simple: the voters were asked two questions, at the same time: do you want the old mayor to remain in office? The overwhelming answer was no. The second question was, who should be the new mayor? Nothing stopping the old one from running again, the answer was... the mayor the town had just overwhelmingly rejected.
The Spoiler Effect demonstrated as clearly as is possible.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jim360. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It makes sense. The people who wanted him gone had their vote split between four other candidates. If there'd have been him and one other candidate he'd obviously have lost.
If there's another Brexit referendum they'll make sure the question splits the leavers by offering multiple choices on how to leave, against a way to single remain.
If there's another Brexit referendum they'll make sure the question splits the leavers by offering multiple choices on how to leave, against a way to single remain.
Now you're just trying to wind me up. In point of fact I don't particularly care one way or the other whether this man is mayor of a town I had never heard of before last night, so the practical result is of no interest to me.
What matters is whether or not the result makes any sense and reflects the will of the electorate. It should be abundantly clear that it does not. 60% of the voters wanted rid of him, but they were unable to get their wish, because the second question gave no opportunity for discussion and allowed the rejected candidate to slip in through the back door.
This is an issue that democracy has to face up to not by somehow claiming that two exactly opposite answers are clearly consistent with each other, but by adapting the system to cope with this sort of mess. FPTP can only cope with two candidates -- and, when spread over multiple constituencies, can't even do that fairly. It fails every electoral test for fairness. Here, that was shown in the most stark way possible, and you are still so het up about my views on Brexit that you seem incapable of discussing the present issue, which is a theoretical one about the very nature of democracy, without some sort of passing reference to it.
What matters is whether or not the result makes any sense and reflects the will of the electorate. It should be abundantly clear that it does not. 60% of the voters wanted rid of him, but they were unable to get their wish, because the second question gave no opportunity for discussion and allowed the rejected candidate to slip in through the back door.
This is an issue that democracy has to face up to not by somehow claiming that two exactly opposite answers are clearly consistent with each other, but by adapting the system to cope with this sort of mess. FPTP can only cope with two candidates -- and, when spread over multiple constituencies, can't even do that fairly. It fails every electoral test for fairness. Here, that was shown in the most stark way possible, and you are still so het up about my views on Brexit that you seem incapable of discussing the present issue, which is a theoretical one about the very nature of democracy, without some sort of passing reference to it.
Yeah Gromit, but re the video, a minority of all voters voting for the winner isn't a problem. The Liberals prove that smaller parties do get voted for, and in any case a good system wouldn't allow parties. The example is showing a system whereby the winners are doing what they wish, not listening to the voters wishes; and what is being shown is voting for a leader not a representative within a parliament. And gerrymandering needs to be controlled. All systems have weaknesses the thing is to ensure they aren't an issue. In short, the video's mainly nonsense.
If opposition votes are split then it's up to the electorate to work out who they really want who has a practical chance of winning. The last thing one needs are middle of the road winners all the time who have not the gall to apply hard solutions. The public will soon get fed up of failure; just consider May's attempt to combine keeping/attracting remainers with her whilst trying to negotiate leaving. Doesn't work out well.
I don't see why a "good" system wouldn't allow parties. It's almost inevitable in any system of politics that people who broadly speaking agree with each other cooperate, and inevitably that leads to pooling resources. This has been demonstrated across history. The Party system is incompatible with FPTP applies to single-member constituencies, it is true. But it's simply a nonsense to argue, as you do, that the problem is the very existence of parties. The flaw is the system itself, which -- as has been patently demonstrated -- fails the most basic tests of reflecting the will of the voters.
I had thought that the Green Party also had electoral reform in their manifesto. Still, funny you should mention Ukip, a party that was utterly screwed by FPTP last time. I moaned about this vociferously at the time, which is a matter of record, and I hope serves to put paid to this nonsense that I only complain about electoral systems when they go against what *I* want.
Haha, Spicey! But at the moment the Green Party has more MPs that Ukip do :P
TTT: I did read Ludders's post. I disagree with it: it amounts to saying that the electorate must essentially come to a final decision with each other before they enter the ballot box if they want their way. But why should this be so? If that is the case then we had better do away with the voting process altogether, as it only ruins the decision-making process. Which, again, doesn't reflect well on FPTP at all.
TTT: I did read Ludders's post. I disagree with it: it amounts to saying that the electorate must essentially come to a final decision with each other before they enter the ballot box if they want their way. But why should this be so? If that is the case then we had better do away with the voting process altogether, as it only ruins the decision-making process. Which, again, doesn't reflect well on FPTP at all.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.