yarmouth council election

[mollykins]

my mum just told me that on the news they said that the decision of who would be incharge of the yarmouth borough council was decided on the draw of a card. I think it was tories and lib dems, that had the exact same number of councilors, so they drew cards to decide who would be in charge!!!!!!!!

Wouldn't it be fairer to go on which party got the most votes. Even though there are the same amont of councillors, they wouldn't have got the same amount of votes would they.

[shaneystar2]

Yes it was done on the cut of a card .The Labour councillor won .The Con candidate drew a four ,Labour a seven .The Tories are in overall charge of our town scoundrels anyway so it doesn't really make much difference .Worse luck .

[Coobeastie]

According to the BBC site the Conservatives had 4276 more votes that the next nearest party (Labour).

http://news.bbc.co.uk.../constituency/b89.stm

[Buenchico]

Coobeastie's post refers to the parliamentary constituency, not to the council elections.

As Shaney indicates, the Conservatives have 24 seats on Great Yarmouth Borough Council, whereas Labour have only 15:
http://news.bbc.co.uk...council/html/3696.stm

Molly's mum seems to be a bit confused. It's true that an election result was determined upon the draw of a card but that was only in one ward. (i.e. a single councillor was appointed upon the cut of a card, after both the Labour and Conservative candidates polled exactly the same number of votes):
http://news.bbc.co.uk...0/england/8668624.stm

Chris

[mollykins]

aaahhhh, but you'd think they'd have a better way of deciding wouldn't you.

[Buenchico]

There is a fairer system:

When you get to university, Molly, (if not before) you'll discover 'STV'. ("Single transferable voting") It's the system which student unions (and other enlightened bodies) have used for elections for many decades.

Under STV, no candidate can win until he/she has secured over 50% of the vote. STV works because voters have to indicate their first choice, second choice, third choice, etc of candidates. (i.e. you number them 1, 2, 3, . . .as far down as you want - You don't need to number them all if you don't want to).

Let's suppose that there are 6 candidates but, when the results are initially declared, the 'front runner' hasn't got over 50% of the votes. It's obvious that the person in 6th place isn't very popular, so his/her votes are redistributed. (i.e. the election officials look at who appears at 'Number 2' on those voting papers and adds those votes to those of the appropriate candidates.

If that still doesn't produce an outright winner (with over 50% of the votes), the votes of the person currently in 5th place are redistributed, and so on.

Chris

[Oneeyedvic]

I was there at the count (as I was standing as a councillor). Sadly I missed the draw as I had to get back to work (my count had already been done). I was aware that it was a draw and saw the first recount but didn't have time to stay for the second recount.

Lets clear a couple of things up:

1) It was not to do with who is in charge of the council. It is a conservative council with a decent majority.

2) It was for one council seat (Yarmouth North). Bob Peck was the incumbent Conservative councillor and Charlie Marsden was the Labour candidate fighting the seat

3) Chris's talk about STV is irrelevant as there were only 2 candidates - both getting 50% of the vote.

4) There are various methods of declaring a winner in the case of a tie. The usual options are drawing straws, tossing a coin or drawing cards. Drawing cards were deemed fairest by the returning officer as there is no issue with who calls in the case of a coin toss (ie I call heads, but I wanted heads....) or who picks first in drawing straws.

5) And just to correct shaneystar, the cards drawn were a 3 and an 8.