Read on Twitter
Well done to @Yes_Kirriemuir and @thecommongreen for this event, and for making it available on YouTube.
So much misinformation about the AMS list vote is making the rounds on social media, and the YES movement desperately needs informed voices to separate fact from fantasy. https://twitter.com/Yes_Perth_City/status/1289863007812583424
So much misinformation about the AMS list vote is making the rounds on social media, and the YES movement desperately needs informed voices to separate fact from fantasy. https://twitter.com/Yes_Perth_City/status/1289863007812583424
Dr Craig Dalzell provides an interesting synopsis of the history of electoral systems used in Scotland, with the pros and cons of each: from the easy, but unproportional First Past The Post, to the Additional Member System (AMS) used for elections to the Scottish Parliament.
He points out that despite later claims to the contrary, the AMS system with its regional lists, was in fact primarily to counter fears of further Labour dominance (and not to prevent SNP majorities - at the time, of course, the SNP had but a handful of Westminster MPs).
The lists are intended to provide a more proportional representation of seats in Holyrood. The use of regional lists as opposed to a national list, effectively imposes a minimum threshold to win a seat of about 5% (lowest so far is 5.1% for a Lib Dem).
Those who recall the setting up of devolution will remember originally there were to be exactly the same number of list seats as constituency seats - creating a parliament of 146 members. Labour reduced the number of list seats from 73 to 56, thus reducing the proportionality.
Craig states anyone prepared to 'game' the system to increase seats for a platform should be prepared to see & accept the same tactic being used by opponents. He mentions how Labour's attempt to have the Cooperative Party stand on the list in place of Lab was ruled out by the EC.
On the assumption that it was at all possible to 'game' the list and elect many indy list MSPs, he maked the point that such a 'supermajority' of MSPs would be on less than 50% of the vote and unlikely to carry weight with WM, compared to an SNP majority on over half the vote.
Craig also reinforces fact that list MSPs are not 'second class' parliamentarians (Yessers who lambast list unionists as 'rejects' forget that, with only a handful of constituencies, it was the list that allowed SNP to overnight emerge as Scotland's second largest party in 1999).
He mentions an apparent 'loophole' in the system, whereby voting for a party that is not standing in the constituencies can garner seats. This a a crucial aspect of the argument put forward for those who advocate the indy list parties.
Craig doesn't go into any electoral arithmetic. This is unfortunate (indeed a critical omission), as such analysis is essential to evaluate claims about 'gaming' the system. Even a summary would take this head on, exposing the many claims from proponents of list parties as false.
He does make the point that modelling also allows you to produce seats numbers based on unrealistic scenarios. (We have to base our expections of what support parties actually have: we cannot sensibly vote for a list party polling at 0.5% and expect an indy 'supermajority'.)
Craig sensible draws attention to the difficulty of building up a new party, and how difficult it is even to attain 5% of the vote, the effective threshold to gain a single list seat, and indeed how difficult it is to gain a second list seat. My own summary from 2016 shows 10%:
He makes the perfectly obvious point (ignored by many) that a second indy party (list only) already exists: Scottish Greens. ( @scotgp consistently polls at or above threshold to win list seats and is currently the only viable alternative for an indy list vote not going to SNP).
And in passing, Craig also effectively rebukes the claim that the Greens are not a pro-indy party. (I find made predominantly by pushers of new list parties vying for the mantle of the non-SNP list party option, or Yessers who even claim the SNP itself is not for independence!)
Craig reiterates the illegality of a 'dummy list party' taking the SNP whip. Proponents of 'indy only' list parties typically fail to address the issue that they will have to take policy positions in parliament - thus to attract votes, they have to have a manifesto platform.
And if such parties have considered policy based manifestos, then they are no longer 'single issue' parties: why therefore would indy supporters vote for them if they reject their policies? (Leaving aside the matter of more than one such party vying for your vote.)
