I think that is a single transferable vote system ?
Alternative vote, for a single position, but yes.
Yes, if you run the STV algorithm to select a single winner, then it becomes the voting method known as alternative vote or instant runoff voting.
Other ranked choice voting methods are available: they don't look any different from the voter's point of view, but the method of determining the winner varies. I might argue that a Condorcet method was better than IRV, and I'd probably nominate the Ranked Pairs method as my favorite. Given that no perfect ranked voting system exists (Arrow's impossibility theorem), I think this ends up with the least bad issues.
(The multi-winner generalization of Ranked Pairs is CPO-STV, which isn't at all practical to count by hand. All methods are trivial to count by computer.)
The Alaska vote is an interesting example. It was a special election for Alaska's only seat in the House of Representatives, when Republican Don Young passed away after holding the position for 49 years. (Young's predecessor was Democrat Nick Begich, who disappeared in a missing aircraft in 1972.)
Alaska voters generally tend to vote Republican (the last time the state went for a Democratic presidential candidate was 1964), but are rather independent-minded, and there are more unaffiliated voters than registered Democrats and Republicans combined. Voters approved "Ranked Choice" voting in 2020, similar to "alternative vote" (although there may be some different details.
Anyway, it came down to a race among 3 candidates: Republican Sarah "I can see Russia from my house" Palin, former part-term governor and John McCain's vice-presidential running mate, who was endorsed by Trump; Republican Nick Begich, the grandson of the former Representative of the same name; and Democrat Mary Peltola, a native Yup'ik who has worked as a consensus-builder in the state legislature.
Peltola received the most first-place votes, but not a majority, with Palin a close second. But a large number of votes for the Republican Begich, when redistributed, preferred Peltola over Palin, and the Democrats picked up what was thought to be a safe Republican seat.
Since then, a number of Republican-led states have passed laws against implementing "Ranked Choice" voting, probably because it tends to encourage moderate candidates.
I think that is a single transferable vote system ?
Sort of. Almost all elections for Federal and State legislatures here are conducted on one of 2 bases - one for the lower house and the other for the upper. We call one system preferential and it is normally used to select members of the lower houses of State and Federal legislatures. Voters rank candidates with their first choice getting a 1, second choice a 2 and so forth. In counting votes, electoral officials start by counting the first choices ("the first preference"). If there is one candidate who obtains more than half the valid vote on this count, that candidate is elected; if there is no such candidate, then the second choice votes of the least preferred candidate are counted and allocated to the remaining candidates; that process continues until one candidate obtains 50% plus 1 of the votes. This is what Gramps49 calls ranked choice, and I'm pretty sure that it's Doublethink's single transferable vote.
A different system is used for the upper houses of those States where candidates are chosen by the preferential system for the lower house legislatures, and also for the federal upper house (which we call the Senate). We call this system proportional. It works in reverse to the preferential system. In this system, a quota is fixed, and to be elected a candidate must obtain the quota. The second choice votes of the successful candidates are counted, magic wands waved over them and so forth (in other words, while I understand the principle, I can't follow the practice). It works where there are multiple successful candidates to be elected. So each State counts as one electorate, with each electing multiple Senators, or the members of that State's upper house. It's also used for the Tasmanian lower house - Tasmania uses the preferential system for its upper house.
The names given to essentially the same voting systems vary by nation.
What in the UK we call "Single Transferable Vote" (STV) is used to elect members in multi-seat constituencies/wards. Voters rank the candidates by preference (at least a first preference, no need to rank all candidates). In the count a quota is set (which depends on the number of seats to be filled, any candidates with more first preference votes than the quota are elected, and their surplus votes (ie: number in excess of quota redistributed according to second preference) used to determine the proportion of second preference votes transferred (eg: if the quota is 2000 and a candidate gets 2200 first preferences they get elected and each of their second preferences get 200/2000=0.1 votes). The quota is revised for the number of seats still to be filled, and if no candidate passes this quota then the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated and their second preference votes reallocated (at full value). The process repeats until all seats are filled. I think this is the same as the Australian proportional system. It's the system used for the Dail in Ireland, Scottish local elections and other places.
What in the UK we call "Alternative Vote" (AV) is a version of STV for single member constituencies/wards. As there's only one seat to fill, the quota is 50%+1 vote, there's obviously no redistribution of second preferences from a candidate exceeding that, and only last place candidates have their second preferences re-allocated until a candidate passes the quota. This is the Australian preferential system, the US ranked choice, and also known as Instant Run-Off.
What in the UK we call "Proportional" (PR) has voters put a single mark (usually a cross) next to a single party. The number of elected representatives for each party within that region are then determined as a proportion of votes that party received (with a few different algorithms used to determine how many are elected as you need to elect whole numbers of representatives - though, in theory I can't see any reason why a party couldn't have a third of an MP, paid at a third of the salary and with only a third of a vote in Parliament; in practice I don't know of any system that does this). The choice of who is elected is left to the parties, but usually this will be a list of candidates for each party. This is a very common electoral system throughout Europe, in the UK best known for the system we used to elect MEPs.
The names given to essentially the same voting systems vary by nation.
What in the UK we call "Single Transferable Vote" (STV) is used to elect members in multi-seat constituencies/wards. Voters rank the candidates by preference (at least a first preference, no need to rank all candidates). In the count a quota is set (which depends on the number of seats to be filled, any candidates with more first preference votes than the quota are elected, and their surplus votes (ie: number in excess of quota redistributed according to second preference) used to determine the proportion of second preference votes transferred (eg: if the quota is 2000 and a candidate gets 2200 first preferences they get elected and each of their second preferences get 200/2000=0.1 votes). The quota is revised for the number of seats still to be filled, and if no candidate passes this quota then the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated and their second preference votes reallocated (at full value). The process repeats until all seats are filled. I think this is the same as the Australian proportional system. It's the system used for the Dail in Ireland, Scottish local elections and other places.
What in the UK we call "Alternative Vote" (AV) is a version of STV for single member constituencies/wards. As there's only one seat to fill, the quota is 50%+1 vote, there's obviously no redistribution of second preferences from a candidate exceeding that, and only last place candidates have their second preferences re-allocated until a candidate passes the quota. This is the Australian preferential system, the US ranked choice, and also known as Instant Run-Off.
What in the UK we call "Proportional" (PR) has voters put a single mark (usually a cross) next to a single party. The number of elected representatives for each party within that region are then determined as a proportion of votes that party received (with a few different algorithms used to determine how many are elected as you need to elect whole numbers of representatives - though, in theory I can't see any reason why a party couldn't have a third of an MP, paid at a third of the salary and with only a third of a vote in Parliament; in practice I don't know of any system that does this). The choice of who is elected is left to the parties, but usually this will be a list of candidates for each party. This is a very common electoral system throughout Europe, in the UK best known for the system we used to elect MEPs.
Thank you for your comments. In my post, I did stress the particular names which we use - in the past, posters from places where only First Past The Post have been critical of comments I've posted, in which I've used the terms we use - and in fact use, rather than talk of them as some theoretical method.
I think that is a single transferable vote system ?
Exactly. I have been told otherwise (with much energy) but am unable to see any difference. It was in play briefly for Ontario municipal elections but Mr Ford's government nixed it, saying that having two systems was confusing for voters (three systems, actually, as the block vote exists in many municipalities, but such subtleties are lost on a premier fixated on liquor sales).
Over the years this topic has come up a few times (as it should) and I keep repeating that STV, familiar to any observer of Irish elections, provides the voter with maximum choice. They get to choose within party, or they can entirely ignore party lines-- or not!! It's their call.
Party machinery, whether bosses in Silk-cut-foggy rooms or in regional committees or assemblies, does not determine the order of candidates. The objection is made that in recent elections there are more independents, to which I suggest that parties take note in their candidate selection and focus on issues.
Party machinery, whether bosses in Silk-cut-foggy rooms or in regional committees or assemblies, does not determine the order of candidates.
Which I still don't really understand, the choice of candidates has always been determined by "party machinery". If the election is for a single member then you get a choice of the candidate proposed by the party or the candidate of a different party, if you want to vote for Mr X of the Pink Party and the Pink Party choose to stand Ms Z then that option has been taken from you, unless Mr X is so upset about not being selected that they quit the Pink Party and stand as an independent. If you have a 3 member seat elected by STV and the Pink Party stand Ms Z and Mr Y then you can choose which of those you prefer, but still can't vote for Mr X. Unless you legislate how parties select their candidates, over-ruling the autonomy of parties to hold their own policy decisions (and, their internal processes are policy positions as much as how much they propose to spend on defence), that's the way things are going to be.
Which I still don't really understand, the choice of candidates has always been determined by "party machinery".
Not quite true - when David Cameron was opposition leader the Conservatives chose at least some candidates through totally open primary.
Obviously 'party machinery' determined that was the method, but that's not quite what you meant I don't think. Cheltenham springs to mind for some reason, but there were definitely a few where the Conservatives - in winnable seats that they subsequently won - said 'if you're over 18 and live in this constituency, come and choose your Tory candidate'
OK, I stand corrected. But, I still don't see the point of asking the general public to decide who best represents a party rather than the party itself to define that. I also expect the turnout of such primaries to be composed of the local active party members, a subset of inactive members (ie: those who would be voting on who the candidate is anyway) and a very small number of non-members.
OK, I stand corrected. But, I still don't see the point of asking the general public to decide who best represents a party rather than the party itself to define that.
The Tory take was that they would put up a slate, and then give it over to the people who actually have to vote for them when it came down to it to decide who they wanted. The idea was to detoxify the brand and go over the heads of the membership.
The membership hated it because the primaries were well attended by non-members, and the accusation was that 'Lib Dems' got selected (and subsequently elected).
Grudgingly, I think they were actually onto something - and open primaries might be a way back for the party in the future. Essentially, the experience would seem to disprove your hunch that it would be mostly members, because AIUI it very much wasn't. Unfortunately the 'merit' is in explicitly ending up with candidates the voters want, rather than what the members want - so they did trend away from the harder core party positions.
So, what's to stop those who will be voting for other parties coming along and voting for the least competent candidate to make it easier for their party to beat them?
If the result is a candidate that the membership (ie: the ordinary people who will be delivering literature, chapping doors and sharing social media) don't like how will that impact the campaign? Will the members and supporters who do the work to win an election come out with passion and conviction to talk to voters to convince them to vote for the candidate that the party membership doesn't like?
In STV your first preference candidate will either have been eliminated before your vote is transfered or, if elected with more than a quota, partially transfered.
So until candidates are either eliminated or elected their votes have no effect on the remaining candidates.
So, what's to stop those who will be voting for other parties coming along and voting for the least competent candidate to make it easier for their party to beat them?
In some systems, anyone can stand/run for the office. So you can have several candidates from the same party. In that case, the party hierarchy can choose which candidates will receive the most support in terms of knocking on doors, advertising, etc., and may publish "recommended" preference lists for their party members.
In the Alaska case, there was a state-wide primary election that narrowed the field down to 4 candidates, of which 3 were Republicans. (The 4th place candidate dropped out before the final election.)
Here in the US with FPTP, we also have primary elections to choose the candidate to stand/run for each party. In some states, that is limited to those voters who have registered with a preference for that particular party (a "closed primary"). Other states have "open primaries", where any voter can choose which party's primary they wish to vote in. Yes, in that case there are often voters tactically trying to get the other party to choose the least electable, or more tolerable, candidate. Sometimes it may make a difference in a very close race. (Even with a "closed primary", voters can change their registration to accomplish the same thing, although there are time limits on how far in advance it needs to be done.)
Here in the US with FPTP, we also have primary elections to choose the candidate to stand/run for each party. In some states, that is limited to those voters who have registered with a preference for that particular party (a "closed primary"). Other states have "open primaries", where any voter can choose which party's primary they wish to vote in. Yes, in that case there are often voters tactically trying to get the other party to choose the least electable, or more tolerable, candidate. Sometimes it may make a difference in a very close race. (Even with a "closed primary", voters can change their registration to accomplish the same thing, although there are time limits on how far in advance it needs to be done.)
I have always understood that that system applied to candidates for President (and V-P), and for State governors. Is it also used to select candidates for Congress, Senators/State equivalents as well please? What about selection for those standing for judges as well?
So, what's to stop those who will be voting for other parties coming along and voting for the least competent candidate to make it easier for their party to beat them?
In some systems, anyone can stand/run for the office. So you can have several candidates from the same party. In that case, the party hierarchy can choose which candidates will receive the most support in terms of knocking on doors, advertising, etc., and may publish "recommended" preference lists for their party members.
In the Alaska case, there was a state-wide primary election that narrowed the field down to 4 candidates, of which 3 were Republicans. (The 4th place candidate dropped out before the final election.)
Here in the US with FPTP, we also have primary elections to choose the candidate to stand/run for each party. In some states, that is limited to those voters who have registered with a preference for that particular party (a "closed primary"). Other states have "open primaries", where any voter can choose which party's primary they wish to vote in. Yes, in that case there are often voters tactically trying to get the other party to choose the least electable, or more tolerable, candidate. Sometimes it may make a difference in a very close race. (Even with a "closed primary", voters can change their registration to accomplish the same thing, although there are time limits on how far in advance it needs to be done.)
Which all sounds expensive, both in terms of cash spent on literature and the time of volunteers to campaign, vet candidates etc. There's already far too much money spent on election campaigning, and the time available for volunteers (across all sectors, not just political parties) has been squeezed like never before. Plus, there's a severe amount of "campaign fatigue" in the public, do voters really want politicians campaigning for the right to stand as well as for actual elections? Also, the whole process won't work without fixed terms, if you give parties just 6-8 weeks notice of an election then there's no time for a primary election (and, that sort of notice is common for by-elections and not unusual for general elections after the scrapping of fixed terms).
So, what's to stop those who will be voting for other parties coming along and voting for the least competent candidate to make it easier for their party to beat them?
If the result is a candidate that the membership (ie: the ordinary people who will be delivering literature, chapping doors and sharing social media) don't like how will that impact the campaign? Will the members and supporters who do the work to win an election come out with passion and conviction to talk to voters to convince them to vote for the candidate that the party membership doesn't like?
As a sometimes party member who has done door knocking (and I’m writing this to say I’m including myself in what I’m about to say…
Re the second para it was a recognition that most people who are members of a political party are a bit weird and regardless of their wishes it might do party good to stop listening to them for a bit and listen to the wider public instead.
(Or, as a former Labour MP who shall remain nameless once said to me, ‘always listen to your activists. Listen, then do the opposite, and you can’t go far wrong.’)
Certainly, those who are political party members (especially those who are active within parties) are a bit weird. Compared to the vast majority of people, we have this odd interest in the details of politics, we can spend hours discussing the relative merits of almost insignificant variations on policy positions (and, enjoy it!). Those members, including those who put themselves forward for election, generally believe that the policies of their party are the best for their communities and nations. Certainly, we listen to the wider public - we go out to talk to them, chapping their doors and asking them what their concerns are and how we can help (if elected). But, should politicians be setting the agenda and asking the people to decide whether they want to follow, or following the public? I believe that political parties, their members and those members who stand for election, should be offering a vision of where the country could be going and asking for support for that. The challenge is to convince the voters to support that vision.
I'm also struggling to see the division between candidates (and, elected representatives) and the party they are part of. Aren't candidates also activists within a party? Haven't candidates come through the same rounds of committee meetings, working groups, conferences etc that have helped define the policies of parties, the same as other activists? Not all activists will be candidates (many have no wish to be), but all candidates should be activists.
If I ever have the opportunity to vote using STV, then I shall vote as I please. My preferences will not be dictated by an ordered party list, indeed my preferences may well cross party lines completely.
But, I repeat, I am a voter, not a partisan; and I do understand STV. Single Transferable Vote.
Certainly, we listen to the wider public - we go out to talk to them, chapping their doors and asking them what their concerns are and how we can help (if elected). But, should politicians be setting the agenda and asking the people to decide whether they want to follow, or following the public?
Yeah, I think ultimately the test is that these candidates still need to stand for election and that's when the public has its say.
There are problems with the models of mass politics, especially in an age when participation in mass politics has fallen, but the alternative is worse and inevitably leads to forms of cartel politics (as often in the US).
If I ever have the opportunity to vote using STV, then I shall vote as I please. My preferences will not be dictated by an ordered party list, indeed my preferences may well cross party lines completely.
But, I repeat, I am a voter, not a partisan; and I do understand STV. Single Transferable Vote.
As someone who has the advantage of what you call the single transferrable vote, none of us of course is bound by the recommendation of the party which I prefer. May I just point out that we use different systems of voting for each house of Parliament - in my State, and for the Federal parliament, it is the preferential system for the lower house and the proportional system for the upper house.
I have wondered if the House of Lords in the UK should be be replaced by a non-geographical chamber. Represetatives from associations - charities, churches, unions, professional groups, any association for which people could declare their support.
Each voter would declare support for one such organisation, who would then be able to elect (by STV) a proportional number of members of the "upper" house. Powers to be constitutionally determined; re-elections for part of the new house at fixed terms.
Trying not to get caught in the weeds, STV offers the voter a choice of their preferred party's candidates; they can put their first preference to their party's candidate, and then their 2d and succeeding preferences in case their candidate is eliminated or has a surplus. If they want burgers, they can indicate that they would prefer the lamb-burger to triumph or, if not, their second=best choice of a veal-burger. They can thus exercise a discipline on party machinery, as well as choose their representative.
It also spares the party voter from being obliged to vote for a thoroughly disreputable candidate, the only one of their party running-- they now have a panel of 2 or 3 or 4 from which they can choose.
As someone who has the advantage of what you call the single transferrable vote, none of us of course is bound by the recommendation of the party which I prefer.
My understanding is that in practice, the large majority of Australians vote "above the line" in Senate elections, and so do not avail themselves of the opportunity to rank individual candidates.
My understanding is that in practice, the large majority of Australians vote "above the line" in Senate elections, and so do not avail themselves of the opportunity to rank individual candidates.
Whether they do or not, my understanding from afar is that they have the choice. That in my estimation matters hugely, for its own sake, irrespective of what proportion of the electorate avail themselves of it.
I have wondered if the House of Lords in the UK should be be replaced by a non-geographical chamber. Represetatives from associations - charities, churches, unions, professional groups, any association for which people could declare their support.
Each voter would declare support for one such organisation, who would then be able to elect (by STV) a proportional number of members of the "upper" house. Powers to be constitutionally determined; re-elections for part of the new house at fixed terms.
I've liked that sort of idea for a while. It keeps some of the things claimed about the Lordiness.
---
In my area, a system that averaged three MPs (like Stv) would take much of the edge off FpTP while still being fairly clear about who's whos MP.
In our area each constituency is about half town half villages.
--
I'd be tempted to split the areas local representative for debating national issues and the areas national representative for championing local issues into different parts time jobs.
My understanding is that in practice, the large majority of Australians vote "above the line" in Senate elections, and so do not avail themselves of the opportunity to rank individual candidates.
Whether they do or not, my understanding from afar is that they have the choice. That in my estimation matters hugely, for its own sake, irrespective of what proportion of the electorate avail themselves of it.
I think that both you and Leorning Cniht are correct. We both, as almost everyone else, vote above the line. We have the choice and particularly when you consider the number of Senate candidates these days, and the obscurity of what many espouse, it's the better choice.
Comments
Alternative vote, for a single position, but yes.
Yes, if you run the STV algorithm to select a single winner, then it becomes the voting method known as alternative vote or instant runoff voting.
Other ranked choice voting methods are available: they don't look any different from the voter's point of view, but the method of determining the winner varies. I might argue that a Condorcet method was better than IRV, and I'd probably nominate the Ranked Pairs method as my favorite. Given that no perfect ranked voting system exists (Arrow's impossibility theorem), I think this ends up with the least bad issues.
(The multi-winner generalization of Ranked Pairs is CPO-STV, which isn't at all practical to count by hand. All methods are trivial to count by computer.)
Alaska voters generally tend to vote Republican (the last time the state went for a Democratic presidential candidate was 1964), but are rather independent-minded, and there are more unaffiliated voters than registered Democrats and Republicans combined. Voters approved "Ranked Choice" voting in 2020, similar to "alternative vote" (although there may be some different details.
Anyway, it came down to a race among 3 candidates: Republican Sarah "I can see Russia from my house" Palin, former part-term governor and John McCain's vice-presidential running mate, who was endorsed by Trump; Republican Nick Begich, the grandson of the former Representative of the same name; and Democrat Mary Peltola, a native Yup'ik who has worked as a consensus-builder in the state legislature.
Peltola received the most first-place votes, but not a majority, with Palin a close second. But a large number of votes for the Republican Begich, when redistributed, preferred Peltola over Palin, and the Democrats picked up what was thought to be a safe Republican seat.
Since then, a number of Republican-led states have passed laws against implementing "Ranked Choice" voting, probably because it tends to encourage moderate candidates.
Sort of. Almost all elections for Federal and State legislatures here are conducted on one of 2 bases - one for the lower house and the other for the upper. We call one system preferential and it is normally used to select members of the lower houses of State and Federal legislatures. Voters rank candidates with their first choice getting a 1, second choice a 2 and so forth. In counting votes, electoral officials start by counting the first choices ("the first preference"). If there is one candidate who obtains more than half the valid vote on this count, that candidate is elected; if there is no such candidate, then the second choice votes of the least preferred candidate are counted and allocated to the remaining candidates; that process continues until one candidate obtains 50% plus 1 of the votes. This is what Gramps49 calls ranked choice, and I'm pretty sure that it's Doublethink's single transferable vote.
A different system is used for the upper houses of those States where candidates are chosen by the preferential system for the lower house legislatures, and also for the federal upper house (which we call the Senate). We call this system proportional. It works in reverse to the preferential system. In this system, a quota is fixed, and to be elected a candidate must obtain the quota. The second choice votes of the successful candidates are counted, magic wands waved over them and so forth (in other words, while I understand the principle, I can't follow the practice). It works where there are multiple successful candidates to be elected. So each State counts as one electorate, with each electing multiple Senators, or the members of that State's upper house. It's also used for the Tasmanian lower house - Tasmania uses the preferential system for its upper house.
What in the UK we call "Single Transferable Vote" (STV) is used to elect members in multi-seat constituencies/wards. Voters rank the candidates by preference (at least a first preference, no need to rank all candidates). In the count a quota is set (which depends on the number of seats to be filled, any candidates with more first preference votes than the quota are elected, and their surplus votes (ie: number in excess of quota redistributed according to second preference) used to determine the proportion of second preference votes transferred (eg: if the quota is 2000 and a candidate gets 2200 first preferences they get elected and each of their second preferences get 200/2000=0.1 votes). The quota is revised for the number of seats still to be filled, and if no candidate passes this quota then the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated and their second preference votes reallocated (at full value). The process repeats until all seats are filled. I think this is the same as the Australian proportional system. It's the system used for the Dail in Ireland, Scottish local elections and other places.
What in the UK we call "Alternative Vote" (AV) is a version of STV for single member constituencies/wards. As there's only one seat to fill, the quota is 50%+1 vote, there's obviously no redistribution of second preferences from a candidate exceeding that, and only last place candidates have their second preferences re-allocated until a candidate passes the quota. This is the Australian preferential system, the US ranked choice, and also known as Instant Run-Off.
What in the UK we call "Proportional" (PR) has voters put a single mark (usually a cross) next to a single party. The number of elected representatives for each party within that region are then determined as a proportion of votes that party received (with a few different algorithms used to determine how many are elected as you need to elect whole numbers of representatives - though, in theory I can't see any reason why a party couldn't have a third of an MP, paid at a third of the salary and with only a third of a vote in Parliament; in practice I don't know of any system that does this). The choice of who is elected is left to the parties, but usually this will be a list of candidates for each party. This is a very common electoral system throughout Europe, in the UK best known for the system we used to elect MEPs.
Thank you for your comments. In my post, I did stress the particular names which we use - in the past, posters from places where only First Past The Post have been critical of comments I've posted, in which I've used the terms we use - and in fact use, rather than talk of them as some theoretical method.
Exactly. I have been told otherwise (with much energy) but am unable to see any difference. It was in play briefly for Ontario municipal elections but Mr Ford's government nixed it, saying that having two systems was confusing for voters (three systems, actually, as the block vote exists in many municipalities, but such subtleties are lost on a premier fixated on liquor sales).
Over the years this topic has come up a few times (as it should) and I keep repeating that STV, familiar to any observer of Irish elections, provides the voter with maximum choice. They get to choose within party, or they can entirely ignore party lines-- or not!! It's their call.
Party machinery, whether bosses in Silk-cut-foggy rooms or in regional committees or assemblies, does not determine the order of candidates. The objection is made that in recent elections there are more independents, to which I suggest that parties take note in their candidate selection and focus on issues.
Not quite true - when David Cameron was opposition leader the Conservatives chose at least some candidates through totally open primary.
Obviously 'party machinery' determined that was the method, but that's not quite what you meant I don't think. Cheltenham springs to mind for some reason, but there were definitely a few where the Conservatives - in winnable seats that they subsequently won - said 'if you're over 18 and live in this constituency, come and choose your Tory candidate'
The Tory take was that they would put up a slate, and then give it over to the people who actually have to vote for them when it came down to it to decide who they wanted. The idea was to detoxify the brand and go over the heads of the membership.
The membership hated it because the primaries were well attended by non-members, and the accusation was that 'Lib Dems' got selected (and subsequently elected).
Lib Dems hated it, because 'Lib Dems' got selected (and subsequently elected).
Grudgingly, I think they were actually onto something - and open primaries might be a way back for the party in the future. Essentially, the experience would seem to disprove your hunch that it would be mostly members, because AIUI it very much wasn't. Unfortunately the 'merit' is in explicitly ending up with candidates the voters want, rather than what the members want - so they did trend away from the harder core party positions.
If the result is a candidate that the membership (ie: the ordinary people who will be delivering literature, chapping doors and sharing social media) don't like how will that impact the campaign? Will the members and supporters who do the work to win an election come out with passion and conviction to talk to voters to convince them to vote for the candidate that the party membership doesn't like?
So until candidates are either eliminated or elected their votes have no effect on the remaining candidates.
In some systems, anyone can stand/run for the office. So you can have several candidates from the same party. In that case, the party hierarchy can choose which candidates will receive the most support in terms of knocking on doors, advertising, etc., and may publish "recommended" preference lists for their party members.
In the Alaska case, there was a state-wide primary election that narrowed the field down to 4 candidates, of which 3 were Republicans. (The 4th place candidate dropped out before the final election.)
Here in the US with FPTP, we also have primary elections to choose the candidate to stand/run for each party. In some states, that is limited to those voters who have registered with a preference for that particular party (a "closed primary"). Other states have "open primaries", where any voter can choose which party's primary they wish to vote in. Yes, in that case there are often voters tactically trying to get the other party to choose the least electable, or more tolerable, candidate. Sometimes it may make a difference in a very close race. (Even with a "closed primary", voters can change their registration to accomplish the same thing, although there are time limits on how far in advance it needs to be done.)
I have always understood that that system applied to candidates for President (and V-P), and for State governors. Is it also used to select candidates for Congress, Senators/State equivalents as well please? What about selection for those standing for judges as well?
As a sometimes party member who has done door knocking (and I’m writing this to say I’m including myself in what I’m about to say…
Re the second para it was a recognition that most people who are members of a political party are a bit weird and regardless of their wishes it might do party good to stop listening to them for a bit and listen to the wider public instead.
(Or, as a former Labour MP who shall remain nameless once said to me, ‘always listen to your activists. Listen, then do the opposite, and you can’t go far wrong.’)
I'm also struggling to see the division between candidates (and, elected representatives) and the party they are part of. Aren't candidates also activists within a party? Haven't candidates come through the same rounds of committee meetings, working groups, conferences etc that have helped define the policies of parties, the same as other activists? Not all activists will be candidates (many have no wish to be), but all candidates should be activists.
If I ever have the opportunity to vote using STV, then I shall vote as I please. My preferences will not be dictated by an ordered party list, indeed my preferences may well cross party lines completely.
But, I repeat, I am a voter, not a partisan; and I do understand STV. Single Transferable Vote.
Yeah, I think ultimately the test is that these candidates still need to stand for election and that's when the public has its say.
There are problems with the models of mass politics, especially in an age when participation in mass politics has fallen, but the alternative is worse and inevitably leads to forms of cartel politics (as often in the US).
As someone who has the advantage of what you call the single transferrable vote, none of us of course is bound by the recommendation of the party which I prefer. May I just point out that we use different systems of voting for each house of Parliament - in my State, and for the Federal parliament, it is the preferential system for the lower house and the proportional system for the upper house.
Each voter would declare support for one such organisation, who would then be able to elect (by STV) a proportional number of members of the "upper" house. Powers to be constitutionally determined; re-elections for part of the new house at fixed terms.
It also spares the party voter from being obliged to vote for a thoroughly disreputable candidate, the only one of their party running-- they now have a panel of 2 or 3 or 4 from which they can choose.
My understanding is that in practice, the large majority of Australians vote "above the line" in Senate elections, and so do not avail themselves of the opportunity to rank individual candidates.
I've liked that sort of idea for a while. It keeps some of the things claimed about the Lordiness.
---
In my area, a system that averaged three MPs (like Stv) would take much of the edge off FpTP while still being fairly clear about who's whos MP.
In our area each constituency is about half town half villages.
--
I'd be tempted to split the areas local representative for debating national issues and the areas national representative for championing local issues into different parts time jobs.
I think that both you and Leorning Cniht are correct. We both, as almost everyone else, vote above the line. We have the choice and particularly when you consider the number of Senate candidates these days, and the obscurity of what many espouse, it's the better choice.