The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
The actual text of the bill.
"6 (1) Seats allocated in an electoral district to a party are to be allocated to its candidates in the following order--
(a) qualifying candidates, in order of the votes given for each candidate (largest number of votes first);
(b) other candidates, in the order in which they appear on the party list.
(2) A candidate is a "qualifying candidate" if the number of votes given for the candidate is at least 5% of the number of votes given for the party as determined for the purposes of paragraph 4(2).
(3) As between qualifying candidates with an equal number of votes, seats are to be allocated in the order in which they appear on the party list."
I am not sure that many individual candidates will get 5% of the list vote, because the elector has the choice to vote for a list OR for an individual candidate on the list (which counts as a vote for the list so far as allocation of seats is concerned). I imagine most electors will vote for the list or the lead candidate on it, so it would be quite unusual for one of the lower ranked candidates to reach a personal vote of five per cent of all the votes for the list.
In effect, in larger constituencies, there will be safe seats for large parties. If Labour and Conservatives each take 35% in South East they get about six seats. For the first name not to enter six candidates need to not only get more then number one, but also more then five per cent of the party votes each. And since it is a large constituency, with lots of people that means that six lower ranked candidates need to get their message out to lots of people.
On the other hand, all seats in Wales can very well be sorted on number of preference votes. And small parties has no safe seats as it only takes one other candidate to get more votes in order not to elect the top name where the party gets one seat. So it is a non-sensical barrier that only makes sense from the perspective of large parties (guess that is why it is proposed).
Btw, I can't get to the pdf. Even with adjusting for the link being incorrectly written. Anyone else can? Is it UK only?
A vote for PES is a vote for EPP!
A vote for EPP is a vote for PES!
Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
DoDo kindly inserted a link to the page about the draft bills which were put forward for pre-legislative consultation. Unfortunately I tried to replace that with a link to the bill as introduced, but got the syntax wrong. Sorry for the confusion.
by Metatone - Dec 5 11 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 5 1 comment
by marco - Nov 30 6 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 5
by Bjinse - Nov 24 13 comments
by afew - Nov 28 45 comments
by vbo - Nov 21 8 comments
by Oui - Nov 9 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 5
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 51 comment
by Metatone - Dec 511 comments
by marco - Nov 306 comments
by afew - Nov 2845 comments
by Bjinse - Nov 2413 comments
by Oui - Nov 2317 comments
by vbo - Nov 218 comments
by Metatone - Nov 2030 comments
by gmoke - Nov 195 comments
by Oui - Nov 196 comments
by Cyrille - Nov 18107 comments
by Ted Welch - Nov 1510 comments
by Oui - Nov 14
by Oui - Nov 1210 comments
by afew - Nov 1233 comments
by madeleine kando - Nov 1114 comments
by Crazy Horse - Nov 1154 comments
by Oui - Nov 91 comment