What about Nationalists, idly tempted to divide their franchise if they could get away with it? For most in Glasgow, this won't be a consideration, since the constituencies are dominated by the Labour Party. For most Glaswegian nationalists, voting SNP in the region is the most effective way to return Nationalist representatives. Simpliciter. Not so in my own case, however. Or at least, not necessarily. I'm registered in Glasgow Southside, the constituency whose resketched boundaries replaces the Govan seat won by Nicola Sturgeon by 744 votes in 2007. According to the notional figures, the shuffled electoral frontiers mean that Labour are estimated to enjoy a minuscule majority of 27. Their candidate in 2011 is Baillie Stephen Curran. What of wayward Glaswegian Nationalist supporters here, loosely wondering about the implications of casting their second votes elsewhere? I would at least flirt with the idea of a Green tactical vote for Patrick Harvie, if I thought it wouldn't impact on the overall strength of Glasgow's Nationalist contingent. Further investigation seemed warranted. A quick look at the figures suggests that crying It's Thyme! in Glasgow Southside would be a decidedly risky course of action.
Glasgow hasn't exactly been a dear Green place where the Scottish Greens have flourished untended, verdant and unbuffetted by the thrawn West Coast elements. Having laid down relatively shallow roots, their plant still clings tenaciously on, embattled. Having taken 4% of the Glasgow regional vote in 1999 (10,159), the Greens' support increased to 14,570 (7.1%) in 2003 – electing Patrick Harvie for the first time – but fell back to 5.2% and 10,759 votes in 2007. As others have noted, the Scottish Green's retention of a seat in Glasgow in 2007 was wholly down to Nicola Sturgeon's victory in Glasgow Govan. I've calculated (I hope accurately) the d'Hondt distributions in the Appendices below, comparing the actual result (Table 1) with what would have happened if the Govan campaign had miscarried and Labour had clung on for grim death (Table 2). Briefly, the figures clearly disclose that if Nicola had been defeated by a miraculously resurgent Crackerjack, the Nationalists would have taken the final regional seat, the Greens undershooting to the tune of 408 votes. By contrast, where Nicola wins her constituency, I notice that Nationalists appear only to run only 1,455 votes shy of nabbing a fourth regional seat in Glasgow from the Greens. That said, we must remember that in order to make up that gap, the SNP would have to secure (the difference +1 multiplied by six) to reflect the d'Hondt calculations. On 2007 numbers, the SNP would actually have to secure a stonking 64,551 regional votes, or an increase of 8,718 on their 2007 performance, to deprive the Greens of that last seat.
Glasgow's Holyrood history...
Given psephological ebbs and flows, and the relativity of political fortunes, it is worth briefly sketching the history of Glasgow regional vote in general terms. In the first Holyrood election of 1999, Glasgow elected four additional SNP members, with no constituency victories for the Nationalists, on 25.5% of the regional ballot and 65,360 votes cast. In 2003, this decreased to two additional SNP members, and no constituencies, with 17.1% of total ballots cast and 34,894 votes. In 2007, we took five – Nicola and four additional members, with 27% of list votes in the region, numbering 55,832. Since devolution, the SNP secured its highest percentage of Glaswegian votes in 2007, but the highest absolute number of votes in 1999. Votes went wandering in 2003, not least to the SSP, who picked up their first list seat in Glasgow in 1999, the ill-fated Tommy Sheridan being elected with 18,581 or 7.2% of the vote. He was joined by Rosie Kane in 2007, when the party's support increased to 31,216 votes, or 15.2% of the regional total. The Liberal Democrat list vote has been decreasing (just a wee bit) in Glasgow year on election year, from 18,473 (7.2%) to 14,939 (7.5%) to 14,767 (7.2%). Tory figures tell a similar tale. In 1999, they received 20,239 of votes cast in the city (7.9%), decreasing to to 15,299 (7.5%) and most recently to 13,751 (6.7%) in 2007.
On the left, it is interesting to note the extent to which there is unrealised potential for a united socialist platform to break through. If Solidarity's votes are added those secured by the Scottish Socialist Party in 2007, they totalled some 11,234, actually beating the Greens by 364 votes, kicking them out of that last list seat and - if Nicola had lost Glasgow Govan in 2007 - seizing the seventh additional seat from the SNP, reducing the Nationalists' overall list tally from four tribunes to three. Even more so if Arthur Scargill's Socialist Labour vote (support for which ran at 2,680 in 2007) was added. I'm conscious, however, that the socialist left is riven with divisions, even before some account is taken of the venereal and litigious escapades of the Satsuma Socialist. Given this toxic legacy and these divisions, I don't know whether such a coalition would be sustainable - but the 2007 result suggests that it has the potential to be effective in Glasgow if its support coalesced around a single party.
Here we get a little more speculative. The Greens will clearly be hoping that a typhoon tears through the Liberal support in the city. The party have effectively ousted Robert Brown, the party's list MSP in Glasgow since 1999, by giving him only second place ranking on the Liberal list, replacing him with Katy Gordon. Baillie Bill Aitken, who has also represented the region since 1999, gave himself the heave ho, leaving another Justice of the Peace, Malcolm MacAskill, to top the Tory list in Glasgow in 2011. I'm skeptical about the extent to which either gentleman might have enjoyed a significant "personal vote". Unless Greenie fortunes radically alter, securing a second Glasgow green seat seems a distant prospect, at best. In Glasgow, their primary goal must be to keep a single Green MSP but in a more secure position (namely, not reliant on topping the final tally for the last MSP and Nicola winning a second victory in Glasgow Southside). Will that happen? It is hard to conceive of a more improbable movement of support in Scottish politics than transfers from the ilk of Baillie Bill Aitken to Patrick Harvie. Greens seem more likely to seek more sustainable hunting grounds in Nationalist - and particularly Liberal - territory or even trying to tempt the city's array of unfocussed socialist left votes. Given the effect of Westminster coalition on the Liberal Democrat's national support (cf the Barnsley chop) the best Green hope in Glasgow must be to try to make off with as many Liberal votes as possible, at best swapping rankings with them in terms of numbers of votes received.
This presents an even more acute reason to cast one's second ballot for the SNP. If Nicola loses in Southside but the regional SNP vote stays in broadly similar territory, someone is being knocked off the bottom of the list, ideally Glasgow's solitary Tory - but potentially a Green, a Liberal - or that fifth SNP MSP, on a bad night. For my part, I'm confident that Nicola can beat Cooncillor Curran in Southside, although the conclusion is not foregone. Such a victory would take much of the pressure off of our Green friends on the list. As a consequence, perhaps the clearest finding in all of this is that it is in the rational self interest of Green voters in Glasgow Southside to support Nicola Sturgeon on their first ballot paper. Is it thyme in Glasgow Southside? Sorry Mr Harvie, but for my part, I haven't the steel nerves to risk it.
This presents an even more acute reason to cast one's second ballot for the SNP. If Nicola loses in Southside but the regional SNP vote stays in broadly similar territory, someone is being knocked off the bottom of the list, ideally Glasgow's solitary Tory - but potentially a Green, a Liberal - or that fifth SNP MSP, on a bad night. For my part, I'm confident that Nicola can beat Cooncillor Curran in Southside, although the conclusion is not foregone. Such a victory would take much of the pressure off of our Green friends on the list. As a consequence, perhaps the clearest finding in all of this is that it is in the rational self interest of Green voters in Glasgow Southside to support Nicola Sturgeon on their first ballot paper. Is it thyme in Glasgow Southside? Sorry Mr Harvie, but for my part, I haven't the steel nerves to risk it.
---------------------------------
Appendices
Table 1. Holyrood Election 2007. Nicola Sturgeon wins in Glasgow Govan.
Seven additional seats available...
Total votes cast
- Labour 78,838
- SNP 55,832
- Libs 14,767
- Con 13,751
- Greens 10,759
- Solidarity 8,544
Round 1
- Labour 78,838 /10 = 7,883.8
- SNP 55,832/2 = 27,916
- Libs 14,767 = 14,767
- Con 13,751 = 13,751
- Greens 10,759 = 10,759
- Solidarity 8,544 = 8,544
-----------------------------------------------
Round 2
- Labour 78,838 /10 = 7,883.8
- SNP 55,832/3 = 18,610.67
- Libs 14,767/1 = 14,767
- Con 13,751/1 = 13,751
- Greens 10,759/1 = 10,759
- Solidarity 8,544/1 = 8,544
-----------------------------------------------
Round 3
- Labour 78,838 /10 = 7,883.8
- SNP 55,832/4 = 13,958
- Libs 14,767/1 = 14,767
- Con 13,751/1 = 13,751
- Greens 10,759/1 = 10,759
- Solidarity 8,544/1 = 8,544
-----------------------------------------------
Round 4
- Labour 78,838 /10 = 7,883.8
- SNP 55,832/4 = 13,958
- Libs 14,767/2 = 7,383.5
- Con 13,751/1 = 13,751
- Greens 10,759/1 = 10,759
- Solidarity 8,544/1 = 8,544
-----------------------------------------------
Round 5
- Labour 78,838 /10 = 7,883.8
- SNP 55,832/5 = 11,166
- Libs 14,767/2 = 7,383.5
- Con 13,751/1 = 13,751
- Greens 10,759/1 = 10,759
- Solidarity 8,544/1 = 8,544
-----------------------------------------------
Round 6
- Labour 78,838 /10 = 7,883.8
- SNP 55,832/5 = 11,166
- Libs 14,767/2 = 7,383.5
- Con 13,751/2 = 6875.5
- Greens 10,759/1 = 10,759
- Solidarity 8,544/1 = 8,544
-----------------------------------------------
Round 7
- Labour 78,838 /10 = 7,883.8
- SNP 55,832/6 = 9,305.33
- Libs 14,767/2 = 7,383.5
- Con 13,751/2 = 6875.5
- Greens 10,759/1 = 10,759
- Solidarity 8,544/1 = 8,544
Green MSP elected
Actual Glasgow totals in 2007: 9 Labour members, 5 SNP, 1 Liberal, 1 Tory, 1 Green.
Actual Glasgow totals in 2007: 9 Labour members, 5 SNP, 1 Liberal, 1 Tory, 1 Green.
-----------------------------------------------
Table 2. Holyrood Election 2007 If Nicola Sturgeon had lost in Glasgow Govan
Seven additional seats available...
Total votes cast
- Labour 78,838
- SNP 55,832
- Libs 14,767
- Con 13,751
- Greens 10,759
- Solidarity 8,544
Round 1
- Labour 78,838 /11 = 7,167.09
- SNP 55,832 = 55,832
- Libs 14,767 = 14,767
- Con 13,751 = 13,751
- Greens 10,759 = 10,759
- Solidarity 8,544 = 8,544
-----------------------------------------------
Round 2
- Labour 78,838 /11 = 7,167.09
- SNP 55,832/2 = 27,916
- Libs 14,767/1 = 14,767
- Con 13,751/1 = 13,751
- Greens 10,759/1 = 10,759
- Solidarity 8,544/1 = 8,544
-----------------------------------------------
Round 3
- Labour 78,838 /11 = 7,167.09
- SNP 55,832/3 = 18,610.66
- Libs 14,767/1 = 14,767
- Con 13,751/1 = 13,751
- Greens 10,759/1 = 10,759
- Solidarity 8,544/1 = 8,544
-----------------------------------------------
Round 4
- Labour 78,838 /11 = 7,167.09
- SNP 55,832/4 = 13,958
- Libs 14,767 = 14,767
- Con 13,751/1 = 13,751
- Greens 10,759/1 = 10,759
- Solidarity 8,544/1 = 8,544
-----------------------------------------------
Round 5
- Labour 78,838 /11 = 7,167.09
- SNP 55,832/4 = 13,958
- Libs 14,767/2 = 7,383.5
- Con 13,751/1 = 13,751
- Greens 10,759/1 = 10,759
- Solidarity 8,544/1 = 8,544
-----------------------------------------------
Round 6
- Labour 78,838 /11 = 7,167.09
- SNP 55,832/5 = 11,166
- Libs 14,767/2 = 7,383.5
- Con 13,751/1 = 13,751
- Greens 10,759/1 = 10,759
- Solidarity 8,544/1 = 8,544
-----------------------------------------------
Round 7
- Labour 78,838 /11 = 7,167.09
- SNP 55,832/5 = 11,166
- Libs 14,767/2 = 7,383.5
- Con 13,751/2 = 6875.5
- Greens 10,759/1 = 10,759
- Solidarity 8,544/1 = 8,544
SNP MSP elected, the Greens undershooting the Nationalists by 408 votes for the final seat. Glasgow totals in 2007 if Nicola had lost Glasgow Govan: 10 Labour members, 5 SNP, 1 Liberal, 1 Tory.
Forgive me if I've misunderstood this, but the second total should be 10 Labour surely?
ReplyDeleteIck!
ReplyDeleteI knew an error would creep in somewhere. You are quite correct, Ewan and I've amended that last line. You'll notice, by the by, that repeating the distribution from 2007 looks like the most optimal result in Glasgow from the SNP perspective. That said, in 2011, only 9 Glaswegian constituency seats rather than ten are available. Although this decreases Labour's notional d'Hondt division numbers by 1, they look unlikely to benefit from it.
Interesting, but I'm not sure it stacks up (and not just because the conclusion is personally undesirable).
ReplyDeleteAs I see it, your preferences look like this. SNP > Green > Lib Dem > Tory or Labour
The top of the SNP list in Glasgow is about the safest place to be in the Scottish election, and Humza will be a great MSP.
But that fifth SNP MSP, whether or not one of them is Nicola re-elected in her reboundaried constituency, got elected on SNP votes divided by five in your examples, as you note at one point. I'm mystified a vote for them is on one level a fifth less likely to stop a Tory or Lib Dem MSP towards the tail end than a Green vote is.
Also, you don't think we're heading upwards with an unbuggered-with ballot, the Libs in decline, the far left even more screwed than they were in 2007, five Green Councillors, and a distinctive position on public services and taxation?
I've got £100 says we beat the Libs on the list in Glasgow. First come first served. And every vote will count..
The other side of this tactical voting coin is that any Southside LibDem, Tory or Green who want to give their party the best chance of getting a seat in Glasgow had better vote for Nicola.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if that arguement could be harnessed by the SNP in other parts of Glasgow to help in the possible election of Sandra White or John Mason FPTP?
James,
ReplyDeleteYour hierarchy of desires is pretty accurate. Realistically, I'd like for:
(a) Nicola to win in Glasgow Southside
(b) The SNP to maintain its number of list seats at four and...
(c) For Patrick Harvie to win a Green seat on the list.
As you say, the Greens' striving to hunt down dissatisfied Liberal votes in Glasgow may well result in a reshuffle in which party - Greens, Liberals, Tories - takes the 3rd, 4th and 5th on terms of votes. I'd welcome that. However, you talk about "stopping a Liberal or a Tory". With an eye on the overall national result, I'm more interested in ensuring that Glasgow sends as many SNP MSPs to Holyrood as is realistically possible. In coming to some judgment, I've obviously got to factor in the possibility that Nicola might not win. If she does not, and as you predict, the Greens somersault over the Liberals in Glasgow, we might anticipate that the final scrap in round 7 is between SNP and the Liberals. I concede, approaching the dilemma with a different emphasis might well lead to different approach.
Do feel free to continue to try to convince me that I've miscalculated somehow, or more substantially, that I'm privileging the wrong goals. Alternatively, we could all forego tactics, and simply vote as our consciences dictate! Might me a mite simpler...
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThat would seem to be the implication of the data, particularly if 2011 sees fiercer scrap between the three smaller parties - Liberals, Tories and Greens - for votes on the list. I'm not sure about how efficacious such an argument will be - most folk are unlikely to make such calculations, since their preferred parties are likely to be standing on the list and in their constituencies, whatever the unlikelihood of them winning. The old motto - "second vote Greens" - by contrast, suggests that their supporters and members are likely to be more alive to the tactical significance of how they dispose of their first votes. Some of them, I dare say, would be happy to support Nicola Sturgeon without such nefarious calculations, but there seems no harm in reminding them about that in Glasgow Southside...
Thanks for the name check LPW, and indeed the quality post.
ReplyDeleteI do wonder if one angle that has hitherto not being considered is the probable fact that the Greens won't be fielding FPTP candidates this time around.
If memory serves correctly, a young chap in Glasgow North scooped a few thousands constituency votes for the Greens which presumably came with a few thousand precious regional votes.
If those voters now can't vote Green in the first vote, is there a chance that many of them won't vote Green in the second? Could that be a crucial difference?
Am I asking too many questions and not providing any answers?
Jeff, I suspect it's the other way round.
ReplyDelete'Twas Glasgow Kelvin we stood in, and Martin came third. But it's unlikely to my mind than those who voted Green twice will suddenly decide to vote Green zero times. People do split their votes and are used to voting Green one time - in 2007 they could use that in the constituency or on the list. This time the only option will be the list.
In case there's doubt that this didn't help us in 2007 - we actually got more than 300 votes fewer on the list in Kelvin than we did on the list there.
Have you considered Sandra White winning Kelvin? I don't know what the Socialists will be doing about FPTP candidates, but the Green aren't standing any FPTP seats, which means there are 3,000 votes up for grabs in Kelvin- what would 2 SNP FPTP wins do to the list?
ReplyDeleteI agree with James on that one Jeff. I can't see many votes being determined by a desire for a consistent ballot - Green-Green - that'd make folk forgo casting their list vote if no Green constituency candidate was available. "Second vote Green" is a comparative familiar phrase, after all.
ReplyDeleteStuart,
ReplyDeleteIf Nicola Sturgeon and Sandra White had won in Glasgow in 2007, the regional shakedown would have been as follows:
Total votes cast
* Labour 78,838
* SNP 55,832
* Libs 14,767
* Con 13,751
* Greens 10,759
* Solidarity 8,544
-----------------------------------------------
Round 1
* Labour 78,838 /9 = 8759.77
* SNP 55,832/3 = 18,610.67
* Libs 14,767 = 14,767
* Con 13,751 = 13,751
* Greens 10,759 = 10,759
* Solidarity 8,544 = 8,544
SNP MSP elected
-----------------------------------------------
Round 2
* Labour 78,838 /9 = 8759.77
* SNP 55,832/4 = 13,958
* Libs 14,767/1 = 14,767
* Con 13,751/1 = 13,751
* Greens 10,759/1 = 10,759
* Solidarity 8,544/1 = 8,544
Liberal MSP elected
-----------------------------------
Round 3
* Labour 78,838 /9 = 8759.77
* SNP 55,832/4 = 13,958
* Libs 14,767/2 = 7,383.5
* Con 13,751/1 = 13,751
* Greens 10,759/1 = 10,759
* Solidarity 8,544/1 = 8,544
SNP MSP elected
-----------------------------------
Round 4
* Labour 78,838 /9 = 8759.77
* SNP 55,832/5 = 11,166
* Libs 14,767/2 = 7,383.5
* Con 13,751/1 = 13,751
* Greens 10,759/1 = 10,759
* Solidarity 8,544/1 = 8,544
Tory MSP elected
-----------------------------------
Round 5
* Labour 78,838 /9 = 8759.77
* SNP 55,832/5 = 11,166
* Libs 14,767/2 = 7,383.5
* Con 13,751/2 = 6875.5
* Greens 10,759/1 = 10,759
* Solidarity 8,544/1 = 8,544
SNP MSP elected
-----------------------------------------------
Round 6
* Labour 78,838 /9 = 8759.77
* SNP 55,832/6 = 9,305.33
* Libs 14,767/2 = 7,383.5
* Con 13,751/2 = 6875.5
* Greens 10,759/1 = 10,759
* Solidarity 8,544/1 = 8,544
Green MSP elected
-----------------------------------------------
Round 7
* Labour 78,838 /9 = 8759.77
* SNP 55,832/6 = 9,305.33
* Libs 14,767/2 = 7,383.5
* Con 13,751/2 = 6875.5
* Greens 10,759/2 = 5379.5
* Solidarity 8,544/1 = 8,544
SNP MSP elected
----------
I was flirting with the idea of voting Green as a second choice, but to be honest the Betternation guys, and the Green Councillor in our street, turned me off that notion.
ReplyDeleteBut I'd still voted Green before LibDem
Oh?
ReplyDeleteWhat specifically changed your mind, Anonymous?
The Green constituency vote in G.Kelvin 2007 split many ways.
ReplyDeleteConstituency: 2871
Regional votes of those 2871 voters:
Green 1687
SNP 360
LD 229
Lab 209
Sol 147
SSP 145
and the rest divided among 16 other parties.
Some very strange tactical voting there. I suspect many of those voters did not really understand how best to use their two AMS votes to achieve the result they really wanted.
Interesting details, Edinburgh. I concur with your final remark that we shouldn't over-rationalise our interpretations of voting behaviour. While you can look into the detail and make a calculation about your priorities, this is likely to be the behaviour of a distinct minority. In short, we probably shouldn't over-egg the actual tactics involved in tactical voting.
ReplyDeleteOn the Kelvin data, I wasn't aware that that sort of information was publicly available - particularly concerning how voters distributed their first and second votes. Presumably it is only possible where the two votes are recorded on a single ballot paper. Queer stuff.
The full data for every SP constituency are available on the Scotland Office website. The link is on this webpage, at 30 April 2008:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/scotlandoffice/10801.134.html
Direct to Excel spreadsheet:
http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/scotlandoffice/files/updatedversionJune08.xls
Such data are available only for the 2007 elections because in those elections the two ballot papers were on one ballot sheet and because the votes were counted electronically. Thus it was possible to see exactly how each individual voter had used their separate constituency and regional votes. This will not be possible this year as we shall have two separate ballot papers and they will be counted by hand.
From the voter's perspective, AMS is the most difficult of the five voting systems we use for public elections in Scotland. Most voters do not understand how AMS works - the regional vote is the more important. Terms like "first vote" and "second vote" should never be used for AMS - that was the mistake in official literature in 1999 and 2003. But the Scottish Green Party exploited it to great effect!!
To get what they really want many voters must vote strategically, but they do not understand the system well enough to know how to make the strategy work. The voters also need a great deal of local (regional) information if they are to implement their strategy to achieve the result they want.
To see just what the voters did in 2007 you might like to look at this paper:
http://www.jamesgilmour.f2s.com/EPOP08-Switch-Voting-10Sep08.pdf
Ooo, many thanks for that. Fascinating stuff. By disposition, I'm not an immediately numerically minded person and only dip in and out of the data sources available. Somehow all that Scotland Office material passed me by. Now I have a whole new body of information to obsess over...
ReplyDelete