Morning:
8°c
One thing has been clear from the start in the contradictory and confusing Mayoral opinion polls. Most Londoners simply do not understand how the voting system works.
Take today's YouGov/Standard poll. Forget the first-preference choices for a moment. Skip to the second-preference votes. Just like all the other polls, this one reports that most of us are proposing effectively to throw away our second preferences, casting second-preference votes that will never even be counted.
What, you ask? But yes. How it works is this: first, they count all the first-preference votes. Every candidate bar the top two (almost certainly Boris and Ken) is eliminated. Then they look at the second preferences of those who voted Green, Lib-Dem, and the other eliminated candidates. Any for Ken are added on to Ken's first-round total; any for Boris are added on to his first-round total. Second preferences for any other candidate are ignored.
That means two things, neither widely understood. To begin with, there is no point at all in giving anyone except Boris or Ken your second preference. Second preferences for Sian, Brian or the others (favoured by 67 per cent of Londoners for their second pref in today's poll) are a waste of time.
And Point B is this: if you vote for Brian, or Sian, or one of the other lesser parties as your first choice, and Boris or Ken as your second, it is your second choice vote that will count, not your first.
Across London, there does seem to be a substantial desire to kick the Mayor. But Livingstone activists' road to victory may be to claim that you can somehow satisfy that desire, and "register a protest", by giving someone else your first preference, and Ken only your second.
In practice, a second preference vote for Ken or Boris is worth precisely the same to them as a first preference vote. The only way to register a protest against either man is not to vote for them, first or second. (There is, incidentally, no obligation to cast a second-preference vote.)
But relatively few people seem to understand this, perhaps including the brave gay activist Peter Tatchell. He was added to Ken's bulging list of "racists" after opposing the visit of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the homophobic, fundamentalist Muslim cleric. So last week I was sorry to see him saying that, though he regarded Ken as "tarnished" and wouldn't put him first, he would put Livingstone second.
Perhaps Mr Tatchell sees Boris as bad for gay Londoners (surely wrongly: half of Boris's campaign team are gay.) Perhaps he thinks a Ken second-pref is somehow worth less than a first preference. Wrong again.
In a tight race, second preferences could be really important. So it's vital that people don't cast them without fully understanding what they're doing. It's equally important that they don't spoil their votes by mistake. Last time, an amazing 57,000 ballot papers were rejected.
In theory, the first-pref/second-pref system is fairer than the old first-past-the-post. But only if it's properly explained, and it hasn't been.
Reader views (32)
I don't want any of the 3 main candidates. So none of them would feature on my ballot paper. It's not a 'waste of time' as you call it. I'm simply making my democratic choice.
- Anne, Hounslow, England, 29/04/2008 13:21
Report abuse
"One thing has been clear from the start in the contradictory and confusing Mayoral opinion polls. Most Londoners simply do not understand how the voting system works. "
Or how about we do understand perfectly well but we don't want to vote for Livingstone or Johnson?... Since you're so smart surely you must have considered that?
How about maybe some people have principle and vote their conscience, not just voting based off what the media says and other people think - which leads to nobody actually voting for who they want and everybody being influenced by a handful of pundits!
You are telling us that the probably two worst candidates out of the 10 (except maybe the BNP) are our "only choice" and you don't understand what might be wrong with that!
Andrew Gilligan you are part of an insane system, I know you're paid by the word but you shouldn't really be lecturing voters.
- Swingvoter, london, 17/04/2008 18:33
Report abuse
I don't see the point of using my 2nd preference vote.
I am voting for A candidate, the one I want as mayor. Using my 2nd preference for someone else is a waste of time because if I wanted them to be mayor then they would have got my first vote.
The system is entirely flawed because if one candidate doesn't get 50% of the vote, the top two candidates go forward. So for example that is Ken and Boris. Then the second preferences of the losing Mayoral candidates are put towards the totals of KEN and BORIS and that is how someone wins.... it isn't a result it is flawed and seond preferences should not count.
So my advice is do not use your second preference.
- Gillian Wheels, Barnet, 16/04/2008 15:23
Report abuse
People don't want Boris nor Ken. But they vote for one as being slightly less bad than the other - or don't vote (the real majority!). If instead they voted for the candidate they most wanted - and didn't give Boris nor Ken the time of day - nor a 2nd choice vote! - then it would not be either of those two party political shysters who get elected, but another party's candidate completely that would win (I hardly care who so long as it was not one of the Lib/Lab/Con trick!). Just follow your gut feeling!
- Cllr Chris Cooke, Tamworth, UK, 16/04/2008 10:36
Report abuse
"Those who designed the system (not the politicians) must be very angry at the way in which it has been hijacked to actually play down diverse politics rather than help it...and of course that's why the turnout is so low - "do I really only have a choice between Boris and Ken? Why bother?" is what most of my friends and associates are saying."
I must assume that someone who has stood for Mayor in the past has a semblance of intelligence, but this would suggest otherwise! In First Past the Post diversity is allowed by enabling electors to put a cross next to a minority candidate who, inevitably, will get nowhere and the vote, whilst expressing support, will ultimately be wasted when it comes to determining who gets in. The system for Mayor both enables the elector to show support for a minority candidate whilst also having a say on who gets in. Given that this is a winner takes all contest there is no possibility of a minority candidate actually winning the mayoralty - they can gain representation in the GLA elections, however. It strikes me that too many contributors, such as the one referred to, wish to appeal to prejudice in their very shallow analysis, rather than participating in an intelligent debate.
- Brian Capaloff, Falkirk, Scotland (Formerly London), 16/04/2008 09:50
Report abuse
I can hardly believe how complicated people make things. Just vote for your two favourites, with your most favourite first. That's it. Everything else is trying to be clever, to double guess and manipulate the system and that's what's confusing people.
- Tom Moncrieff, Hammersmith, 15/04/2008 23:49
Report abuse
Amazing that people are clever enough to use the internet, and read (although not spell), yet they cannot understand how to vote in an election.
It must be Ken's fault though. That much is obvious.
As far as I can tell Mr Gilligan is confused by the fact that more than 2 people can stand for this election. He would prefer a simple choice "Boris or Ken", and presumably it would be even better if it was just "Boris".
Perhaps that is next week's piece ruined.
- Will, London, 15/04/2008 20:57
Report abuse
For those who want to know how the mayoral voting system works, I will attempt to explain:
On your ballot paper, you will have a 'first choice' vote and a 'second choice' vote.
Both will be on the same ballot paper which will be handed in on May 1st.
Once all ballot papers have been handed in on May 1st, the number of 'first choice' votes for each candidate will be counted. If any candidate has 50% of the 'first choice' votes for the whole of London, they automatically become Mayor.
However, if no candidate has 50% of the 'first choice' votes, the 'second choice' votes come into play.
The two candidates who have the most 'first choice' votes will go through to a second round, while all the other candidates will be eliminated.
The ballot papers that were handed in on May 1st will now be re-examined, and any 'second choice' votes for the top two candidates will be added to the 'first choice' votes they received.
All 'second choice' votes for the other candidates will be ignored.
So as you can see, the 'second choice' votes are as important as the first choice votes as far as the top two candidates are concerned.
It's incredibly likely that the top two candidates will be Boris and Ken, so votes for them (whether 'first choice' or 'second choice') are likely to be the most crucial ones of the election.
Does this help?
- Robert Cunningham, Harrow, London, UK, 15/04/2008 20:20
Report abuse
The follow-up comments sum up the scale of the problem. What we have in London for Mayor is the French presidential voting system, but confusingly with both rounds done on one ballot paper. Ivor, your first choice (Green) will surely be eliminated in that round one, so it is your second vote that will count, but only if that vote is for the two who actually get into the 2nd round (and that will of course be Ken and Boris). In a nutshell you need to vote for who you would really like to in your heart of hearts as first choice...and then one of the 'main 2' as your second choice if you are voting negatively (Anyone But Ken, or 'I can't stand that idiot with the blond hair'). Or, like you Ivor, if one of the candidates from the 'main 2' is offering something that makes you prefer them over the other 1. So although it sticks in my craw (what's a craw anyway), Ivor should vote Green in Round 1 and Boris round 2. The real villains of this are the Government who do not want the system explained. Indeed when I stood for Mayor in 2000 I wanted to explain this in my official election literature, and I was not allowed. Those who designed the system (not the politicians) must be very angry at the way in which it has been hijacked to actually play down diverse politics rather than help it...and of course that's why the turnout is so low - "do I really only have a choice between Boris and Ken? Why bother?" is what most of my friends and associates are saying.
- Damian Hockney A.M., London, UK, 15/04/2008 13:17
Report abuse
Ivor - you won't be able to give your 1st and 2nd preference votes to the same candidate, so if you want to vote for Boris, don't give your 2nd pref to Ken as you're essentially voting for both of them. Consider your second pref vote as a separate vote in the second round, which will be between Boris and Ken.
- Emily, London, 15/04/2008 13:14
Report abuse
I hope the Evening Standard explains this to readers over the next few weeks - I am out on the streets at the moment for Boris and people simply don't understand how this works.
- Aeh, Hammersmith, London, 15/04/2008 12:52
Report abuse
Thanks for bringing this up Andrew! But I still do not understand! Please can someone (Andrew)? explain it as if to a five year old.
I want to vote for Boris - but only if he change his mind and supports urgently needed big pedestrian improvements for London -. So should I put him first and second i.e. give him 2 votes from me? I was intending to vote Boris 1st and Green 2nd thinking that both would count proportionately. Now are you saying that this is not the case. I just don't get the idea of the second preference. Help.
- Ivor, london, 15/04/2008 11:10
Report abuse
Andrew,it would be very helpful if you could give your readers an abridged version of this article again a few days before the election. Most people have a short attention span and also reading the Standard very often on train/bus etc., a few 'coming to the point' sentences would have a stronger impact.
- U F Doerge, RG7 3HY, 15/04/2008 10:37
Report abuse
Anyone comparing Livingstone with Mugabe is not only too stupid to understand the voting system, but too stupid to understand politics full stop.
- Charlie, Soho, 15/04/2008 10:22
Report abuse
It's not complicated. It would have taken a paragraph to explain the concept, the rest of the article is just an attempt to flesh it out to column length. It's immensely patronising of Gilligan to presume that Tatchell didn't know what he was doing by saying he'd put Ken 2nd. He does, that's why he's announced it. It's just not gone Gilligan's way so he tries to smear it as confusion about the system. And if you've voted for Ken/Boris as your first choice I don't see what's wrong with voting for another party you have time for as your second. True it won't affect the election but the party can still use it as proof of levels of support. Oh fyi Robert from Herts who brought up the Muslim vote for no reason: Indonesia and Malaysia are functioning Muslim democracies. And India has about 150 million Muslims all of whom are allowed to vote.
- Nick, LDN, 15/04/2008 09:56
Report abuse
Obviously Mr Gilligan prefers allowing comments which compare Ken to 'Mugage', which I assume is a reference to the dictator in Zimbabwe of a similar name, as opposed to comments which ridicule such ridiculous comparisons and which refer to a hardly complex way of ensuring that each vote has the potential to count!
- Brian Capaloff, Falkirk, Scotland (Formerly London), 15/04/2008 00:18
Report abuse
Well that was as clear as mud then.Can l assume that if l do not use my second preferential vote at all,l will not be letting another candidate in by default.
- Alan, Romford, UK, 14/04/2008 23:41
Report abuse
Andrew, please do not listen to Alan of London, any way that you can help get rid of the reptilian Livingstone will be of great service to us Londoners.
- Anthony Bootle, London, 14/04/2008 23:05
Report abuse
Alan, London, seems to want to knock Gilligan rather than comment on the latter's reasoned analysis of the impact of the second-preference vote in the mayoral election. Typical NuLabor sleight of hand! Would that Livingnewt should spell it out so clearly - but then he wouldn't, would he?
- Tom, London, 14/04/2008 22:40
Report abuse
Andrew you seem to be blinded with obsessive behaviour when writing about Ken Livingstone. You write with a sense of authority "Across London, there does seem to be a substantial desire to kick the Mayor" this obviously doesn't stand up to be true when you look at the polling. So please don't try and dress this article up as a piece which is concerned with the voting system and how Londoners do not understand it. Of course we do. Why not be true to your self and just write "do not vote for ken in bold letters". Please treat the readers with the respect that they deserve.
- James, London, Bromley, 14/04/2008 22:11
Report abuse
Thank you Andrew for explaining the implications of this. I am emailing your article to everyone I know - you are illuminating the democratic process with this vital point which no doubt Calculating Ken was planning to use to his advantage - and under the wire so no one would notice. Classic Ken.
- Lucy Allan, SW15, 14/04/2008 21:26
Report abuse
Andrew, don't listen to Ken's employees (Alan and Liam) there are a lot of ordinary folk like myself who feel very strongly that your award winning journalism is aloud to continue unabated!
- N/A, UK, 14/04/2008 21:21
Report abuse
Please don't suggest Boris is gay friendly. He voted for Clause 28!
- Oliver P., N.London, 14/04/2008 20:49
Report abuse
Of course it's in Livingston's interests that people do not totally understand how the voting works. He got in last time through people's second votes, and no doubt he'll do the same again. If it's true that people are confused about the system then the Electoral Commission should run an ad just prior to the election explaining all. Otherwise I'm afraid it'll be more years of bloody Ken. Heaven help us.
- Stuart Blake, London, 14/04/2008 19:58
Report abuse
The main thing is to make sure that Ken Livingstone is kicked out whether you normally vote Conservative or Labour.
The man is a disaster.
Don't make Livingstone your first or second preference.
I'll be voting for Boris Johnson first and Brian Paddick second
- John Presley, Morden, Surrey, 14/04/2008 18:49
Report abuse
Why all this concern about "The Muslim Vote"
Most voters in London are not Muslims.
Can anyone tell me where, in "The Muslim World" there are democratic elections.....that means elections where women can vote.
- Robert, Herts, 14/04/2008 16:21
Report abuse
The only way for the right change for London is for a good old fashioned English new broom, Lab are tarnished goods, LIB CON talk good, but are useless where it counts.
- Helen, Norwich, 14/04/2008 15:53
Report abuse
"Why make it so complicated? Doubtless Ken will indulge in a spot of Mugage-esque skulduggery to stay in power anyway."
Another way of referring to it could be that it's making sure that every vote counts and, unfortunately, every system that endeavours to do this, whether through a proportional system or the one to be used in this election is slightly more complex than the 'x' marks the spot system. And in the reference to 'Mugage- esque skulduggery' (I assume you mean Mugabe?) are you referring to the imprisonment and torture of opponents, the threatening at gunpoint and the stuffing of ballot boxes? I know the Standard's anti-Ken hyperbole has gone far, but surely not so far as to suggest that London, where I would hope electors vote freely and where each individual vote will count in this system, is the new Zimbabwe? And before criticism is made of the supposed complexity of London's system, from Perth, I think the phrase glass houses and stones should be brought to mind!
- Brian Capaloff, Falkirk, Scotland (Formerly London), 14/04/2008 15:52
Report abuse
Do you ever get bored of talking about Ken Livingstone?
- Liam, London, 14/04/2008 15:07
Report abuse
The news that most people don't understand the system for the mayoral elections doesn't surprise me.
Yet despite this quite a few Labour MPs are in favour of reforming the system for general elections, including giving people a 'second-preference' vote.
Michael Wills, Labour's constitutional affairs minister, is one of those who supports the idea.
We need to get Labour out before they try to put this disastrous idea into practice.
- Robert Cunningham, Harrow, London, UK, 14/04/2008 15:02
Report abuse
Andrew - if you didn't spend so much time on your anti-Ken campaign you might have more time for any objective explanation of the mayoral voting system - note I said 'objective' rather than how do we get Ken out!
- Alan, London, 14/04/2008 14:33
Report abuse
Why make it so complicated? Doubtless Ken will indulge in a spot of Mugage-esque skulduggery to stay in power anyway.
- Nobby Clark, Perth, UK, 14/04/2008 13:33
Report abuse
