Thread by @ListVoteSense

"2016 & the SNP's Four Seats"

You can bet money that no discussion on the list will happen without someone chiming in that the SNP only won 4 seats in 2016, & that it can 'only win' in a few regions.

Their opinion has become fossilised, they can't open their minds as to why....

They singularly fail to understand that the number of list seats won is NOT limited by having a constituency landslide.

Even if you win *all* the constituency seats, you can still win seats on the list if your % share is similar or higher.

Notion that SNP 'can't win' is false.

As ever, words mean nothing without data to back them up.

So let's look again at 2016, and the claims that SNP can't win in more regions & thus win more than 4 seats - assumed to be a 'plateau', putting a ceiling on SNP hopes & feeding narrative that an SNP list vote is wasted.

We will model using the actual results form 2016 (below).

What too many fail to understand is that the 4 seats result is a direct consequence of the SNP list vote being too LOW - over 5% lower than it's constituency % share - and NOT because it has 'maxed out' on the list.

This modelling is naturally hypothetical, but is given to prove that SNP can & will win extra seats, if its list % *doesn't* peel off to minor parties & stays in line with it's constituency %.

This would be the result if the SNP list % was the same as it's constituency % in 2016

To see what the arithmetic produces, imagine if all the Green vote went to the SNP (keeping unionists same, so as not to give SNP an easy ride in this modelling), this would be the result.

7 extra seats for SNP winning in all but 2 regions, putting the indy bloc up one seat.

Even in the two regions the SNP didn't win a seat in under this projection, it is in second place in both:

That was 2016, but what about now?

Here's the baseline projection from the latest Panelbase poll from July:

As you'll see above, SNP list share is again >5% lower than its constituency % share.

But what what if they were equal - if people *did* follow #BothVotesSNP?

The SNP would TRIPLE its list seats to 12 - winning in 7 out of the 8 regions.

So much for 'SNP can't win my region'.

Lastly, to prove arithmetic doesn't prevent SNP winning list seats, imagine all indy vote went to SNP: now 13 seats.

Indy bloc down 1 seat true, but SNP would have 70 constituencies (poll prediction) + 13 = 83 of 129 HR seats or 64%.

Best way to 'supermajority'? #BothVotesSNP

Obviously these scenarios depend on polling, but they're given purely to knock on head the myth that the AMS itself somehow 'prevents' SNP winning list seats.

There is nothing inherent in the 'system' that puts a lid on SNP list aspirations - only its % share of vote does that

If you want indy list seats please don't listen to misinformation about 'tactical voting' from list parties or fall for social media 'factoids'

The SNP *can* win more list seats, can win in *more* regions. And it's a more efficient use of your list vote:

2021 will be most important election in our lifetimes, & establishment will judge our desire for indy by success (or otherwise) of SNP.

A strong (majority) SNP govt is therefore essential. Take nothing for granted: your list vote is not a 'second' vote to gamble - use it wisely.

One last point: in their efforts to paint an SNP list vote as 'wasted', list party devotees often make reference to 'votes per list seat (ignoring the fact that this depends not only on the constituency seats already won, but ALSO list vote share):

This looked at 'efficiency' of votes: getting one more indy seat from the 'status quo' of 4 SNP seats.

While 5th SNP seat needs 35k more votes, a new list party would need 3x as much, >100k votes. If this was split betw 2 parties, over 200k votes would be needed to win one seat!

As mentioned, if SNP list % catches up with its constituency % (2011), then it will break out the 'plateau' of 4 seats cause precisely by the list % being a full 5% lower than the constituency vote share.

The overall mean SNP votes/list seat has fallen to 101,698 from 285,376:

Modelling from this same poll, we saw if votes went from SNP to just one list party (AFI, ISP & RISE: fight it out who is The One, please), then 103k votes were needed for very first seat.

So even using list party supporters own (facile) measure, SNP trumps the list party option

And, as seems to be case (ISP refusal to place itself under the AFI's stewardship) we have *two* fringe parties vying for each other to take SNP votes. No one can know which will win first where. Nationally, it will take >200,000 votes for one of them just to get a single seat!

As I say, notion of votes/list seat is a facile analysis, but as this metric fixates opinion of too many Yessers, reflect on the following with #BothVotesSNP

SNP (13) - 101,698
Party X (1) - 103,808
Parties X & Y (1) - 202,562

#BothVotesSNP doesn't look so 'wasted' now does it?

Medium article reworking:

medium.com/@listvotesense…