Please, can someone at @theSNP HQ get Kenny MacAskill to spare half an hour to sit down and have a look at an actual spreadsheet showing exactly what will happen to SNP vote & seats if supporters follow his advice and vote for a fringe indy list party?
"Senior SNP figures failing to recognise benefits of second indy party standing for regional seats, writes Kenny MacAskill"
Maybe like anyone sensible examining issue, they actually did some data analysis confirming to any who look at numbers there are no 'benefits', only risks.
If I was an #SNP list candidate (especially in the South of Scotland, where the last seat looks like being a toss up between Tories and SNP), I'd be spitting blood at this dreadful advice from a party colleague, that would likely cost me my seat.
"There are good arguments to be made against new indy list parties. A plethora standing in every region, all polling low numbers, could indeed cost the SNP seats and harm the cause."
Good arguments indeed.
A plethora is what we're getting.
Even one siphons off crucial votes
"Strident insistence that “Both Votes SNP” always delivers maximum electoral success is arrant nonsense, denying electoral reality under the hybrid system."
Says one who obviously has never looked at spreadsheet analysis of voting scenarios in his life or he'd know that is false
"It’s also hypocritical insisting that there’s already a second-vote option available in the Greens. On what basis are they the anointed ones?"
Greens are "anointed" purely because they alone have the percentage support *necessary to win seats* - in every region based on polls.
"Why is one alternative vote acceptable but not another, and if there’s to be an option then who decides?"
The decision is based purely on the *electoral arithmetic*. If it wasn't the Greens, then whichever party polling at that level would be one to support in addition to SNP.
"These aren’t some nutter fringe demanding a referendum next month and implying that only the will is missing."
He should read what some of the list party advocates say on social media.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Modelling with the last Panelbase poll, where votes were transferred *only* from the SNP to a new list Party X (AFI/ISP/Wings/whatever), we see that Party X needs to get near 5% to start winning seats (from SNP) & near 6% to add 3 seats to the 'indy bloc'.
In the real world, a certain percentage of votes received by the Greens are already 'tactical votes' by those who voted SNP in constituencies.
What if some of these people voted for Party X instead of the Greens?
We see that this more realistic scenario looks even less rosy.
Here's the baseline propjection from that poll as a reminder:
I had been asked for comments about this article by BarrheadBoy. Sadly he still labours under the same misunderstandings about the SNP vote and the list. From previous commentary, his mind was already made up about the 'facts', whatever the data may say.
The seat calculator image posted from another Twitter user: others - eg BallotBoxScot and myself - project one SNP list seat. I have no idea if the seat calculator used a UNS or regionally weighted swing, but it doesn't really matter, as projections aren't an exact art.
"The success in the Constituency does however mean less success in the List Votes."
Incorrect - the success or lack of it in the list depends crucially *also* on the SNP list vote share, something the list party advocates also seem to forget.
I’ve always thought the AMS was a decent electoral system, but it’s biggest flaw seems to be that swathes of the electorate seem incapable of understanding how it works. Or they simply refuse to because it destroys their ‘beliefs’ about ‘tactical voting’ and ‘gaming’ the system.
Thankfully, this failure to grasp the facts seems to exist also on the other side (judging by A4U’s claim to harness unionist votes to ‘annihilate separatists’.
Thankfully too, those who imagine they can defy arithmetic seem to be a tiny sect confined to the social media bubble.
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.
The ISP is not being honest with you by giving the impression that you can safely vote for it and target unionists only, without endangering SNP seats.
7% vote share would put them above Lib Dems and near the Greens. They've yet to register in a poll.
Their whole shtick is based on the fantasy they'll be at 7-8% of the list vote in 2021, taking 'just' 15% or 20% of the SNP vote - 170k votes on current polling, ahead of the LibDems.
Conveniently fail to add crucial fact that even with a landslide in constituencies, a party can still win list seats if its vote hasn't defected to other parties. In 2016, SNP won 4 seats because its list vote was 5% *lower* than it's constituency %: otherwise they's have won 9.