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.

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.

barrheadboy.com/snp-isp-me/ 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.

Imagine a hypothetical regional list.

Here’s the votes for last seat (divisors based on seats already won applied):

SNP 100
CON 95
LAB 60
LD 20

Who’s won?

Now, who would win the seat if 10 SNP supporters ‘voted tactically’ for AFI/ISP?

CON 95
SNP 90...
ISP 10

#ListVoteSense 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.

"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.

The game of 'just half'.

We've seen the ISP's house of cards is entirely built on the expectation of 'just 15%' of the SNP vote.

And the widely shared video below promising oodles of list party seats on 'just 50%' of the SNP vote....

https://twitter.com/ListVoteSense/status/1300117500701663233

Well if list party devotees can indulge in 'fantasy politics', let's try some of our own.

We know over 40% of Labour voters support independence.

How would the SNP fare is 'just 40%' of the Labour vote (those indy supporters) voted for the party of independence?

7 extra seats!

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.

isp.scot/scottish-elect… 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.

This is so full of erroneous statements and assumptions. ‘The issue of the vital list vote needs to be discussed & debated until a consensus is reached.’ Sadly, there’s been too much uninformed discussion and a total failure to look at what modelling the data predicts.

https://twitter.com/citizentommy/status/1298281241238700035

To state that the SNP can’t win any more list seats is false: if it’s percentage goes up, so will the list seats: the reason there were only 4 in 2016 was because the list was 5% below the constituency %. If they matched, the SNP would have doubled it’s list seats.

(Beware the Snake Oil, read the fine print...)

Here’s another fantastic claim promising an indy ‘supermajority’ with 23 seats being won by the latest Magic Indy List Party. The runaway election success will apparently be driven on the back of a poll showing that voters would be attracted to a party led by Alex Salmond (the SIRP bit being utterly irrelevant, sorry).

Article again pushing impossible notion you can tactically vote to remove unionists.

Either he doesn't understand that all parties are opposing each other on the list and it's not 'indy v unionists', or he's trying to mislead.

I'll leave you to decide.

wingsoverscotland.com/how-to-waste-y… Some examples here of the list votes from 2016. The algorithm simply awards the seat to the party with the highest vote in that round. It doesn't distinguish between indy and unionist.

It beggars belief that he is not aware of this obvious fact.

https://twitter.com/ListVoteSense/status/1289348922025050112?s=20

Well done to @Yes_Kirriemuir and @thecommongreen for this event, and for making it available on YouTube.

So much misinformation about the AMS list vote is making the rounds on social media, and the YES movement desperately needs informed voices to separate fact from fantasy.

https://twitter.com/Yes_Perth_City/status/1289863007812583424

Dr Craig Dalzell provides an interesting synopsis of the history of electoral systems used in Scotland, with the pros and cons of each: from the easy, but unproportional First Past The Post, to the Additional Member System (AMS) used for elections to the Scottish Parliament.

Indy voters need to beware of two types of claims made by proponents of fringe list parties.

They are either or both:

1) false - or even impossible (eg 'tactical voting' to 'target' unionist seats)

2) unrealistic (boasting 'supermajorities' on % support that is pure fantasy) You'll notice that people who talk of 'tactical voting' and 'targeting unionist list seats' never provide any modelling to prove their assertions.

If they actually did try to do this, they would immediately discover the very notion is patent nonsense.

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?

scotsman.com/news/opinion/c… "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.

Review: "Gaming the System"

randompublicjournal.com/2020/07/17/gam… "EVER SINCE THE IDEA was first proposed, that independence movement adopt a policy of voting for another pro-indy party besides SNP in list vote, leading lights within the SNP and the Scottish Greens have been using the term ‘gaming the system’ to describe the plan."

Review: "Supermajority: What Can It Achieve?"

randompublicjournal.com/2020/07/16/sup… "Given that the more successful SNP is in the constituency vote, the poorer it must perform in the regional list vote, it is suggested that a pro-independence party run for seats in those regions where neither the SNP nor the Scottish Greens are expected to win list seats."

"The Cat Man in the Borders".

George Galloway is on a mission to save the Union from the horrible SNP, and has declared his intention to stand as a list candidate in the South of Scotland.

Splitting the indy vote is bad - what will the effect be of siphoning off unionist votes? Let's indulge ourselves with a bit of modelling to see effect on outcome predicted by latest Panelbase poll for the South of Scotland.

As you see, it's a wipe out for the SNP, with the party losing its current 3 seats. But! The SNP only narrowly loses the last seat to the Tories

This was posted in reply to me earlier today, presumably by a supporter of the ISP.

I asked where the safe list seats are, but no reply.

But this raises an important point about there being "safe list seats" for the SNP. We are told that the ISP isn't planning to stand candidates in the South of Scotland list, because in 2016 the SNP won three of its four list seats there.

Beware misinformation about using the list to supposedly 'get rid of unionists' and elect pro-indy MSPs.

#ListVoteSense

This article is full of errors:

sputniknews.com/columnists/202… "Tactical Independence Voting Can Wipe Out the Unionists – Let's Do It"

The title itself is completely misleading. Modelling of Panelbase poll shows that unless indy Party X can get 6% bare minimum, unionists are likely to *gain* seats.

If there's two indy parties, even worse.

Anatomy of a Cult.

Devotion to the idea of supporting a no hoper indy list party is leading to cult like behaviour in the fringes of the Yes movement.

If you don’t support the People’s Front of Judea instead of the SNP or the Greens, you are obviously not a true Yesser. The cultish paranoia is such that proponents of indy list parties refuse even to engage with evidence.

The irony is that opponents of independence will be pushing as hard as possible for Yessers to bin their votes on no hoper list parties, than helping elect a solid SNP majority

'Tactical voting' in the Scottish Parliament election. #SNP #Greens #Holyrood #TacticalVoting #AMS #DHondt

medium.com/@listvotesense… “The brutal but honest truth: anyone who still persists in their beliefs about ‘tactical voting’, in the face of all the algorithmic evidence to the contrary, is as impervious to the facts as any Brexiter or anti-vaxxer.” #TacticalVoting #DHondt #AMS #Indyref2 #Yes2