In article , 
T.C.Roll-Pickering@qmul.ac.uk (Tim Roll-Pickering) wrote:

> rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> 
> >> Not entirely. The STV proposed is generally for about 5 member
> >> constituencies that will help the Lib Dems but won't be so great
> >> for smaller parties like UKIP, the Greens and the BNP whose support
> >> is rarely concentrated even in a natural cluster. The AV+ proposal
> >> had the similar problem that it would largely help third and second
> >> parties rather than smaller ones.
> 
> > So, you claim, but not really borne out in Ireland, despite its 
> > limitation these days to 3-5 member seats.
> 
> Well the Greens and Sinn Fein haven't exactly been doing well 
> lately but both parties have by and large made limited 
> breakthroughs because of concentrated vote bases and personalities 
> who built up a support base. Would you care to nominate potential 
> STV constituencies in the UK where smaller parties would likely win 
> seats?

Come now! Brighton and Hove for starters.

> >> 1990:
> 
> >> First Preferences:
> >> Labor: 3,904,138 39.44% 78 seats
> >> Liberals: 3,468,570 35.04% 55 seats
> >> Australian Democrats: 1,114,216 11.26% 0 seats
> >> Nationals: 833,557 8.42% 14 seats
> >> Independents: 252,116 2.55% 1 seat
> >> Other: 327,077 3.30% 0 seats
> 
> >> 2PP:
> >> Labor: 49.90% 78 seats
> >> Coalition: 50.10% 69 seats
> 
> > So, a system which can ignore over a million voters and give them no
> > representation at all deserves serious consideration?
> 
> Well the Democrats' first preference vote for the House was in part 
> inflated because they tended to pick up "false" first preferences 
> from voters who couldn't easily decide between Labor and the 
> Coalition so hid their preference beneath the Democrats. Antony 
> Green (Australia's answer to Peter Snow and Tony King rolled into 
> one) touches on this point on his latest blog post comparing the 
> voting breakdowns for the Democrats and Greens:
> 
> 
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2009/10/comparing-the-greens-and-austra
lian-democrats.html
> 
> It should always be remembered that the Democrats largely pitched 
> themselves as, and were seen by voters as, a Senate based party 
> offering the prospect of checks & balances (especially after the 
> debacles that led to the Dismissal) and their House vote was 
> largely a by-product. That said 1990 was one of their big push 
> years with their leader making a high profile bid for the House 
> (unsuccessfully). 

QED.

-- 
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Cambridge                    http://www.rosenstiel.co.uk/
Cambridge Liberal Democrats: http://www.cambridgelibdems.org.uk/

rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:

>> Well the Greens and Sinn Fein haven't exactly been doing well
>> lately but both parties have by and large made limited
>> breakthroughs because of concentrated vote bases and personalities
>> who built up a support base. Would you care to nominate potential
>> STV constituencies in the UK where smaller parties would likely win
>> seats?

> Come now! Brighton and Hove for starters.

That's a starter for the Greens but what about UKIP and the BNP? (On the 
London Assembly results the BNP would be struggling in a City & East 6 
member STV seat, especially if the General Election brings higher turnout.)