by Andrew Goddard, Psephizo
Given the events in Canterbury diocese set out in my previous articles (here and here) I was expecting the result of the election of the Canterbury Vacancy in See Committee (ViSC) might raise further concerns—but I did not foresee just how many and how serious they would be.
Thankfully few people have the sad level of interest I have in voting procedures. But that is not necessary to think something must be odd when a voting system (one specifically designed to try and secure a more democratic, proportional result in which the share of seats reflects the expressed preferences of the voters) ends up with such outcomes as:
- Two candidates managed to get elected despite nobody having them as their first preference.
- Four were elected with only one person having them as their first preference.
- One candidate who got 10 first preference votes (behind one with 16 and two with 11 and ahead of all the other 19 candidates) was not elected.
- The majority (8) of the 15 candidates elected had gained two or less of the 88 first preferences and another 3 had received only 3 or 4 first preferences.
- In fact 11 of the 15 finally elected had between them only 21 of the 88 first preference votes.
- The only ordained woman whose first preference votes were counted (the other on the ballot was excluded as explained below) was standing to represent the clergy of Ashford Archdeaconry and got 10 votes but a clergyman from that Archdeaconry with 8 votes got elected instead of her.
How did this happen? The journey from the first preference votes to who gets elected is a complex one under the Single Transferable Vote (STV) and as yet we do not have the details though they are required to be published. It would, however, appear that the anomalies arise from two key factors: