@Indyposterboy Generally, that's a REALLY GOOD PLAN. If all pro-independence voters followed it, we would, as you say, maximise pro #ScottishIndependence
representation.

You can therefore be absolutely certain the #SNP will sabotage it.

I despair of the party, they will always put tribalism first and independence second.

@simon_brooke @Indyposterboy

Courage mon brave!

No doubt there will be some of what you speak, however the SNP remains a very broad coalition of interests that will ultimately split. Regardless of SNP tactics:

SNP1/SGP2 is the best electoral play on 7th May

@simon_brooke @ISawTheWood @Indyposterboy

"Both Votes SNP" is a statement of innumeracy or self-harming political tribalism, or both.

(Except perhaps in parts of the South of Scotland region)

@2legged @simon_brooke @ISawTheWood @Indyposterboy
It's nuanced.

Where I am, it's possible the SNP candidate will not win. It'd be reasonable for SNP supporters to also vote SNP on the list vote, since without the constituency MSP, there's more chance of picking up a list seat to compensate, and there's no chance of picking up an *extra* green list seat by voting Green.

I'm not giving anyone advice; I'm probably going to be SNP/Green for similar reasons to Simon. But it's nuanced.

@petealexharris This sort of calculation is based on assumptions of how others will vote. It's an anti-democratic insanity of a system, a reminder of why Scotland should adopt #STV.

But on the maths, so long as the SNP wins more constituency seats than the Greens do, d'Hondt means that an SNP list seat needs a lot more voters than Green list seats. This isn't opinion; it's maths.

@simon_brooke @ISawTheWood @Indyposterboy

@2legged @simon_brooke @ISawTheWood @Indyposterboy

AMS with d'Hondt is OK, and STV also has problems. It may be insanity to give tactical voting advice that depends on how everyone else votes, but that's not a defect of the voting system. It's just a fool's game.

On the maths you're right. But SNP voters may still *want* an SNP MSP, and IF the candidate loses, the maths is less unfavourable to get a list one. Green might also get one anyway, and voting on the list for *what you want* is best.

@petealexharris AMS with d'Hondt is far from okay. AMS
1/ is gameable, as Alba tried to hack it
2/ punishes independents
3/ creates members with unequal status
4/ invites tactical voting based on multi-layered guesses about the behaviour of other voters
5/ blocks new parties, by not offering transferability
6/ is confusing for voters, who often don't fully understand how the two votes interact.

STV has none of those problems. STV has no #wastedvotes

@simon_brooke @ISawTheWood @Indyposterboy

@2legged

1) they thought they could, and failed catastrophically
2) fair
3) dubious, in that it's one seat one vote on legislation.
4) if the tactical voting doesn't work AMS hardly invites it
5) fair, but they have to get enough votes either way
6) Nothing can fix that, and I haven't seen any objective measure by which it's more confusing than STV. It's as simple as: vote for a local candidate you like and vote for the party you want.

STV can give you the "nobody's first choice" problem.

@petealexharris

1/ failure of one dysfunctional party does not disprove the hack
3/ List MSPs have 7 times more constituents to represent. Not equal.
4/ see 1
5/ getting enough votes is v hard when votes can be wasted. STV has no wasted votes
6/ untrue. STV rewards a vote for who you like/want. But in AMS, both votes offer tactical reward.