General Election 2015 - Thoughts/Predictions/Results

[TheKnightWho]

Proof if ever it was needed of the defective voting system we have.

For once something we agree on

 

[90sWereBetter]

The EU is the only proportional voting chance I get and it makes more sense than First Past The Post. Arctic Troll the Alternative Vote is used for Crime Commissioners elections and in Humberside it recounted the extremist parties until Labour lost despite getting the most support. That's why we voted against, not Clegg.

But today UKIP's Victoria Ayling candidate MP for Grimsby made a funny mistake in her leaflet. She said:

"As a local man I know what a dreadful train service it can be. I will push for investment to upgrade our line and sort out Network Rail."

For one she isn't local, being a Lincolnshire councillor and lives in Boston! And she isn't a man either (I think!). Is she saying she'll upgrade Grimsby or Boston lines?? And how will she "sort out" Network Rail?

Pretty sure she blurted out a few months ago something to the tune of "what happens when renewable energy runs out?", which should tell you all you need to know about Mrs Ayling...

Went to the hustings for the Ipswich constituency last night, which was held at my university. The UKIP candidate took a battering from all sides, even Ben Gummer, the Tory candidate, was laying into the party, although in fairness, he did mention more than once that he felt she (the UKIP candidate) was in the wrong party, which sounded like an invitation to join the Conservatives after the election. And the Lib Dems candidate for the constituency didn't turn up, so a candidate from a neighbouring constituency (I think he is standing in the Central Suffok and Ipswich North constituency) was there to represent the Lib Dems. Can't help but feel that the Lib Dems made a mistake last night.

On the subject of the divide between local and national politics, I believe Ben Gummer has done quite a lot of good for Ipswich in the last five years, yet I can't bring myself to vote for him next week as I really don't want to vote for David Cameron as PM for the next five years. I guess you could say I'm another supporter of a different voting system.

 

[TheKnightWho]

The EU is the only proportional voting chance I get and it makes more sense than First Past The Post. Arctic Troll the Alternative Vote is used for Crime Commissioners elections and in Humberside it recounted the extremist parties until Labour lost despite getting the most support. That's why we voted against, not Clegg.

But today UKIP's Victoria Ayling candidate MP for Grimsby made a funny mistake in her leaflet. She said:

"As a local man I know what a dreadful train service it can be. I will push for investment to upgrade our line and sort out Network Rail."

For one she isn't local, being a Lincolnshire councillor and lives in Boston! And she isn't a man either (I think!). Is she saying she'll upgrade Grimsby or Boston lines?? And how will she "sort out" Network Rail?

Then it shows that more people found those extremist parties acceptable than they found Labour acceptable. Everyone gets the same number of votes - in the recounts they just get reassigned when someone comes last. Those parties that don't just effectively vote for the same party again.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Greenback? Did my name get changed without me noticing

Yes, and you'd better like it

Oops. Sorry.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The EU is the only proportional voting chance I get and it makes more sense than First Past The Post. Arctic Troll the Alternative Vote is used for Crime Commissioners elections and in Humberside it recounted the extremist parties until Labour lost despite getting the most support. That's why we voted against, not Clegg.

AV was a rubbish proposal, but the inference taken from the vote was the one I expected. Because people voted against AV the powers than be decided it meant we didn't want any sort of electoral reform at all.

Under AV/STV, the candidate who wins is the one who is most acceptable. It isn't a case of recounting until x loses. The people voting for extremist parties clearly rated Labour the least desirable option, which is why Labour lost (or so I presume, I don't know the election you refer to).

There's an argument whether that is more or less democratic than having a straight majority under FPTP, but my view is that it is more democratic. It prevents the issue of "wasted votes" in safe constituencies, for one thing, as every preference you list will have an effect on the ballot.

I don't think AV was the right choice, but it was a start, and because of that lost vote the chance has gone for at least another generation. And sadly the no campaign did seem to be "vote against Nick Clegg, doesn't he smell".

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Proof if ever it was needed of the defective voting system we have.

John, I'm a bit worried about this. You seem to have posted something that I completely agree with.

Is there some way of checking that I'm still in the correct Universe? I'm wondering whether I might have somehow slipped into the wrong one.

 

[radamfi]

First Past the Post has always given the Lib Dems a low number of seats given their national share of the vote, but they actually do better than a third party would expect under that system due to their support being highly concentrated in certain areas. However, it looks like UKIP will be lucky to get more than 1 or 2 seats despite a fairly big percentage of the vote. Proportional representation is not traditionally popular with the right-wing, but when UKIP supporters realise how few seats their votes have been converted into, there will be outrage.

 

[TheKnightWho]

First Past the Post has always given the Lib Dems a low number of seats given their national share of the vote, but they actually do better than a third party would expect under that system due to their support being highly concentrated in certain areas. However, it looks like UKIP will be lucky to get more than 1 or 2 seats despite a fairly big percentage of the vote. Proportional representation is not traditionally popular with the right-wing, but when UKIP supporters realise how few seats their votes have been converted into, there will be outrage.

Proportional representation has the large disadvantage of having no local representative. AV and (even more so) STV have the advantage of being a good compromise between that and getting a proportional number of seats. AV isn't merely "not good enough", but actually a huge improvement. STV is better still, as it is even more proportional and provides people with multiple local MPs, meaning they are more likely to have one they like. Its disadvantage is that constituencies are larger (or it multiplies the number of MPs, but that would
never happen), but STV is effectively PR within those small constituencies, with AV preferencing to prevent domination by reasonably popular parties that manage to scrape over the required threshold. This is important, as it means parties that get low numbers of first choice votes (and as such not enough for any MP) that have large numbers of second preference votes (enough) still get a look-in.

 

[radamfi]

Proportional representation has the large disadvantage of having no local representative.

Is there a current implementation of PR for a national parliament which doesn't have a constituency component?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Is there a current implementation of PR for a national parliament which doesn't have a constituency component?

Nope, but if you have that you still need a way of deciding those elections even if you have PR top-up, which puts you back to square one.

STV, which the EU elections use, is basically just PR within each constituency; but due to the high level of granularity requires preferential voting to make sure enough candidates reach the required number of votes by stripping off the extra votes from those who get more than enough, and redistributing from those who don't get enough.

Because of the way that the extra votes from candidates that get too much get stripped off (proportionally, so you don't get all the people who second preferenced one party and none who second preferenced another), you usually get really odd results. For example, if a candidate has 37 more votes than they need, and 504 out of the 11498 people who voted for them second preferences some other party, that other party gets 37 x 504/11498 (~1.622) extra votes! Usually these get rounded in the announced results, but it can create some spectacularly close elections. You obviously need computers to do it properly, and artefacts can potentially be problematic, as if the rounding errors get too large it can give the totally wrong final result. This is mainly due to the fact that once you get onto 3rd, 4th, 5th etc. preferences you're constantly having to keep track of irrational numbers that are repeatedly divided again and again, making rounding errors get exponentially worse. Just imagine the mess of keeping track of all the different preferences within that ~1.622 of a vote, where those 504 different people will have various different combinations of further candidates.

 

[me123]

STV, which the EU elections use, is basically just PR within each constituency; but due to the high level of granularity requires preferential voting to make sure enough candidates reach the required number of votes by stripping off the extra votes from those who get more than enough, and redistributing from those who don't get enough.

Only NI use the STV. The rest of us use a party list system.

They are broadly similar. Both systems elect candidates from a party list using highest average method. Basically, every candidate who gets more votes than the calculated quotient is elected.

In the party lists (vote with a single mark), the numbers are divided by integers from 1 to n, where n is the number of seats contested. From there, the largest n numbers decide who gets elected. STV, on the other hand (rank your preferences using numbers) it a bit different. Once the quotient is calculated, a party with a number of votes over the quotient is elected. Then, their excess votes are redistributed proportionately based on the second choices of all ballot papers (unless no-one meet the quotient, then the bottom candidate is withdrawn and their votes redistributed). Continue until all seats are allocated. It's broadly similar all in all.

I don't really agree that there's an issue with irrational numbers. Firstly, since an irrational number cannot be expressed as a ratio of integers, it is impossible that any irrational numbers will be generated by a process that involves division and multiplication. You will have very bizarre ratios, but these can be used and there is no need to round (except perhaps for announced results - I think announcing a result of 13406/7 will just confuse people). I think any capable mathematical mind can do this without need for a computer (aside perhaps a calculator), but a computer would be preferable.

Given that our species has successfully landed a small probe on a comet, it would be embarrassing if such relatively simple mathematics was considered "too taxing".

FWIW, I'm in favour of the STV. We use it in Scotland for the cooncil elections, and it seems to work well. Aside from by-elections. We had an incident in a local constituency which demonstrates the point quite well. At the first election, we returned 2 Labour candidates, an SNP and an independent. An SNP councillor resigned, and his seat went to Labour. The independent candidate subsequently died IIRC, and his seat also went to Labour. However, in each by-election there was a huge swing towards the SNP! So, in spite of the fact that fewer people voted Labour in the by-elections, they doubled the number of seats in the constituency!

I think, however, that this could be quite easily fixed.

Let's look again at the election above. In the first by-election, when the SNP candidate quit, the SNP actually gained votes but lost a seat to Labour, who lost votes. What could have happened is that the number of seats for the whole constituency by calculated (whilst assuring the existing representatives remain elected), and the gap be filled by the most appropriate candidate (which would have been the SNP again) even thought they may not have won the election. It may seem like giving the medal to the second placed candidate, but it would reflect the proportion of votes cast, which is what STV is meant to achieve.

(I hasten to add that the above example is based on a real by-election, and my support for the SNP did not unduly influence my perception. Had the roles been reversed, I'd still have the same concerns).

 

[northwichcat]

Which is why it is a shame that so many people voted against electoral reform because they didn't like Nick Clegg.

The referendum we had was a choice of keep the current system or change to alternative vote. A lot of people wanted a change to proportional representation (which was the Lib Dem's preferred option) but that wasn't an option on the paper due to the Conservatives being the party most likely to lose out as a result of proportional representation.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Only NI use the STV. The rest of us use a party list system.

They are broadly similar. Both systems elect candidates from a party list using highest average method. Basically, every candidate who gets more votes than the calculated quotient is elected.

In the party lists (vote with a single mark), the numbers are divided by integers from 1 to n, where n is the number of seats contested. From there, the largest n numbers decide who gets elected. STV, on the other hand (rank your preferences using numbers) it a bit different. Once the quotient is calculated, a party with a number of votes over the quotient is elected. Then, their excess votes are redistributed proportionately based on the second choices of all ballot papers (unless no-one meet the quotient, then the bottom candidate is withdrawn and their votes redistributed). Continue until all seats are allocated. It's broadly similar all in all.

I don't really agree that there's an issue with irrational numbers. Firstly, since an irrational number cannot be expressed as a ratio of integers, it is impossible that any irrational numbers will be generated by a process that involves division and multiplication. You will have very bizarre ratios, but these can be used and there is no need to round (except perhaps for announced results - I think announcing a result of 13406/7 will just confuse people). I think any capable mathematical mind can do this without need for a computer (aside perhaps a calculator), but a computer would be preferable.

Given that our species has successfully landed a small probe on a comet, it would be embarrassing if such relatively simple mathematics was considered "too taxing".

FWIW, I'm in favour of the STV. We use it in Scotland for the cooncil elections, and it seems to work well. Aside from by-elections. We had an incident in a local constituency which demonstrates the point quite well. At the first election, we returned 2 Labour candidates, an SNP and an independent. An SNP councillor resigned, and his seat went to Labour. The independent candidate subsequently died IIRC, and his seat also went to Labour. However, in each by-election there was a huge swing towards the SNP! So, in spite of the fact that fewer people voted Labour in the by-elections, they doubled the number of seats in the constituency!

I think, however, that this could be quite easily fixed.

Let's look again at the election above. In the first by-election, when the SNP candidate quit, the SNP actually gained votes but lost a seat to Labour, who lost votes. What could have happened is that the number of seats for the whole constituency by calculated (whilst assuring the existing representatives remain elected), and the gap be filled by the most appropriate candidate (which would have been the SNP again) even thought they may not have won the election. It may seem like giving the medal to the second placed candidate, but it would reflect the proportion of votes cast, which is what STV is meant to achieve.

(I hasten to add that the above example is based on a real by-election, and my support for the SNP did not unduly influence my perception. Had the roles been reversed, I'd still have the same concerns).

Apologies - there were some errors in that post as my brain was tired last night But when I said irrational I meant numbers that were the division of integers so huge that from a computer's perspective they were irrational. This is an issue with repeated multiplication and division. I suppose with 64-bit computing it's probably less of an issue though.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Apologies - there were some errors in that post as my brain was tired last night But when I said irrational I meant numbers that were the division of integers so huge that from a computer's perspective they were irrational. This is an issue with repeated multiplication and division.

The only way I can make any sense of this is if what you're trying to say is, numbers that cannot be exactly expressed in binary with a finite number of digits, and so would normally be only stored approximately on a computer (being pedantic, irrational is not the right word for that, but never mind ). But in fact numbers don't have to be huge to have that property. Even a simple number like 1/5 cannot be exactly represented in binary.

However, that's not a problem with computers. It wouldn't be at all hard to have a computer store the numerators and denominators of calculations separately throughout the process, but then work out and display the result to the nearest whole number right at the end.

In the end, as far as potential difficulties with STV are concerned, this is all trivial. There are far bigger issues when it comes to determining an electoral system.

 

[TheKnightWho]

The only way I can make any sense of this is if what you're trying to say is, numbers that cannot be exactly expressed in binary with a finite number of digits, and so would normally be only stored approximately on a computer (being pedantic, irrational is not the right word for that, but never mind ). But in fact numbers don't have to be huge to have that property. Even a simple number like 1/5 cannot be exactly represented in binary.

However, that's not a problem with computers. It wouldn't be at all hard to have a computer store the numerators and denominators of calculations separately throughout the process, but then work out and display the result to the nearest whole number right at the end.

In the end, as far as potential difficulties with STV are concerned, this is all trivial. There are far bigger issues when it comes to determining an electoral system.

No - this is a real issue in computing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_point

 

[DynamicSpirit]

No - this is a real issue in computing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_point

I'm a computer programmer And I repeat, this is a trivial issue. If you're worried about it, it just needs a couple of competent programmers who also have a good understanding of the relevant maths.

Don't be fooled by the Wikipedia page. Representing rational numbers in computers is theoretically complex, but the solutions have been worked out long ago. It's really not something that has any potential to foul up STV election results (assuming of course the programmers you employ are competent )

 

[TheKnightWho]

I'm a computer programmer And I repeat, this is a trivial issue. If you're worried about it, it just needs a couple of competent programmers who also have a good understanding of the relevant maths.

Don't be fooled by the Wikipedia page. Representing rational numbers in computers is theoretically complex, but the solutions have been worked out long ago. It's really not something that has any potential to foul up STV election results (assuming of course the programmers you employ are competent )

Fair enough! I do know that floating point precision is extremely important when doing this sort of thing, but I suppose with a little extra computation time it shouldn't prove too much trouble.

 

[Oswyntail]

The referendum we had was a choice of keep the current system or change to alternative vote. A lot of people wanted a change to proportional representation (which was the Lib Dem's preferred option) but that wasn't an option on the paper due to the Conservatives being the party most likely to lose out as a result of proportional representation.

And some wanted the whole system to be looked at properly, and not just in terms of voting mechanisms. If there had been a "yes" vote, that would have knocked sensible reform on the head for a generation (except in Scotland, where referendums can seemingly be ignored ).
And why assume the Conservatives would lose out?

 

[telstarbox]

How does proportional representation work where each constituency elects a single member?

 

[TheKnightWho]

And some wanted the whole system to be looked at properly, and not just in terms of voting mechanisms. If there had been a "yes" vote, that would have knocked sensible reform on the head for a generation (except in Scotland, where referendums can seemingly be ignored ).
And why assume the Conservatives would lose out?

The Conservatives (and Labour - who also were against) have far fewer votes per seat they gain, which makes the current system heavily in their favour. However, with the rise of UKIP who are taking Tory votes without really gaining any seats suddenly the right are looking towards voting reform again.

 

[northwichcat]

And why assume the Conservatives would lose out?

Using proportional representation we would have likely seen the Coalitions below, assuming Labour and the Tories refused to work with each other.

1983/87/92 elections: EITHER Conservative + Lib Dem or Labour + Lib Dem

1997/2001 elections: Coalition involving Labour, which wouldn't necessarily have had to include Lib Dems.

2005/10 elections: EITHER Conservative + Lib Dem or Labour + Lib Dem

So if we'd had proportional representation since the 1980s and Labour and the Lib Dems agreed to work together to keep out the Conservatives and didn't fall out we would never have seen a Conservative PM since.

If, the Lib Dems had agreed to work with Mrs Thatcher (less likely) then in 1997, the Conservative + Lib Dem Coalition would no longer have been able to form a government.

 

[radamfi]

How does proportional representation work where each constituency elects a single member?

For the Scottish Parliament, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament

The Parliament is a democratically elected body comprising 129 members known as Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs), elected for four-year terms under the additional member system: 73 MSPs represent individual geographical constituencies elected by the plurality ("first past the post") system

...

The remaining 56 MSPs, called "List MSPs", are elected by an additional members system, which seeks to make the overall results more proportional, countering any distortions in the constituency results. Seven List MSPs are elected from each of eight electoral regions, of which constituencies are sub-divisions:

Central Scotland
Glasgow
Highlands and Islands
Lothian
Mid Scotland and Fife
North East Scotland
South Scotland
West Scotland

Each political party draws up a list of candidates standing in each electoral region, from which the List MSPs are elected. When a List MSP resigns, the next person on the resigning MSPs' party's list takes the seat.

The total number of seats in the Parliament are allocated to parties proportionally to the number of votes received in the second vote of the ballot using the d'Hondt method. For example, to determine who is awarded the first list seat, the number of list votes cast for each party is divided by one plus the number of seats the party won in the region (at this point just constituency seats). The party with the highest quotient is awarded the seat, which is then added to its constituency seats in allocating the second seat. This is repeated iteratively until all available list seats are allocated.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Using proportional representation we would have likely seen the Coalitions below, assuming Labour and the Tories refused to work with each other.

1983/87/92 elections: EITHER Conservative + Lib Dem or Labour + Lib Dem

1997/2001 elections: Coalition involving Labour, which wouldn't necessarily have had to include Lib Dems.

2005/10 elections: EITHER Conservative + Lib Dem or Labour + Lib Dem

So if we'd had proportional representation since the 1980s and Labour and the Lib Dems agreed to work together to keep out the Conservatives and didn't fall out we would never have seen a Conservative PM since.

If, the Lib Dems had agreed to work with Mrs Thatcher (less likely) then in 1997, the Conservative + Lib Dem Coalition would no longer have been able to form a government.

However, this assumes that people vote for the same party under PR. For example, I have generally not voted for my preferred party for national or local elections as either they have no chance in the seat I lived in or they don't even have a candidate. Under PR, people are more likely to vote for the party they actually want. Also, depending on the system, you can select a second choice.

But it is probably the case that majority Conservative governments would be unlikely under PR. So naturally they don't like it. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

 

[me123]

How does proportional representation work where each constituency elects a single member?

Either by the AMS (which happens in Holyrood), or you need to merge constituencies and have the new larger constituencies elect multiple members (as we've done for the councils).

Neither of which are necessarily fantastic options. Some of the constituencies in Scotland in particular are already large geographical areas, for example, and merging them would create unacceptably large constituencies and perhaps a perceived loss of local representation. (I can't imagine Orkney & Shetland would like being grouped with what is probably going to be a mega-Highland constituency). On the other hand, places with geographically smaller constituencies (I'm thinking cities like Glasgow and London in particular here) who already elect multiple MPs would benefit from PR without considerable difficulties.

AMS works in Scotland because we wanted to have more MSPs than we have MPs, so we broadly kept to the Westminster constituencies (although it has since changed) and elected additional MPs as described below. However, I think the suggestion of going to ~1000 MPs in Westminster would be heavily resisted in many quarters!

 

[radamfi]

With First Past the Post, great care has to be taken to get the boundaries reasonably comparable so that there isn't a big difference in population between them. There are some discrepancies at the moment and they were supposed to be equalised during the last Parliament but the proposed boundaries were very awkward with communities split rather arbitrarily. With a Scottish type system, you don't have to equalise so you can use off-the-shelf boundaries such as council boundaries.

 

[northwichcat]

There are some discrepancies at the moment and they were supposed to be equalised during the last Parliament but the proposed boundaries were very awkward with communities split rather arbitrarily.

The proposed new boundaries didn't go down well in central Cheshire.

Northwich usually has a lot more Labour voters than Conservatives. The government proposed a new 'Northwich' consistency, replacing part of Weaver Vale (usually a safe Labour seat but not at the last election) and part of Tatton (very safe Tory seat) and it was suggested that would be where George Osborne would stand at the next election.

The idea of that went down less well than when Dave Whelan proposed a minute's silence in memory of Margaret Thatcher before a Wigan match.

However, this assumes that people vote for the same party under PR. For example, I have generally not voted for my preferred party for national or local elections as either they have no chance in the seat I lived in or they don't even have a candidate. Under PR, people are more likely to vote for the party they actually want. Also, depending on the system, you can select a second choice.

But it is probably the case that majority Conservative governments would be unlikely under PR. So naturally they don't like it. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

I understand what you're saying.

For the local council election in May where I am there are 3 seats and only the Conservatives have put forward 3 candidates. There's an Independent standing but her views seem very right wing. So if you don't like right wing, there's 1 Labour candidate and no-one else.

 

[telstarbox]

Just seen tonight's debate - thought Clegg did best defending the Lib Dems' record and Miliband did worst, not really engaging with the questions properly.

 

[yorksrob]

I think the real star of tonight's debate was Cuthbert Broderick's superb Leeds Town Hall.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

In my local election in Grimsby's East Marsh ward (dense urban part of town centre) the vote is unusual. On the ballot I get two votes!!!
This is because East Marsh has 3 councillors and one quit after his Labour membership ran out.

So the most voted for candidate gets 5 years, second place gets 1 year.
Only Lib Dems and Labour have 2 candidates to vote for, minor parties only have 1 candidate each.
I find this strange as the 1 candidate party voters will either help another small party totally and second votes for the 2 candidate parties may not help much if it's a 50/50 split between the choices.

Should I raise this issue with some electoral body?

 

[telstarbox]

Are you sure it's for five years? Usually local councillors are elected for four years, or less if it's a byelection to replace an existing councillor.

Some councils have elections to the full council every four years (such as London Boroughs) and others have elections for one third of councillors each year and no elections in the fourth year.

 

[DownSouth]

In my local election in Grimsby's East Marsh ward (dense urban part of town centre) the vote is unusual. On the ballot I get two votes!!!
This is because East Marsh has 3 councillors and one quit after his Labour membership ran out.

So the most voted for candidate gets 5 years, second place gets 1 year.
Only Lib Dems and Labour have 2 candidates to vote for, minor parties only have 1 candidate each.
I find this strange as the 1 candidate party voters will either help another small party totally and second votes for the 2 candidate parties may not help much if it's a 50/50 split between the choices.

Should I raise this issue with some electoral body?

According to the UK Electoral Commission website, that version of First Past The Post is indeed the system in use for council elections where a single election is to return multiple members. It's not a good system, but the result (in terms of party representation) will probably be similar to the result of having the regular election and the by-election separately but both using FPTP.

Those who vote on party lines for a 'minor' party where only one candidate is standing (and those who only choose to vote for one candidate for other reasons) will have the option to mark just one box instead of using both their votes, so they don't have to vote for another party. Many will probably make a tactical vote with their second vote instead though - it may depend on what the parties recommend to their supporters.

It would theoretically be possible for it to be a tie between two candidates from the same party (and therefore tossing a coin to determine who won and who came second) but this would be extremely improbable. The reason it would be improbable is that not everyone votes on party lines - some people will vote for two candidates from different parties for varying reasons, and some will vote for just one candidate (out of choice, or perhaps out of ignorance that they have two votes) from that major party - and that the tally of all these 'non-party' votes would need to be exactly the same for both of the candidates.

A far better method for this sort of election would be the Hare-Clark form of STV, which is designed for electing multiple candidates (unlike FPTP) and also guarantees that a very high level of support is needed for one party to sweep all the positions - over 2/3 of the vote (after distribution of preferences) if it's for 2 positions, over 3/4 of the vote if it's for 3 positions and so on. Instead of having two votes of equal value as in the FPTP system, you would need to vote with both a first and second preference (a first preference only would be a spoiled ballot) and then optionally any further preferences you wish after that.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Are you sure it's for five years? Usually local councillors are elected for four years, or less if it's a byelection to replace an existing councillor.

Some councils have elections to the full council every four years (such as London Boroughs) and others have elections for one third of councillors each year and no elections in the fourth year.

You're right it is a four year term for 1st place, thanks.
Thanks DownSouth for explaining it all also.