|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: UK Election 2015
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
The Guardian's current count has SNP with 1.4m votes which gets them 55 seats, and UKIP with 3.2m votes, which gets them 1 seat.
Wow. I mean, I know why it happens, but still, wow.
Oh not this again.
1.4m votes in 59 seats, versus 3.2m votes in close to 650 seats.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) Thanks for the lesson, professor. As I said, I know why it happens.
But, still, wow.
But the total figure is completely meaningless! Why are you quoting it?
The figure is the number of people who voted for a UKIP candidate. That's its meaning. Why are you behaving as though my surprise was some sort of ghastly social faux pax?
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Betjemaniac:
quote:
Didn't call Scotland right, although the vote in Berwickshire is very tight between the SNP and the Tories who came second, but the Conservatives did hold their one Scottish seat.
You weren't far wrong. You predicted that the Tories would be the second largest party in Scotland in terms of seats, and if a few hundred votes had gone the other way in Berwick, you'd have been right.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
Or faux pas even!
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by Betjemaniac:
quote:
Didn't call Scotland right, although the vote in Berwickshire is very tight between the SNP and the Tories who came second, but the Conservatives did hold their one Scottish seat.
You weren't far wrong. You predicted that the Tories would be the second largest party in Scotland in terms of seats, and if a few hundred votes had gone the other way in Berwick, you'd have been right.
On the plus side, the SNP's crack team of panda purchasers (sort of a Scottish equivalent of the Tower of London ravenmaster) can stand down!
[ 08. May 2015, 09:05: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Well, I'm used to a representative vote system (in Germany). I note that under such a system, Labour would have gained more (+1.5%) than the Conservatives (+0.7%), with the Liberal Democrats still tanking horribly (-15.1%). The big news story would the left wing (Greens +2.8%, SNP +3.2%, together +6%) and right wing (UKIP +9.5%) radicalisation.
The only possible government would then be Con+UKIP+LD, and re-elections would be likely. However, sticking with German rules, we have the "5% hurdle" that will discount any party not gaining at least 5%, in order to avoid fracturing a la Italy. Under that rule, both SNP (4.9%, close but no cigar) and Greens (3.7%) would be eliminated. The percentage count then would be adjusted for the remaining parties.
I make the "5% hurdle" adjusted figures out to be
Conservatives 41.9%
Labour 34.9%
UKIP 14.3%
Liberal Democrats 8.8%
So under the German election system, the most likely outcome would be a renewal of the Con+LD coalition.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Yes, and under that 5% rule the party that received 50% of the vote of an entire nation would have no representatives in Westminster. Yeah right, that would make the Scots really feel like their opinions and concerns mattered to Westmonster.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
betjemaniac: quote:
...the SNP's crack team of panda purchasers (sort of a Scottish equivalent of the Tower of London ravenmaster) can stand down!
I didn't think anything would make me smile this morning, but I was wrong. Thanks.
Unfortunately we're stuck with Katie Hopkins ![[Frown]](frown.gif) Unless we can persuade the Alaskans to take her?
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I'm sure there's somewhere really cold, really really remote in Alaska. Somewhere where she has no company except the polar bears. I wonder if they would consider inviting her for dinner?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
IngoB 'representative' of what? Party vote?
Nigel Farage is on the BBC at the moment moaning about the unfairness of FPTP and basically saying the same stuff that the Lib Dems have said for years, and the Alliance before them, and the Liberals before them, but as if he's the first to say it. He should remember that it starts to sound self-serving after a while.
At any rate, electoral reform is dead in the water for five years at least.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
As regards the media - the SNP people have said that the impact of social media is massive and very significant in getting them where they are.
On the other hand Russell Brands video and podcasts were either irrelevant (in spite of huge followers) or just too little too late for people to get their heads round when he suddenly said "actually you should vote"
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, and under that 5% rule the party that received 50% of the vote of an entire nation would have no representatives in Westminster. Yeah right, that would make the Scots really feel like their opinions and concerns mattered to Westmonster.
There is in fact something similar going on in Germany. In Bavaria, there is a different conservative party (CSU) to the one running nation-wide (CDU). What these conservative parties have done is to officially combine concerning the national vote only, so that CSU national votes in Bavaria count for the CDU+CSU agglomerate in the national election.
If we for a moment forget that the SNP is a Scottish independence party, and consider it just as a left wing party, then under the German system it would be sensible for Labour to strike a similar deal with the SNP, and basically enter the national election as a Lab+SNP agglomerate.
Of course, that the SNP has ambitions to make Scotland independent IMHO means that it is actually a good outcome if they are not represented in the UK parliament. Just as it would be a good outcome if UKIP was not represented in the EU parliament. Those who wish to destroy a political union are de facto enemies of the parliament of that political union, no matter how good or bad they are concerning other political matters.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
Thanet South result's in...
Farage for UKIP -16026
Tories - 18838
At least Farage didn't get a seat, that's a small glimmer of hope.
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
FARAGE OUT
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If we for a moment forget that the SNP is a Scottish independence party, and consider it just as a left wing party, then under the German system it would be sensible for Labour to strike a similar deal with the SNP, and basically enter the national election as a Lab+SNP agglomerate.
But Labour and the SNP are different, and it's not just about independence.
What you're advocating is instead of a rich variety of political parties we just merge them altogether into a very small number. It's the political equivalent of converting a rich, diverse ecosystem into a monoculture. In ecology biodiversity is a sign of a strong, healthy ecosystem. The same is, IMO, true of nation states. We need a diversity of parties (and independents), and a diversity of cultures etc.
[ 08. May 2015, 09:37: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
I'd love to know how the individual vote transfers worked out. Scotland is clear - a large chunk of the leftist vote moved from Labour and the Lib Dems to the SNP.
In the rest of the UK, the numbers show the Conservatives more or less holding steady (small gain), and a transfer of most of the LD vote to UKIP, Labour and the Greens. The transfer from LD to Lab / Green would seem to be the left-wing end of the Lib Dem support abandoning the party of collaboration ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) but a 10% transfer from Lib Dem to UKIP doesn't make much sense.
Is it a transfer from the Lib Dems to the Conservatives, and a simultaneous transfer from the Tories to UKIP, or did all the LD voters go Labour, and the UKIP support is mostly anti-immigrant sentiment in "white van man".
Essentially, who are the UKIP voters? They got almost twice as many votes as the Lib Dems across England, despite only maintaining the one MP. I suspect that the idea of summing the Conservative and UKIP vote and calling it a roughly 50% vote for the right of centre is probably not an accurate picture of what was really going on.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
IngoB 'representative' of what? Party vote?
Yes. And I think the Conservatives would be wise to consider a "party vote" proportional system with a small percentage hurdle. The FPTP system may work in the interest of the big parties if the political fracturing is minor, i.e., it is very stable against minor motions. But that comes at the price of being highly unstable against major motions. If the LD recover, and the UKIP 2020 strategy is working, then Conservatives could face the same kind of horrible crash that Labour is facing now. Note that the party vote of Labour has increased, but they are still getting trashed on the seats. It looks to me like "more than two" party politics is here to stay in the UK, and I think FPTP just doesn't work in those circumstances, not even for the big parties.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
IngoB,
It depends on whether one considers the party system to be an essential part of a democracy. I strongly dislike the component of most PR systems by which the link between voter and member of parliament is broken, and replaced by a party list. Essentially this means members of parliament are appointed by party functionaries. That cannot be right.
A good thing about FPTP is that it does allow local parties to do well. That is the nature of the system - localities elect their own representatives. I think this is something to be cherished.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
So it's looking pretty certain that Cleg, Milliband and Farage will all be stepping down from their leadership positions of their parties. I do hope that Labour resist the temptation to move to the right again - same for the LibDems. (and I hope UKIP move to defenestrate themselves)
The discussion on the BBC seems to think that this Election Labour have gone too far to the left. They're not even in the centre - let alone left. Geez. We're a country of right-wing loonies.
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, and under that 5% rule the party that received 50% of the vote of an entire nation would have no representatives in Westminster. Yeah right, that would make the Scots really feel like their opinions and concerns mattered to Westmonster.
Of course, that the SNP has ambitions to make Scotland independent IMHO means that it is actually a good outcome if they are not represented in the UK parliament. Just as it would be a good outcome if UKIP was not represented in the EU parliament. Those who wish to destroy a political union are de facto enemies of the parliament of that political union, no matter how good or bad they are concerning other political matters.
Rubbish. MPs should vote for the best for the people of the UK even if it means voting for the abolition of the polity of the UK.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But Labour and the SNP are different, and it's not just about independence.
What you're advocating is instead of a rich variety of political parties we just merge them altogether into a very small number. It's the political equivalent of converting a rich, diverse ecosystem into a monoculture. In ecology biodiversity is a sign of a strong, healthy ecosystem. The same is, IMO, true of nation states. We need a diversity of parties (and independents), and a diversity of cultures etc.
The CSU and the CDU in Germany are also quite different, reflecting the nature of Bavaria (it's a bit like Texas in the USA). The German system has shown way more "biodiversity" than the UK system. Heck, in Germany the Greens are a long established party, who have been in power in several coalitions. And there is always the alternative of going "nationwide", like in Germany the "Linke" (literally called "the Left"). That started as a mostly East German party, but they have tried hard to push into the West and are now in the national parliament.
But there is always as well the question of forming stable governments. You do not want diversity that leads to chaos, like in Italy. The "5% hurdle" is a simple system that mostly does the job. And in fact, as I have computed the numbers above, it would have done the job in this particular UK election. Without it, there would be no realistic chance to form a majority government, with it, there would be.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
You're considering matters purely from a party perspective, and as a result completely miss a good deal of 'biodiversity'.
Under FPTP, the fact that individual MPs are elected by their constituents makes for plenty of variation. You can see this from the different priorities party MPs elected for different areas have. Getting offside with the Party whip isn't a good thing, but you can't, say, be kicked out of Parliament. Only your constituents can do that. I regard it as a great pity that in recent years political parties have sought to exercised increased centralised control over who local parties select as their candidates.
As for the 5% threshhold: it's a purely arbitrary rule that can't be justified on any principled basis.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
Jim Murphy toeing the Labour Party line that Labour's losses are all the nasty SNP's fault. Even with every single one of the 59 Scottish seats, Labour wouldn't have more seats than the Tories.
"boo hoo, they stole our seats, it's all their fault" doesn't really work in that context.
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
It depends on whether one considers the party system to be an essential part of a democracy. I strongly dislike the component of most PR systems by which the link between voter and member of parliament is broken, and replaced by a party list. Essentially this means members of parliament are appointed by party functionaries. That cannot be right.
In the German system, if you win your local constituency then you get a seat in parliament. Basically, the parties get a number of seats according to the vote split, and then those who have won their constituency get "subtracted" from that total seat count. If there is anything left over for a party after subtracting their direct constituency wins, they can assign these seats freely to members of their party (who thus do not directly represent a constituency, but rather their share of party vote). Any disparity to the proportional party vote is removed by adjusting the total number of seats in parliament. So if a party is more successful at winning constituencies than at gaining party votes, it might not get enough seats due to the party vote to accommodate all its direct winners. In which case the number of total seats is increased until they can do that. (This means that other parties will get proportionally more seats to fill from their party rank and file.)
I should perhaps qualify that we have a "5% party vote or winning 3 constituencies" hurdle. So in theory it is possible to get into parliament with less than 5% of the party vote, by winning 3 constituencies with a party. In theory it is also possible that someone wins a constituency but doesn't get into parliament, because he is not in a party that would have won at least 2 further seats elsewhere (or enough of the popular vote). But these are largely theoretical possibilities in Germany. And yes, I do think that these particular kind of "disenfranchisements" are a good idea. It is bad to disregard votes, sure, but it is even worse to have an overall dysfunctional voting system. There needs to be some control against excessive splintering into minuscule political entities, or the country becomes de facto ungovernable.
The upshot of all this is that yes, in a system based on the proportional party vote, parties are more important. But that does not mean all connection to the local level must be lost. I think the German system is fairly balanced concerning that.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
As for the 5% threshhold: it's a purely arbitrary rule that can't be justified on any principled basis.
The precise number of 5% is somewhat arbitrary, it could be 6% or 4%. But of course this can be justified on a principled basis. It protects the voting system against fracturing into a mess of minuscule parties that make the country ungovernable because nobody can recruit a stable majority. This has to be balanced against de facto "throwing away" votes. It is this balance which means that neither a 10% nor a 0.1% hurdle would make sense: the former would ignore too many votes, the latter would not protect enough against fracturing.
And not only is this principle sound, I have actually demonstrated above the power of this approach in practice, by looking at the current UK election! Without such a hurdle, you would be heading for re-elections, with it a coalition government is possible. See above.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
It sounds the same as the system we have in New Zealand. My view is that it is undemocratic for anyone to be in parliament who has not been elected by individuals. This comes from the simple proposition that it is for the electorate to decide which persons are to govern them. Not anyone else.
We also have a similar rule regarding seats. There is a 4% threshhold for parties who hold no constituencies. Parties that do, are represented in proportion to their vote even if it is below 4%. The rule is not just arbitrary but it leads leads to all manner of technicalities by which the system may be gamed.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
As for the 5% threshhold: it's a purely arbitrary rule that can't be justified on any principled basis.
The precise number of 5% is somewhat arbitrary, it could be 6% or 4%. But of course this can be justified on a principled basis. It protects the voting system against fracturing into a mess of minuscule parties that make the country ungovernable because nobody can recruit a stable majority. This has to be balanced against de facto "throwing away" votes. It is this balance which means that neither a 10% nor a 0.1% hurdle would make sense: the former would ignore too many votes, the latter would not protect enough against fracturing.
That sounds like a justification on pragmatism rather than principle. In any event, it sounds extremely unlikely that a country would suffer from that problem for any length of time, and even if it did, it would find ways of coping. It is more often justified as a way of excluding extremist parties (which strikes me as a somewhat problematic position to take).
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Clegg giving a surprisingly good resignation speech at the moment.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
I don't think it's possible for such a thing as a bad resignation speech from Nick Clegg. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Just one more seat for a tory overall majoriy. Should come in the next half an hour.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
There's going to be a lot of pressure on the SNP now - I hope they manage to stand up to their anti-austerity promises.
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Just reading the Paul Mason blog, very perceptive about Labour's bankrupcy of ideas. They have nothing to offer affluent people in the south east, their attempted vaguely left unionism in Scotland was pulverized, and they hang on in the old industrial areas. Probably worst of all, they seem intellectually emptied out, mouthing old Blairite truisms, which are now stale, and acting as a parrot to the Tories. Is there any point to Labour?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
My view is that it is undemocratic for anyone to be in parliament who has not been elected by individuals.
And my view is that a system where a party can gain 1.4% of the popular vote but lose 26 seats in parliament, as Labour did in this UK election, is undemocratic. The systematic trashing of huge numbers of votes to uphold absolute individual representation is nonsense. In particular so in modern times, where people are at least as aware of party leaders and party politics as they are of what their individual MP might be doing. In fact, I would posit that it is much easier to get a halfway unbiased idea about the former than about the latter.
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
That sounds like a justification on pragmatism rather than principle. In any event, it sounds extremely unlikely that a country would suffer from that problem for any length of time, and even if it did, it would find ways of coping. It is more often justified as a way of excluding extremist parties (which strikes me as a somewhat problematic position to take).
Of course it is a pragmatic justification. All politics is pragmatic anyhow. Electing a representative to parliament is a pragmatic way of dealing with the organisational problems that direct democracy has. Democracy is a pragmatic way of dealing with the problem of finding an optimal solution among conflicting individual interests. Etc.
The damping of extremist excess is a natural consequence of a hurdle system, given that extremism by definition is a small minority position. The problem is that an extremist party could gain undue influence if their small percentage is what one side needs to gain majority. But that really is just one particular example for the wider problem of destabilising governance through fracturing into small parties. Here the "steady" party politics of the big party would get disrupted by the need to accommodate the extremist party, so this is a kind of destabilising governance.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The German system has shown way more "biodiversity" than the UK system.
When was the last time Germany wasn't governed by either the Christian Democratic Union or the Social Democratic Party of Germany? Yes, sometimes with coalition partners, but basically it's a two party state. The same as the UK, really.
[deleted a section better suited to Hell, where I'm just off too]
[ 08. May 2015, 11:10: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
Is there any point to any of the parties right now, other than the SNP? The rest are all spin?
I have actually found myself getting nostalgic for John Major and his soapbox.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
They will have to reimagine themselves as an opposiion, instead of saying we'll keep these tory polies and here is a shiny, slightly different bauble.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Watching Ed Milliband's concession speech now.
[ 08. May 2015, 11:14: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Watching Ed Milliband's conscession speech now.
Not for the first time, I find him a bit formulaic and somehow not quite getting it across...
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
He's a gonner too then - hat trick for Cameron
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Watching Ed Milliband's conscession speech now.
Not for the first time, I find him a bit formulaic and somehow not quite getting it across...
See, I thought he was coming across well.
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
It is embarassing, Clegg's speech was at lot better. FFS at this moment you what to waffle on about millifandom, and dumb platitudes.
Far too much about "I" and bugger all about the country.
[ 08. May 2015, 11:19: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
He clapped himself !
Jesus wept.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Aghast as I am that Call Me Dave is likely to be with us for another five years, I do most sincerely hope that Clegg, Feckless Reckless The Kipper, and Farrago disappear altogether (the fact that Farrago didn't even get into Parliament is proof that God loves us).
OTOH, I rejoice mightily that The Blessed Caroline Lucas retained Brighton Pavilion with a good majority, and that Scotland's lion did indeed roar!
YMMV, of course........
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
They will have to reimagine themselves as an opposiion, instead of saying we'll keep these tory polies and here is a shiny, slightly different bauble.
It's going to be tough; Blair's coalition between the affluent south and the old industrial areas has been torn to shreds. It's into the wilderness now, but I'm not sure where any new ideas are coming from. Blair's dilute Toryism seems pointless, and Labour dare not actually consider left-wing ideas. I guess it will be some form of Keynesianism, good luck with that, since the Tories are quite happy with pouring quantitative money in, and big projects in the south east. What else is there?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
And that result is in, Conservative victory - they have made 326.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
And that result is in, Conservative victory - they have made 326.
TBH, I think of it less of a Tory victory than a Labour cockup. They've done an appalling job over the last five years in failing to show up the human suffering caused by the Tories' callous, near-sociopathic policies.
An Cameron has a hat-trick. All three scalps - Farage, Clegg, Miliband.
[ 08. May 2015, 11:42: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And my view is that a system where a party can gain 1.4% of the popular vote but lose 26 seats in parliament, as Labour did in this UK election, is undemocratic.
It is not completely obvious that in a national government, being preferred by a plurality of the people is better than being tolerated by a majority of the people. It is not obvious that strict numerical democracy is what we actually want.
Having said that, this election really isn't unusual. This time around, the Conservatives achieved (currently) 50.2% of the seats with 36.8% of the votes, so they had only 73.4% of the vote that they would have needed under strict PR to get that many seats. Labour's ratio was 85.7%, so you can see that FPTP has favoured the Conservatives this time. If you look at averages going back to 1974, you find the opposite effect - the Tories score 88.5% vs 78.0% for Labour. This is mostly dominated by the Blair years, when Labour did very much better out of FPTP than the Tories. This is well known - FPTP usually has the effect of magnifiying the margin of victory.
The 2010 election was comparatively unusual in that Labour and the Tories had a smiliar ratio of votes to seats.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
marzipan
Shipmate
# 9442
|
Posted
did anyone else see this guy ?
Cross-stitch of the election results (it's pretty interesting to see how the number of constituencies changes the shape of the map too - lots of Labour's seats are small in area in cities etc.
Story on BBC
--------------------
formerly cheesymarzipan.
Now containing 50% less cheese
Posts: 917 | From: nowhere in particular | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And my view is that a system where a party can gain 1.4% of the popular vote but lose 26 seats in parliament, as Labour did in this UK election, is undemocratic.
It is not completely obvious that in a national government, being preferred by a plurality of the people is better than being tolerated by a majority of the people. It is not obvious that strict numerical democracy is what we actually want.
I would actually agree with that. I could imagine a democratic system more tailored towards "minimising the overall displeasure" rather than "maximising the realisation of absolute preference". But I don't see FPTP delivering that either. Some kind of ranked voting system would perhaps do that, and if well-designed, I may even prefer this kind of system.
But I don't see how that changes that the current UK system really doesn't seem very democratic in its practical outcomes.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Piglet
Islander
# 11803
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
... [the BBC] is not as right-wing as the print press, but it's not left-wing - look at ... how it covered the Scottish Independence Referendum a few months ago.
It wasn't only the Right that wanted a "no" vote in the Scottish referendum though - remember Gordon Brown making impassioned speeches in the last few days of the campaign encouraging people to vote "no"?
--------------------
I may not be on an island any more, but I'm still an islander.
alto n a soprano who can read music
Posts: 20272 | From: Fredericton, NB, on a rather larger piece of rock | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
