(Untitled)

Apr 23, 2010 18:59

OK, fess up time: I ams till struggling with the implciations of the First Past the Post system on the current elections. Cruising various online tools, there appears to be some tipping point at which, say, a majority vote for Lib Dems turns from simply "more seats but not a commons majority" into "runaway domincation". Is this where the tool has ( Read more... )

elections

Leave a comment

Comments 14

andygates April 23 2010, 18:17:47 UTC
At its simplest, imagine 3 parties with 30% each. One has 30% in every constituency; the other two have either 40% (in their heartlands) or 20% (in the other party's heartlands). Thus you get:

Birmingham: Labour 40, Libdem 30, Conservative 20.
Surrey: Conservative 40, Libdem 30, Labour 20.

...etc. Thus a party with a demographically spread vote can have bugger-all representation under a constituency, first-past-the-post system.

This is becoming more obviously unfair as British experience of Euro elections indicates the difference in system; on the other hand, Brits kinda like the clarity of the system even if it sucks.

If it happens with this election, after such a strong Libdem surge now, there will be a lot of voices calling for electoral reform. If there's a hung parliament, a commitment to reform will probably be the Libdem price for cooperation.

Reply

andygates April 23 2010, 18:20:27 UTC
Oh, and yes, there's a tipping point. That's why landslides are more common than you'd expect, and, of course, why campaigners focus on swing voters in marginal seats.

Reply


despaer April 23 2010, 19:11:22 UTC
What Andy said mostly. Plus, the Lib Dems are traditionally viewed as being a centre party with the Tories on the right and Labour on the left so they end up having to fight on two fronts although I think there is a case for saying these days that they are left and that Labour are more in the centre. Theres also the problem that people tend to vote for who they voted for previously (which has historically not been lib dem) as it takes an honest person to admit they may have made a mistake and change their mind accordingly.

Reply

andygates April 23 2010, 19:29:47 UTC
True, most people will stay away instead of changing their vote. I wonder, with falling turnout over time, whether this election may see people who've stayed away last time coming back for the lib dems this time round? Optimism, probably.

And yes, the lib dems are definitely the leftmost of the three these days.

Reply

skean April 26 2010, 09:57:13 UTC
What I still don't get though is comments such is made in this article

"Clegg said he would not prop up Labour if it came third in the vote yet secured the most seats. He said: "It seems to me that it's just preposterous, the idea that if a party comes third in terms of the number of votes, it still has somehow the right to carry on squatting in No 10 and continue to lay claim to having the prime minister of the country."

In Andy's example above, each party has the same proportion of the vote. What scenario yields an outcome where overall Lib Dem's or Conservatives have received more votes, but Labour win the most seats?

I could just about imagine if we had 100 constituencies, and 99 had 3 voters each, and 2 voted labouer, 1 Lib Dem, and in the other constituency, 59 million voters, all of whom who voted Lib Dem, Labour would have 99 seats and Lib Dem's 1 seat. But are the consituencies really like that? How else does a party end up with less votes, more seats?

Reply

andygates April 26 2010, 11:18:15 UTC
A scenario in which little constituencies (in terms of voter numbers) are mostly Labour. Dense urban cores.

The system is tweaked all over to hellenback, so broad analysis is very tricky and full of gotchas.

Reply


anonymous April 23 2010, 20:36:22 UTC
As the others have said, but also FPTP works very well in a 2 party system ( ... )

Reply


anonymous April 23 2010, 20:37:41 UTC
As the others have said, but also FPTP works very well in a 2 party system ( ... )

Reply

simoneck April 23 2010, 20:38:48 UTC
Apologies for posting that twice and anonymously both times.

Reply

jonnycowbells April 26 2010, 13:24:02 UTC
I agree with much of this. At the last European elections I also found PR pretty difficult to understand, pretty difficult to get information on and, once I did understand it, pretty difficult to explain to anybody else. When one's been used to putting a cross against a name with FPTP all one's life, to be presented with PR is a bit bewildering.

If you asked me to explain it now, I think I'd probably fall down at explaining how the second and third (and more) seats are allocated, where second preference votes come into play (is that even PR, or was the London Mayoral election different again?) and why there are even different numbers of seats for constituencies in the first place. FPTP: There's a seat in a constituency, anybody there can stand, everybody there gets one vote. The guy with the most votes wins. Democratic electoral procedure - done. (slightly simplified, but even so...)

FPTP for parliament and PR for local and European seems a reasonable mix to me.

Reply

despaer April 26 2010, 17:58:52 UTC
FPTP also gives you the benefit of having an actual local MP who is accountable to your immediate region. In my case, the local MP for Wells is more likely to care about the building of a new supermarket in Wells than is a South West PR goon who lives in Plymouth and covers everywhere from Trowbridge to Penzance. Doesn't always work but as a general rule...

Reply


Leave a comment

Up