UK General Election

Information Analyst said:
OK, sorry. I was a bit scratchy that day.
Click to expand...

McHrozni said:
This is to an extent true. However giving them a small voice and a veil of legitimacy makes it possible for them to slowly gain more legitemacy.

Another problem is that the pool of seats for sane parties is smaller. If you need to form a government this notably reduces the possibilities for sensible coalitions. The end result could easily be that a flexible populist (but not outright retard) party to act as the kingmaker, deciding who gets to seat in the government and blackmailing the government that needs their support to remain in power.

This too is toxic for democracy and good governance.



Not if the denial is done in the right way. Denying them power by a high threshold (e.g. Turkey with 10%) is one thing, but denying them power because they can't win over a single constituency is a tad different, I think.

Overall no system is perfect and it's only a matter of personal opinion which downsides are less bad and which upsides are better. Direct representation can be competitive with a proportional representation if done right (it's not in UK or USA) on just about all terms. Proportional representation has fewer traps (the ones we mentioned aside there is also gerrymandering) but it has a much weaker connection of voters to the representatives. Having that is good for democracy.

I'm of the opinion that properly done direct representation is better than proportional representation by a small margin, but this is down to the importance I attribute to the upsides and downsides of each system and nothing more than an opinion.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

I'm always interested in this direct connection to the electorate point. I understand it in theory but I wonder honestly how many people could pick their mp out of a lineup or ever interact with them

If it really is important then a PR system could assign representation to areas retrospectively to at least give some direct connection.
 
Rolfe said:
I think that's quite an unusual view, though.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Is it?

I think most people vote for a party rather than a person unless something important about the person is highlighted to them.

Would love to know others views and whether I am an outlier.

Have only ever contacted my MP once and it was a fairly disappointing experience to say the least. Just parroted the party line to me in a letter.

A letter no less. Surely you use email in this day and age?
 
Electoral Calculus have just adjusted their prediction. They are now predicting a 188 seat majority for the Conservatives. They suggest a historic low of just 158 seats for Labour, with under 27% of the vote. They also predict the SNP losing 11 seats in Scotland, with the Conservatives gaining 11, the Lib Dems doubling up to 2, and Labour being totally wiped out. Imagine that. No Labour seats in Scotland. That would be astonishing.

Corbyn has no option but claim that he would remain as leader even if Labour loses, but everyone knows that to be nonsense. No leader could survive the sort of destruction that currently faces Labour.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
I'm always interested in this direct connection to the electorate point. I understand it in theory but I wonder honestly how many people could pick their mp out of a lineup or ever interact with them
Click to expand...

If you don't have "your" MP who represents your constituency, the number is zero. Any number greater than zero is superior. :o

If it really is important then a PR system could assign representation to areas retrospectively to at least give some direct connection.
Click to expand...

This would ensure any connection is minimal, at best.

One more advantage a direct representation system has is a superior ability of MPs to go contrary to the wishes of their party. The MP has the mandate, he (she/it) got the most votes in the constituency. MPs from direct representation can and do rebel against party line. If the party expels the MP he can run again in his constituency either as independent or in another party and, if he was seen as a good representative, has a realistic chance of victory.

In a proportional system this usually means they will be expelled from the party and won't be able to run again in the next election. Given that you need at least a certain percentage of votes to even get into a parliament, having a party that can muster that percentage of votes (4%, 10%, what have you) makes it difficult to reenter the parliament if you do so. We see fewer defections in votes in proportional systems as a result, which strengthens the role and power of political parties, which isn't all that great for democracy either.

Again, my opinion is that both systems, if done properly, work fine, but I think that direct representation beats out proportional representation by a small margin.

Another interesting system, used in Hungary, is a mixed system. Hungarians elect about half MPs proportionally and another half using direct representation via FPTP. Orban, through rampant his abuse of power, ensured it can't be objectively compared to the other two possibilities. It's interesting since it, in theory, has the upsides of either system and counteracts the downsides quite well. That's the theory at any rate.

It's probably used in some other country as well, but I don't know where.

McHrozni
 
Last edited:
I believe "top up" systems are used in the Welsh Assembly and (I think) the Scottish Parliament? Something like a third of members are 'PR' based, and the rest are constituency based.
 
I found a wiki page on it, it's used in several countries, most notable ones are Japan, South Korea, aforementioned Hungary, Mexico, Philippines and several others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_voting#Use

It's an interesting compromise, the strongest criticism seems to be that it's not as good as either proportional or direct representation in aspects those two are respectively good at ... which isn't all that odd to be honest :o

Wikipedia mentions it's possible two types of representatives will emerge, one part will be concerned with keeping their constituency happy (directly elected MPs) while the other will be concerned with keeping their political party happy (proportional MPs). I think this is an advantage, having a few yes men you can rely on to support whatever you order them to in your ranks is often essential to running effective governance. If you also need to secure the support of MPs who are concerned about their constituency and don't have anything to lose and everything to gain by speaking their mind about whatever then democracy is strengthened.

McHrozni
 
Tolls said:
I believe "top up" systems are used in the Welsh Assembly and (I think) the Scottish Parliament? Something like a third of members are 'PR' based, and the rest are constituency based.
Click to expand...


Scotland uses the Additional Member system.

73 of the 129 MSPs are elected for a constituency by a straightforward FPTP vote.

Then each of the 8 larger regions elects 7 'list' MSPs using a PR system to give another 56 MSPs.
 
Electoral Calculus have just added another couple of seats to the size of their prediction of a Conservative win:

JecGoAi.jpg


If this is what actually happens it would be Labour's worst result since Clement Attlee won 154 seats in 1935. Far worse than the famous Michael Foot loss in 1983 ("longest suicide note in history") in which he won 209 seats. It would see some big Labour names without a seat, including Jon Cruddas, Clive Lewis, Geoffrey Robinson, Ben Bradshaw (hasn't he gone already?), Paul Flynn, and many more. Caroline Lucas of the Greens is predicted to lose her seat, and 11 SNP members would go too if this is converted into actuality.

There's a curious 25% predicted increase (2 points) in the Lib Dem vote share, and an associated 1 seat drop in results.
 
Last edited:
McHrozni said:
If you don't have "your" MP who represents your constituency, the number is zero. Any number greater than zero is superior. :o



This would ensure any connection is minimal, at best.

One more advantage a direct representation system has is a superior ability of MPs to go contrary to the wishes of their party. The MP has the mandate, he (she/it) got the most votes in the constituency. MPs from direct representation can and do rebel against party line. If the party expels the MP he can run again in his constituency either as independent or in another party and, if he was seen as a good representative, has a realistic chance of victory.

In a proportional system this usually means they will be expelled from the party and won't be able to run again in the next election. Given that you need at least a certain percentage of votes to even get into a parliament, having a party that can muster that percentage of votes (4%, 10%, what have you) makes it difficult to reenter the parliament if you do so. We see fewer defections in votes in proportional systems as a result, which strengthens the role and power of political parties, which isn't all that great for democracy either.

Again, my opinion is that both systems, if done properly, work fine, but I think that direct representation beats out proportional representation by a small margin.

Another interesting system, used in Hungary, is a mixed system. Hungarians elect about half MPs proportionally and another half using direct representation via FPTP. Orban, through rampant his abuse of power, ensured it can't be objectively compared to the other two possibilities. It's interesting since it, in theory, has the upsides of either system and counteracts the downsides quite well. That's the theory at any rate.

It's probably used in some other country as well, but I don't know where.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

Could you give me a rundown of all these MPs who go contrary to the wishes of their party on anything significant? Is it more than a handful?
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Could you give me a rundown of all these MPs who go contrary to the wishes of their party on anything significant? Is it more than a handful?
Click to expand...

I'll just give you a historic example. To get Nixon impeached, Democrats had to obtain support from several Republican lawmakers - 12 Senators and 32 representatives, I think. I wish you good luck obtaining that from slavishly loyal yes men we typically see in representative democracies. You might get one or two who are willing to defect every decade if you're lucky and if the issue is large enough.

A current example would be sen. John McCain, who is one of the more significant opponents of his president and party colleague, Donald Trump. In direct representation you can't rely on party loyalty nearly as much as you can in a proportional system.

McHrozni
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
Electoral Calculus have just adjusted their prediction. They are now predicting a 188 seat majority for the Conservatives. They suggest a historic low of just 158 seats for Labour, with under 27% of the vote. They also predict the SNP losing 11 seats in Scotland, with the Conservatives gaining 11, the Lib Dems doubling up to 2, and Labour being totally wiped out. Imagine that. No Labour seats in Scotland. That would be astonishing.

Corbyn has no option but claim that he would remain as leader even if Labour loses, but everyone knows that to be nonsense. No leader could survive the sort of destruction that currently faces Labour.
Click to expand...
Now this is a poll-free estimate for the next general election, using just local election results. but their "local results" in their table show a loss of 7 seats by the SNP. That is a fraudulent figure. See http://www.businessforscotland.com/...orted-scottish-local-council-election-result/
As you can see, the SNP increased its number of councillors by 7 and the Greens by 5, meaning the pro independence parties increased their number of elected councillors by 12 (according to BBC figures).​
Now what happened in the local elections was that unionist voters, including many working class unionists, transferred their support from Labour to Conservatives. There was no shift away from the SNP, so if Electoral Calculus are plugging false data into their model, they may obtain an illusory result.

I think the SNP will lose a few seats. But that is because they swept the board in 2015. If the local results are repeated - Labour voters going Tory while SNP increases its vote - then the SNP to Tory shift, which didn't happen in the local elections, is unlikely to produce the large effect predicted here. But we will see.

Electoral CalculusWP appears to be departing in this case from its normal methodology, described by wiki as
Electoral Calculus is a political forecasting web site which attempts to predict future United Kingdom general election results. It considers national factors but excludes local issues.​
 
Craig B said:
Now this is a poll-free estimate for the next general election, using just local election results. but their "local results" in their table show a loss of 7 seats by the SNP. That is a fraudulent figure. See http://www.businessforscotland.com/...orted-scottish-local-council-election-result/
As you can see, the SNP increased its number of councillors by 7 and the Greens by 5, meaning the pro independence parties increased their number of elected councillors by 12 (according to BBC figures).​
Now what happened in the local elections was that unionist voters, including many working class unionists, transferred their support from Labour to Conservatives. There was no shift away from the SNP, so if Electoral Calculus are plugging false data into their model, they may obtain an illusory result.

I think the SNP will lose a few seats. But that is because they swept the board in 2015. If the local results are repeated - Labour voters going Tory while SNP increases its vote - then the SNP to Tory shift, which didn't happen in the local elections, is unlikely to produce the large effect predicted here. But we will see.

Electoral CalculusWP appears to be departing in this case from its normal methodology, described by wiki as
Electoral Calculus is a political forecasting web site which attempts to predict future United Kingdom general election results. It considers national factors but excludes local issues.​
Click to expand...

It seems to say the Scottish results are based in opinion polls. Looking at the data a fair few of those Tory gains are by 1 percent or less. Within the margin of error of the polls I would guess.

Its interesting that the staunch unionist vote has coalesced around the Tories but not hugely surprising given the complete lack of any direction within Scottish Labour. My view has always been that a third of the country are unionist no matter what and another third are Indy no matter what and it's the remaining third that need to be convinced.

The Tories will struggle to make much impact into that middle ground in my view. Although they may pick up the oldie vote.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Its interesting that the staunch unionist vote has coalesced around the Tories but not hugely surprising given the complete lack of any direction within Scottish Labour. My view has always been that a third of the country are unionist no matter what and another third are Indy no matter what and it's the remaining third that need to be convinced.
Click to expand...

Most contentious issues are like that. The rule of tumb is 40% are in favor of X, 40% are in favor of -1/X and you have about 20% to work with the election/referendum/whatever campaign.

I suppose it makes sense since if the scales are severely tipped one way or another from the start the issue is non-contentious anyway.

McHrozni
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom