UK Election 2015

BoatMad

gallag wrote: »

Under PR UKIP would have secured over 80 seats!

No, not on a constituency based pr system , they would have won a few more but not anything like you have stated.

Parliamentarians are not elected as a function of simple percentages of national vote.

gallag

BoatMad wrote: »

No, not on a constituency based pr system , they would have won a few more but not anything like you have stated.

Parliamentarians are not elected as a function of simple percentages of national vote.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32601281

Every news site says 83? Even heard it this very day on 5 live.

BoatMad

gallag wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32601281

Every news site says 83? Even heard it this very day on 5 live.

Yes , that figure is based on treating the result in proportion to the whole electorate.

IF you accept the same constituency basis that exists today , but switched to PR, UKIP would win a few more seats, but nothing like the figure you mentioned, this was discussed on the BBC a few days later. ( i heard it)

The reason is that UKIP contested a large number of seats but there actual percentage of any " quota" it won in any one constituency was quite small.

The link you reference , applies the format used in the UK to elect UK MEPs, whereby there are only 11 " constituencies " in england and wales.

Once you have a fairly large number of constituencies ( 573 in UK and wales ) , then the effect of a percentage of national votes distributed widely over a large number of constituencies means a very different result and the "proportionality effect " is significantly reduced

Quin_Dub

BoatMad wrote: »

Yes , that figure is based on treating the result in proportion to the whole electorate.

IF you accept the same constituency basis that exists today , but switched to PR, UKIP would win a few more seats, but nothing like the figure you mentioned, this was discussed on the BBC a few days later. ( i heard it)

The reason is that UKIP contested a large number of seats but there actual percentage of any " quota" it won in any one constituency was quite small.

The link you reference , applies the format used in the UK to elect UK MEPs, whereby there are only 11 " constituencies " in england and wales.

Once you have a fairly large number of constituencies ( 573 in UK and wales ) , then the effect of a percentage of national votes distributed widely over a large number of constituencies means a very different result

I agree with you that their % of national vote does not translate into actual seats at the constituency level..

If the UK went PR/STV would/could they stay with single seat constituencies?

Surely they'd have to consolidate to at least 2 and 3 seat constituencies?

BoatMad

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I agree with you that their % of national vote does not translate into actual seats at the constituency level..

If the UK went PR/STV would/could they stay with single seat constituencies?

Surely they'd have to consolidate to at least 2 and 3 seat constituencies?

No in fact the multi seat PR is a funny irish form of PR, most PR systems in the world are single seat. ( aka Northern Ireland assembly etc )

I would argue that in fact in ireland we should also have single seat PR, the nonsense of a party running against itself is a cause of most of our parish pump politics.

alaimacerc

Quin_Dub wrote: »

If the UK went PR/STV would/could they stay with single seat constituencies?

STV with single-seat constituencies is "AV". (The sop the Tories offered the LibDems, then backstabbed them on, that no-one was in the least bit enthused on.)

Of course there's also mixed-member systems, such as used in the Scottish parliament (to keep it local!), where most of the reps have single-seat constituencies, but there's a "top up".

Surely they'd have to consolidate to at least 2 and 3 seat constituencies?

Two would be oddly small in a MMC-STV system. Not impossible, though! Funnily enough someone on a BBC Question Time recently did say they favoured a "first two past the post" system, which would be (more or less) this.

BoatMad

alaimacerc wrote: »

Two would be oddly small in a MMC-STV system. Not impossible, though! Funnily enough someone on a BBC Question Time recently did say they favoured a "first two past the post" system, which would be (more or less) this.

That would probably favour the first and second biggest parties


single seat PR, is a straightforward system, even if FF tried twice to introduce it here.

if you get a majority of first preferences you get elected, after that a proportion of votes is applied

alaimacerc

BoatMad wrote: »

No in fact the multi seat PR is a funny irish form of PR, most PR systems in the world are single seat. ( aka Northern Ireland assembly etc )

No, the NIA is (almost) exactly the same system. Multi-member constituencies, single transferable vote. 18 six-member constituencies, to be precise.

I would argue that in fact in ireland we should also have single seat PR, the nonsense of a party running against itself is a cause of most of our parish pump politics.

That's two different things. You may be looking for a "closed list" sort of system. But that means that the party has essentially total of which of their stiffs get in, with the punter left just playing "pick a party on a strictly national basis".

Other systems are also available!

Clearlier

alaimacerc wrote: »

STV with single-seat constituencies is "AV". (The sop the Tories offered the LibDems, then backstabbed them on, that no-one was in the least bit enthused on.)

I'm no Tory fan but they were clear and upfront that they would agree to a referendum as part of a programme for government but be totally opposed to it.

The electorate needed a reason to change and the Lib Dems were unable to articulately express one. Thus the referendum failed.

alaimacerc

BoatMad wrote: »

Yes , that figure is based on treating the result in proportion to the whole electorate.

Right. As is proportional representation. Seemples.

IF you accept the same constituency basis that exists today , but switched to PR, UKIP would win a few more seats, but nothing like the figure you mentioned, this was discussed on the BBC a few days later. ( i heard it)

I didn't, so I'm missing any meaningful detail here. Do you mean switching to AV (which is in no way "PR")? Or to MMC-STV? (Still not very "P", but also means different constituencies.)

The link you reference , applies the format used in the UK to elect UK MEPs, whereby there are only 11 " constituencies " in england and wales.

11 in GB, I think you mean (the distinction with NI being meaningful here, due to the difference in system there). 9 in England, and one each of all of Scotland, and all of Wales.

alaimacerc

Clearlier wrote: »

I'm no Tory fan but they were clear and upfront that they would agree to a referendum as part of a programme for government but be totally opposed to it.

That's not quite the "mood music" before the fact.

But on the meat of 'backstabbing', I refer you to the conduct of said referendum. The "no" campaign was utterly disingenuous. We had Tories going on national media claiming FPTP was the only "fair" way of counting votes, and that AV "gave more votes to some people than to others".

alaimacerc

BoatMad wrote: »

single seat PR, is a straightforward system, even if FF tried twice to introduce it here.

if you get a majority of first preferences you get elected, after that a proportion of votes is applied

After that a proportion...? Not following that at all.

As I said, single seat "PR", meaning MMC-STV, isn't "proportionate" in any sense at all. People just call it "PR" out of force of habit. (As in "The Irish President is elected by PR." Well, no, they're not. There's only one at a time!) It's exactly the same as AV, or "instant runoff".

BoatMad

yes you are correct re NI assembly.


The figure of 50+ UKIP was based on analysing the UK results on the basis of their euro constituencies. 99 was suggested if you used a simple mathematical proportion of the national vote . However if you assume that there would be many more constituencies, then the effect of PR is diluted by the quantising of the vote. if you look at the spread of UKIPs national vote, they were spread very thinly over a large number of constituencies, that does not suggest even under PR, they would actually win many more seats,

without an analysis of transfer patterns etc, you could only go by first preference votes and on that nothing like 80-90

alaimacerc

partyguinness wrote: »

According to who? Did he give any examples?

According to himself, apparently! It was just a line in his "opening monologue", not something that was discussed with any of his guests or in any greater depth.

It is certainly a (what I would deem- lazy) stereotype they like to trundle out in England about Ireland. Is Ireland really more socially conservative than Italy, Spain, Portugal or even Poland? I genuinely do not agree.

Well, while we're talking laziness, Marr is Scottish, not English. But moving on...

I dunno, how are we measuring these things? Marriage equality, divorce, reproductive rights, church and state, equality in education...? In terms of how those things stand at present, or how recently they changed to the "liberal" position, Ireland is surely "more socially conservative" than all the countries you mentioned apart from Poland.

alaimacerc

BoatMad wrote: »

The figure of 50+ UKIP was based on analysing the UK results on the basis of their euro constituencies. 99 was suggested if you used a simple mathematical proportion of the national vote . However if you assume that there would be many more constituencies, then the effect of PR is diluted by the quantising of the vote. if you look at the spread of UKIPs national vote, they were spread very thinly over a large number of constituencies, that does not suggest even under PR, they would actually win many more seats,

I think you're continuing to assume that "PR" means "MMC-STV". Which in general, it does not. It's not used anywhere in GB, IIRC. Unless you specify a system, I think it's fair to assume that "proportional representation" means actually proportional.

There was a headline after the election saying 83 seats -- apparently that's based on D'Hondt, which is actually in fairly wide use in the UK (MEPs, NI cabinet, "additional member" seats in London and Scotland). I'm surprised it's as far from being strictly proportionate as it is, but it's within a bull's roar, at least.

MMC-STV is much harder to assess, because it would, obviously, depend on the numbers of seats per constituency, and because as soon as you have any sort of preferential voting, you both change voter behaviour, and are missing data beyond their "number one" which would materially effect the result. They not longer have to worry about a "wasted vote" or "vote tactically" -- which effect might have actually favoured Ukip, if significant numbers bought into the "vote Farage, get Miliband" line from the Tories. (Or to some extent the reverse.)

BoatMad

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think you're continuing to assume that "PR" means "MMC-STV". Which in general, it does not. It's not used anywhere in GB, IIRC. Unless you specify a system, I think it's fair to assume that "proportional representation" means actually proportional.

There was a headline after the election saying 83 seats -- apparently that's based on D'Hondt, which is actually in fairly wide use in the UK (MEPs, NI cabinet, "additional member" seats in London and Scotland). I'm surprised it's as far from being strictly proportionate as it is, but it's within a bull's roar, at least.

MMC-STV is much harder to assess, because it would, obviously, depend on the numbers of seats per constituency, and because as soon as you have any sort of preferential voting, you both change voter behaviour, and are missing data beyond their "number one" which would materially effect the result. They not longer have to worry about a "wasted vote" or "vote tactically" -- which effect might have actually favoured Ukip, if significant numbers bought into the "vote Farage, get Miliband" line from the Tories. (Or to some extent the reverse.)

Yes but the reality is we all elect by some form of electoral college, there is no system whereby members of parliament are in effect elected poorly by a proportional representation of the national vote,

SO the 88-90 seats is a purely technical and theoretical calculation that in practice even under a MMC-STV would not see happen.

remember in Ireland a majority party/gov can be elected by not much more then the UK system, around 44% , compared to 36% in the UK, only an 12% difference

Clearlier

alaimacerc wrote: »

That's not quite the "mood music" before the fact.

But on the meat of 'backstabbing', I refer you to the conduct of said referendum. The "no" campaign was utterly disingenuous. We had Tories going on national media claiming FPTP was the only "fair" way of counting votes, and that AV "gave more votes to some people than to others".

On the mood music I won't labour the point beyond this post but that's not at all how I remember it. I voted Lib Dem and was a supporter of the referendum. It was clear to me that the Tories would push the bill to hold the referendum through parliament and then campaign against it.

On the backstabbing I get what you mean now, yes they were disingenuous and of course they mislead the public about the meaning of the change but I'd have been astonished if they hadn't. It suited their purposes to make it incomprehensible which they duly did. The LD's failed to clarify the issue - it was a presage of this years election in many ways, they were clueless about how to effectively communicate their message.

Clearlier

BoatMad wrote: »

Yes but the reality is we all elect by some form of electoral college, there is no system whereby members of parliament are in effect elected poorly by a proportional representation of the national vote,

SO the 88-90 seats is a purely technical and theoretical calculation that in practice even under a MMC-STV would not see happen.

remember in Ireland a majority party/gov can be elected by not much more then the UK system, around 44% , compared to 36% in the UK, only an 12% difference

You've also got to remember that it's often easy to vote for a party like UKIP to send a message whilst knowing that your vote will have no impact in the end. People might previously have voted for the Lib Dems for similar reasons but they obviously deserted the party post coalition. The decision about how to vote can change when you realise that your vote could actually count. With a STV type system I'd expect to see a lot more votes for the smaller parties. There's little point at all in voting for the Monster Raving Looney Party for example no matter how good your policies are because they're never going to get in so you choose an alternative who might have a shot.

BoatMad

Clearlier wrote: »

You've also got to remember that it's often easy to vote for a party like UKIP to send a message whilst knowing that your vote will have no impact in the end. People might previously have voted for the Lib Dems for similar reasons but they obviously deserted the party post coalition. The decision about how to vote can change when you realise that your vote could actually count. With a STV type system I'd expect to see a lot more votes for the smaller parties. There's little point at all in voting for the Monster Raving Looney Party for example no matter how good your policies are because they're never going to get in so you choose an alternative who might have a shot.

well of course, now we are into purely speculative thinking

one could equally speculate that votes for UKip could actually fall, if the voter realises they actually could get elected. right now its a protest vote, rather in some respects like SF here

alaimacerc

BoatMad wrote: »

Yes but the reality is we all elect by some form of electoral college, there is no system whereby members of parliament are in effect elected poorly by a proportional representation of the national vote,

SO the 88-90 seats is a purely technical and theoretical calculation that in practice even under a MMC-STV would not see happen.

"Even" MMC-STV is exactly the wrong way of looking at it. This is what I'm trying to explain to you. There are many other systems that are much more proportional than it is. D'Hondt and AMS I've already mentioned, just In These Islands. Open and closed list system proliferate in the EU. They're not strictly speaking purely proportionate, but they're much, much closer, and within the range being discussed in this context.

Ireland's take on "PR" isn't the only one. It's not even very "PR" at all! The Dáil perhaps least of all: the NI assembly, RoI local elections, and even indeed the Seanad all use constituencies with more seats, so are going to more closely approximate strict proportionality.

Clearlier

BoatMad wrote: »

well of course, now we are into purely speculative thinking

one could equally speculate that votes for UKip could actually fall, if the voter realises they actually could get elected. right now its a protest vote, rather in some respects like SF here

Totally speculative and I'd agree that your scenario for UKip is a likely one. On the whole I'd think that the smaller parties would do better though.