The Super-Reluctant Builder/Bidder and Us

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

"The country" did not cast its votes in such a way that there is an over-whelming mandate for the government. The Tories actually polled fewer than 1 in 4 of the electorate. The election is considered to be a disaster for the Labour Party and yet it still got 700,000 more votes than last time.

If as few as 901 people had voted differently in 7, I think, constituencies there would not have been a Tory Majority.

Labour received more votes than the Conservatives in Wales and Scotland and in every age group bar the over-65s in England.

All of the above is factually verifiable and not mere opinion.

What we need is an electoral system that actually represents the votes people make because the one we have stinks. It shouldn't be the job of the democratic process to produce a "strong government" it should be its job to allow the views of the people to be accurately represented. Ours does not. It is not fit for purpose.

Hardly ever agree with anything you have to say but I do agree FPTP is well outdated. Under PR UKIP would have had 99 seats & even that Aussie loon would have won 37 seats.

Doubtless however you would favour another system which would still preclude UKIP from winning any seats
But hey, that's the system we're stuck with & I didn't hear any complaints when Blair had a landslide.

Long old time though isn't it, nearly 41 years since a Labour election victory.

I have always been pro-PR and I couldn't agree more that UKIP and the Greens deserved their fair share of seats.

It has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with them. What matters is that the output broadly reflects the input.

I would add a caveat to that and introduce a minimum level of support before being eligible. Maybe 5%? But that's all.

The real crime about FPTP is that it encourages tactical voting and in many places people don't bother to vote at all because their constituency is solidly either red or blue. This means that the FPTP system actually distorts even basic measures of support for all of the parties. It's scandalous, really.

The problem is that to change the system you first have to win under it at which point you'd hope to win under it again and the incentive to change it vanishes.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

The problem is that to change the system you first have to win under it at which point you'd hope to win under it again and the incentive to change it vanishes.

Good point. If only the Electoral Reform Society was a bit more official than it's name suggests.

Edit:- According to Wiki the ERS was formed in 1884 as the Proportional Representation Society...

Political parties should be banned. You're supposed to vote for somebody to represent you and your area in parliament not for some jackass career politician who is only going to do what his party wants.

Mr. President Angry wrote:

Is this thread even argyle related anymore?

Was it ever really Argyle related? After all it was started by a raving red.

Les Miserable wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

"The country" did not cast its votes in such a way that there is an over-whelming mandate for the government. The Tories actually polled fewer than 1 in 4 of the electorate. The election is considered to be a disaster for the Labour Party and yet it still got 700,000 more votes than last time.

If as few as 901 people had voted differently in 7, I think, constituencies there would not have been a Tory Majority.

Labour received more votes than the Conservatives in Wales and Scotland and in every age group bar the over-65s in England.

All of the above is factually verifiable and not mere opinion.

What we need is an electoral system that actually represents the votes people make because the one we have stinks. It shouldn't be the job of the democratic process to produce a "strong government" it should be its job to allow the views of the people to be accurately represented. Ours does not. It is not fit for purpose.

Let it lie Frank, them grapes are getting sourer by the day

One day you might need the NHS, you need a public service which has been torched for no good reason. I hope you don't but you might.

Hugh Watt wrote:

Les Miserable wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

"The country" did not cast its votes in such a way that there is an over-whelming mandate for the government. The Tories actually polled fewer than 1 in 4 of the electorate. The election is considered to be a disaster for the Labour Party and yet it still got 700,000 more votes than last time.

If as few as 901 people had voted differently in 7, I think, constituencies there would not have been a Tory Majority.

Labour received more votes than the Conservatives in Wales and Scotland and in every age group bar the over-65s in England.

All of the above is factually verifiable and not mere opinion.

What we need is an electoral system that actually represents the votes people make because the one we have stinks. It shouldn't be the job of the democratic process to produce a "strong government" it should be its job to allow the views of the people to be accurately represented. Ours does not. It is not fit for purpose.

Let it lie Frank, them grapes are getting sourer by the day

One day you might need the NHS, you need a public service which has been torched for no good reason. I hope you don't but you might.

Thank Hugh very much

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I have always been pro-PR and I couldn't agree more that UKIP and the Greens deserved their fair share of seats.

It has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with them. What matters is that the output broadly reflects the input.

I would add a caveat to that and introduce a minimum level of support before being eligible. Maybe 5%? But that's all.

The real crime about FPTP is that it encourages tactical voting and in many places people don't bother to vote at all because their constituency is solidly either red or blue. This means that the FPTP system actually distorts even basic measures of support for all of the parties. It's scandalous, really.

The problem is that to change the system you first have to win under it at which point you'd hope to win under it again and the incentive to change it vanishes.

People forget that when they vote, it is for a constituency Member - NOT for Prime Minister.

Say UKIP get 99 MPs but voters are spread across the UK - in that instance which constituencies get represented by UKIP and which by the Greens?

Obviously not the Greens.

TBH I don't understand the question.

Back in 2011 the UK electorate voted by an overwhelming majority of 2 to 1 to keep the first past the post system. It's not going to change anytime soon. I happen to believe it makes for stronger Government of whatever hue. And since you'd struggle to get a fag paper between the policies of the major parties, who are dancing on the head of a pin ideologically, then it really should be a better a system for enhancing political stability.

Germany would be seen as a stable government and they always have coalition governments running there country.....remember when they had a dominent party controlling their fate it became known as WW11.....that is why they have a system that will never allow first past the post government again.

Just for interest, here's what the UKIP's have to say about AV.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/av-referendum/8494579/Why-UKIP-supporters-should-vote-No-to-AV-today.html

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

"The country" did not cast its votes in such a way that there is an over-whelming mandate for the government. The Tories actually polled fewer than 1 in 4 of the electorate. .

OK but turnout was 66% so 1 in 4 of the electorate is a little misleading.

tigertony wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

"The country" did not cast its votes in such a way that there is an over-whelming mandate for the government. The Tories actually polled fewer than 1 in 4 of the electorate. .

OK but turnout was 66% so 1 in 4 of the electorate is a little misleading.

Elecorate (n): All the people in a country or area who are entitled to vote in an election.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/electorate

The Tories got approx. 36% of the votes cast by approx. 66% of those eligible which comes to approx. 24% of the electorate.

1 in 4 of the electorate would be 25%.

24 is fewer than 25.

Therefore there is nothing misleading in what I said at all. In fact it is uncannily factual and accurate and will withstand any level of scrutiny you care to apply.

24% of the electorate is less than 1 in 4 of the electorate. Fact.

I don't know how else to explain it.

Just read what I have said. There's no hidden depths here. No trickery. No spin. No deceit. Just plain accurate reportage of figures and careful, accurate usage of vocabulary.

You may not like it but that's not my problem. No matter how you cut it it's still true that 76% of the electorate voted against this government.

true (adj):  correct, right, accurate, exact, precise, valid, legitimate, factual, truthful, veritable, bona fide, veracious,  actual, real, natural, pure, genuine, proper, authentic, dinkum, dinky-di (Australian & New Zealand, informal), faithful, firm, fast, constant, pure, steady, reliable, upright, sincere, honourable, honest, staunch, trustworthy, trusty, dutiful, unswerving,  exact, perfect, proper, spot-on (British, informal), on target, unerring, rightful, legal, recognized, valid, legitimate, authorized, lawful, bona fide, de jure (law), sincere, real, genuine, unaffected, unfeigned, unpretended.

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/true

It really isn't difficult.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Therefore there is nothing misleading in what I said at all. In fact it is uncannily factual and accurate and will withstand any level of scrutiny you care to apply.

LOl. Nothing could be further from the truth

According to you...  The Tories got 36% of the 66% cast. Okay...  but 66% is only part of the total electorate.

There is absolutely every reason to think that if you added in the other 34% and the total electorate voted, the tories would win 36% of that total.

A full 50% more than what you are claiming.

Nice twisting of statistics SFD..

Are we working these figures out from those eligible to vote (18+) or those that have actually registered to vote and also does that include spoilt ballot papers.

Oh Jeez..

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

tigertony wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

"The country" did not cast its votes in such a way that there is an over-whelming mandate for the government. The Tories actually polled fewer than 1 in 4 of the electorate. .

OK but turnout was 66% so 1 in 4 of the electorate is a little misleading.

Elecorate (n): All the people in a country or area who are entitled to vote in an election.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/electorate

The Tories got approx. 36% of the votes cast by approx. 66% of those eligible which comes to approx. 24% of the electorate.

I'm a spinning top today.
So - if on the day 100 voted (out of an electorate of 150) and 36 of that 100 voted Tory then Tories cleaned up with 36%of total vote. You cant count the missing 50 voters because you have no idea what they may of voted. Had they all voted Tory then it would be 86 from 150 = 54%

Im orf to a darkened room - work on Wednesday and must rest.

Yes they got 36% of the votes cast which represents 24% of the electorate.

FCOL....

That is exactly what I said.

The percentage of votes cast and the size of the electorate is not the same thing.

This really isn't hard.

Have a word wi' yerself if you can't accept what I have said: fewer than 1 in 4 of the electorate voted for the government. It isn't complicated.

And it is 100% accurate.

Keep disagreeing if you like but it looks like you're doing it just for the sake of it to me. Either that or you are a bit of a twat. Like I said ages ago: I'm on absolutely rock solid ground here. I'd be agreeing with meself even if I wasn't me. Anything else is completely either unfounded or illogical.

This can also be applied to any "Sheridan out" or "mini stand" polls on various popular Argyle related websites.

More people voted for the Tories than any other party right ?  Any other "statistic" is irrelevant.

Any polls on this site should show both figures. A first in footballing websites?

---

---

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Just read what I have said. There's no hidden depths here. No trickery. No spin. No deceit. Just plain accurate reportage of figures and careful, accurate usage of vocabulary.

You may not like it but that's not my problem. No matter how you cut it it's still true that 76% of the electorate voted against this government.

It really isn't difficult.

So you're now claiming that the non voters actually voted against the Government !

Am I missing something?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Yes they got 36% of the votes cast which represents 24% of the electorate.

FCOL....

That is exactly what I said.

The percentage of votes cast and the size of the electorate is not the same thing.

This really isn't hard.

Have a word wi' yerself if you can't accept what I have said: fewer than 1 in 4 of the electorate voted for the government. It isn't complicated.

And it is 100% accurate.

Keep disagreeing if you like but it looks like you're doing it just for the sake of it to me. Either that or you are a bit of a twat. Like I said ages ago: I'm on absolutely rock solid ground here. I'd be agreeing with meself even if I wasn't me. Anything else is completely either unfounded or illogical.

Of course we're not a 100% sure that there hasn't been any vote rigging....which might come to light in the future......especially in a certain East London constituency.

Yes they did and no it isn't.

The most relevant percentage is 51% representing 331 seats out of 650. The actual number, or percentage, of votes cast doesn't even come into it.

In 1951 Labour polled almost a quarter of a million votes more than the Conservatives and their National Liberal allies combined, won the most votes that Labour had ever won (and has ever won) and won the most votes of any political party in any election in British political history to that point. Despite this, it was the Conservatives who formed the next government with a majority of 16. This was the second of three elections in the 20th century where a party lost the popular vote but won the most seats, the others being 1929 and February 1974; it also happened in 1874.

So getting the most votes actually has very little to do with forming a government.

I'm happy to argue that point to exhaustion, too.