OV9

GG. wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:50 am That table is an argument against FPTP and in favour of PR - not one that shows that the population is unequally distributed across constituency boundaries.

You need a table of tory/labour seats and their total electorate size to disprove the fact that the way boundaries are drawn gives Labour a greater number of seats for a given size of electorate on a per constituency basis.

Go on then. I’ll wait.

Formatting the results of FPTP as PR is a bit pointless though.

Like running a 400m running race and then declaring the winner as the one who took the most strides.

I wonder if you count up the number of "wasted votes" ie ones for 3rd downwards just how many people effectively feel disenfranchised. I would imagine this time round the figure may be skewed by tactical voting although not sure which way it leans as many rabid Brexiters seem to have switched to blue fr that very reason.

The Scottish parliament probably gives a better indication of what Scots want than the FPTP system than undoubtedly served the SNP well.

Rich B wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 12:10 pm Formatting the results of FPTP as PR is a bit pointless though.

Like running a 400m running race and then declaring the winner as the one who took the most strides.

It’s more a point of interest really. I mean, I hate Farage and his fuck knuckle mates, but is it right that they get 2% of the vote but zero representation?

NotoriousREV wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 12:17 pm It’s more a point of interest really. I mean, I hate Farage and his fuck knuckle mates, but is it right that they get 2% of the vote but zero representation?

Farage was on telly last night saying he spoilt his ballot paper. He didn’t even stand for election. So yes, yes it is right.

Jobbo wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 12:24 pm

NotoriousREV wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 12:17 pm It’s more a point of interest really. I mean, I hate Farage and his fuck knuckle mates, but is it right that they get 2% of the vote but zero representation?

Farage was on telly last night saying he spoilt his ballot paper. He didn’t even stand for election. So yes, yes it is right.

Good point, well made

GG. wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:50 am That table is an argument against FPTP and in favour of PR - not one that shows that the population is unequally distributed across constituency boundaries.

You need a table of tory/labour seats and their total electorate size to disprove the fact that the way boundaries are drawn gives Labour a greater number of seats for a given size of electorate on a per constituency basis.

Just to rewind a little, GG is right here. All that table has done is take TOTAL votes per party (which includes those where the seats weren't won) and divided by the number of seats won per party.

The most interesting would be to show the total number of votes per party (only in those seats that they won) and divide by the number of seats won per party.

I wonder if the raw data is freely available anywhere...

Simon wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 12:48 pm

GG. wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:50 am That table is an argument against FPTP and in favour of PR - not one that shows that the population is unequally distributed across constituency boundaries.

You need a table of tory/labour seats and their total electorate size to disprove the fact that the way boundaries are drawn gives Labour a greater number of seats for a given size of electorate on a per constituency basis.

Just to rewind a little, GG is right here. All that table has done is take TOTAL votes per party (which includes those where the seats weren't won) and divided by the number of seats won per party.

The most interesting would be to show the total number of votes per party (only in those seats that they won) and divide by the number of seats won per party.

I wonder if the raw data is freely available anywhere...

Until then:

Knock yourself out, it's probably in here somewhere

Fvcked if I'm looking for it though

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 1:22 pm Knock yourself out, it's probably in here somewhere

Fvcked if I'm looking for it though

Me either. It’s up to GG to prove it.

Doesn’t it seem odd that if the Conservatives were so badly disadvantaged, they didn’t push these changes through at some point in the last 15 months?

I'm not proving anything

You were trying to establish that what the boundary commission said was wrong - you can find the evidence to back it up.

This flipping of the onus of disproving your arguments is very tedious.

And they didn't push it through because it has been made more difficult with the fact that it will result in some tory MPs losing jobs as a result of the downsizing - they need a significant majority to enact this reform and they didn't have it.

I can find only a Daily Express headline asserting a 15 seat advantage for Labour; you don’t read the Express do you?

The Economist published a much more balanced article which concluded the current boundaries mildly favours the Tories. Sadly it’s behind a paywall.

Jobbo wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 2:24 pm I can find only a Daily Express headline asserting a 15 seat advantage for Labour; you don’t read the Express do you?

The Economist published a much more balanced article which concluded the current boundaries mildly favours the Tories. Sadly it’s behind a paywall.

GG already posted a link:

GG. wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:21 am They don't do it arbitrarily. It's based on an report by the independent Boundary Commission.

On an independently reviewed basis, the current system favours labour by around 10-15 seats all things being equal.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bo ... 38971.html

@Simon - no I don't think I read it there . This article from the LSE is also a helpful summary https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpoli ... -in-limbo/ it talks in general terms of it being seen to be a disadvantage to the conservatives but no specific figures of seats (though they do say it would likely have turned May's government into a majority one).

The below paragraph highlights that a number of the smaller constituencies are in Wales and Scotland. That in itself tells you that it would disadvantage the tories given their smaller representation in those areas. Not sure whether that accounts for all of the differential or whether they would gain in England too.

The government wants constituency boundaries to be reviewed and if necessary revised every five years, in order to ensure equality of electorates and thus a fairer electoral system than we currently have. The current constituencies were first used at the 2010 general election in most of the UK (in 2005 in Scotland) and were drawn up using electoral data from the early 2000s. They are now very unequal in their electorates. The latest data show that in England in December 2018 the mean electorate across its 533 constituencies was 71,991, but 24 had fewer than 60,000 registered; against that 67 had more than 80,000 registered electors and five had 90,000 or more. The forty seats in Wales averaged 55,753 registered electors only, include eight with electorates below 50,000; Scotland’s 59 seats averaged 66,539 electors, including nine with less than 60,000 and just three with more than 80,000; only in Northern Ireland was there relatively little variation around the average of 69,357.

GG. wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 2:03 pm This flipping of the onus of disproving your arguments is very tedious.

Flipping the onus? You made the claim, it’s up to you to prove it How’s that “flipping the onus”?

I think GG has a point. If the _independant_ boundary commission have already found that it's not balanced at the moment and have made recommendations to change it, then that's good enough for me to believe that it needs actioning.

As to why it wasn't done before, don't forget 50 MPs would lose their jobs so they're hardly going to vote for that with a slim government majority were they?

Also has the not insignificant benefit of saving the country £3.8m per annum plus expenses and pensions for fifty fewer windbags. Seems like a good deal to me!

Simon wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 3:31 pm I think GG has a point. If the _independant_ boundary commission have already found that it's not balanced at the moment and have made recommendations to change it, then that's good enough for me to believe that it needs actioning.

As to why it wasn't done before, don't forget 50 MPs would lose their jobs so they're hardly going to vote for that with a slim government majority were they?

I’m not arguing that the number of constituents per constituency needs rebalancing, and that isn’t the claim that GG is making. GG is claiming that the current constituencies are “rigged in favour of Labour by 10-15 seats“. The independent boundary commission makes no such claim. The links he’s provided make no such claim.

What the analysis of the changes shows is that, if you reduce the number of constituencies from 650 to 600, Labour lose more seats than the Conservatives.

The reason for that is because the smaller constituencies tend to be in Wales which, until yesterday, favoured Labour. But they didn’t favour Labour because they were small constituencies. The size of the constituency doesn’t influence which party wins.

That doesn’t tell you anything about the current “fairness” toward any party, and neither link makes any claim about that one way or another.

The proposed changes would favour the Conservatives by 20 seats, but that does not necessarily equate to them currently being disadvantaged.

I was in work today and 3 people congratulated me on not letting Corbyn in. I didn’t tell them I have direct control over the government but it’s nice to know they think I do it as a side job.

They saw him as a “Commie” so I’m guessing that’s where it stems from as normally no-one asks me about anything to do with politics.

Dave!