ISTM that the minor party vote has now been squeezed about as much as it can be, so any further shift that might affect the overall result will have to be between the big two.

 

Con/Lab seem to have about 80% between them, LD's 7-9%, UKIP 4-5%, SNP/PC 5%, Others 2-3%

Edited May 28, 20178 yr by vidcapper

As much as I love Corbyn, we need a better democracy than a two party system with rule by mob FPTP.

As much as I love Corbyn, we need a better democracy than a two party system with rule by mob FPTP.

 

Wow - we actually agree on something! :P

 

Here's something I posted elsewhere on a separate, but related issue - that of constituency boundary changes, and how demographic shifts tend to favour Labour.

 

************************

 

ISTM if we had PR then the whole issue of demographic shift would be irrelevant.

 

Divide the country up into 100 or so county-sized blocks, each electing 5-6 MP's under STV, and it would resolve most of the issues caused by population movement, as well as allowing far fewer 'wasted' votes.

 

Also, since there would be no 'safe' seats, politicians would not be able to ignore parts of the electorate traditionally hostile to their party, as they'd have to fight for every vote.

Wow - we actually agree on something! :P

 

Here's something I posted elsewhere on a separate, but related issue - that of constituency boundary changes, and how demographic shifts tend to favour Labour.

 

************************

 

ISTM if we had PR then the whole issue of demographic shift would be irrelevant.

 

Divide the country up into 100 or so county-sized blocks, each electing 5-6 MP's under STV, and it would resolve most of the issues caused by population movement, as well as allowing far fewer 'wasted' votes.

 

Also, since there would be no 'safe' seats, politicians would not be able to ignore parts of the electorate traditionally hostile to their party, as they'd have to fight for every vote.

That's been part of my argument for STV for many years. Actual boundary changes would be extremely rare or non-existent as the same objective could be achieved by adjusting the number of members in some of the multi-member constituencies. For a clear illustration of how a two-party system can be a very bad idea, you just need to look across the Atlantic.

 

The extent to which boundary changes favour any one party is something I would dispute. Many of the figures Tories love to quote don't take account of the fact that the turnout in sale Labour seats is generally significantly lower than in safe Tory seats. It is also not yet clear what effect (if any) individual registration will have in the long term.

The extent to which boundary changes favour any one party is something I would dispute. Many of the figures Tories love to quote don't take account of the fact that the turnout in sale Labour seats is generally significantly lower than in safe Tory seats.

 

Checking the 2015 figures, the average number of votes to win a Tory seat was 25.3k (Av.electorate in those seats 73.5k). For Labour, the comparative figures : 21.6k & 69.7k.

 

AIUI, with equal electorate sizes, the Tories would have won around 12 more MP's in 2015.

Checking the 2015 figures, the average number of votes to win a Tory seat was 25.3k (Av.electorate in those seats 73.5k). For Labour, the comparative figures : 21.6k & 69.7k.

 

AIUI, with equal electorate sizes, the Tories would have won around 12 more MP's in 2015.

But you're only measuring one thing there. Tories in safe Labour seats tend to be more likely to vote than Labour supporters in asfe Tory seats. Therefore, the Tories end up with more votes in seats they have no chance of winning. You could find even more distorted figures in previous elections caused by Labour supporters in Tory leaning seats being more prepared to vote tactically than Tory supporters in Labour-leaning seats.

 

The fact is, as you will no doubt agree, the biggest distorting factor - by far - is First Past The Post.

But you're only measuring one thing there. Tories in safe Labour seats tend to be more likely to vote than Labour supporters in asfe Tory seats. Therefore, the Tories end up with more votes in seats they have no chance of winning. You could find even more distorted figures in previous elections caused by Labour supporters in Tory leaning seats being more prepared to vote tactically than Tory supporters in Labour-leaning seats.

 

The fact is, as you will no doubt agree, the biggest distorting factor - by far - is First Past The Post.

 

Yes, there are many interconnected factors, but the big unknown is how much each contributes.

 

As you say, FPTP is the real problem.

Besides, isn't it the devious Tories who are always tryna gerrymander constituencies?

Besides, isn't it the devious Tories who are always tryna gerrymander constituencies?

 

Much as I hate the Tories, this is not something they are responsible for.

 

The Boundaries Commission is an independent non-partisan body...

 

http://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/

Besides, isn't it the devious Tories who are always tryna gerrymander constituencies?

 

 

Much as I hate the Tories, this is not something they are responsible for.

 

The Boundaries Commission is an independent non-partisan body...

 

http://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/

I was going to say the same thing. Giving politicians responsibility for redrawing boundaries is something else we should never copy from the Americans (the people whose practices gave us the word gerrymander).

 

There are two main problems with the Tory plan to reduce the number of constituencies and have boundary reviews every five years. Reducing the number of MPs will save almost no money at all. Cameron claimed that the idea was "to reduce the cost of politics" but never put a figure on this reduced cost. Neither has anyone else, probably because they don't want to admit how low the figure is. We have roughly the same number of MPs now as we had in 1945 but the population has increased massively since then.

 

The other problem is the advantage given to the incumbent in a constituency. At the moment, after an election a party that has narrowly lost in a particular constituency can normally go ahead and select a candidate for the next election safe in the knowledge that the boundaries will be the same. That applies after approximately two out of three elections. Under the Tories' proposals, the boundaries would be revised after every election. Under the current timetable, that means that boundaries are only fixed about 18 months before an election. Of course, that timetable may change following this unnecessary election.

I wonder how accurate the polls will turn out to be this time?

 

Last time they suggested a hung parliament, yet the Tories won (just)...

The trouble with the polls now is that all polling companies make a lot of adjustments to their raw figures. They used to ensure their sample was a reasonably accurate reflection of the overall population. Now, in order to reduce costs, they question a more random sample and then adjust the figures in an attempt to make it a more accurate reflection. The problem is that some or all of those adjustments may be wrong, perhaps very wrong.

I'd support STV as well - it's pretty much the only system that can deliver more proportionality without having a 'party list' element, which for me is even more anti-democratic than non-proportional systems like FPTP. I'd take AV over FPTP every day of the week as well.

 

While the Electoral Commission is independent and draws the boundaries for new constituencies, from memory the government of the day is able to define some of the rules by which they do so. One which the Tories will always maintain is that constituencies are currently drawn by the number of voters, rather than the number of people. This doesn't really make a great deal of sense given an MP is supposed to represent constituents whether they're eligible to vote or not. Labour seats tend to have more under 18's in them though, meaning that redrawing the boundaries based on population would end up creating more Labour seats. Funny that.

Similarly, constituencies with a large number of voters aged 65+, generally Tory-leaning, have a higher proportion of the population of voting age.

 

At the moment, the size of the electorate is also distorted by the introduction of individual registration. A disproportionate number of the missing voters are in the 18-25 age group, Of course, in time that may change. Labour have spent quite a lot of money advertising on social media and encouraging people to register. The Tories have spent none of their advertising budget on encouraging people to register. Funny that.

Westminster voting intention:

 

CON: 43% (-)

LAB: 37% (+3)

LDEM: 8% (-)

UKIP: 4% (-)

 

(via @Survation / 26 - 27 May)

Westminster voting intention:

 

CON: 43% (-)

LAB: 37% (+3)

LDEM: 8% (-)

UKIP: 4% (-)

 

(via @Survation / 26 - 27 May)

 

Where did that +3 come from? :unsure:

 

Same pattern though - Tory vote steady at low to mid 40's, and without eating into that, Labour aren't going to be able to win.

Latest ICM/Guardian poll, covering 26th-29th May:

 

Con: 45 (-2)

Lab: 33 (No Change)

Lib Dems: 8 (-1)

UKIP: 5 (+1)

SNP: 4 (No Change)

Greens: 3 (+1)

Plaid Cymru: 1 (+1)

Others: 1 (no Change)

 

Link

 

Conservatives have remained very steady around the mid 40s over the last few weeks. In order for Labour to win, they'll need to start swinging conservative voters to vote for them. Labour's upswing has been mainly at the expensive of Lib Dems/SNP/UKIP/Greens/Others.

Latest ICM/Guardian poll, covering 26th-29th May:

 

Con: 45 (-2)

Lab: 33 (No Change)

Lib Dems: 8 (-1)

UKIP: 5 (+1)

SNP: 4 (No Change)

Greens: 3 (+1)

Plaid Cymru: 1 (+1)

Others: 1 (no Change)

 

Link

 

Conservatives have remained very steady around the mid 40s over the last few weeks. In order for Labour to win, they'll need to start swinging conservative voters to vote for them. Labour's upswing has been mainly at the expensive of Lib Dems/SNP/UKIP/Greens/Others.

 

That's what I've been saying throughout the campaign. :mellow:

 

ISTM the other parties vote shares have pretty much been pared down to their core support. Perhaps the only one who might slip a little further is UKIP, and any further votes they lose are unlikely to benefit Labour!

Westminster voting intention:

 

CON: 42% (-1)

LAB: 39% (+3)

LDEM: 7% (-2)

UKIP: 4% (-)

 

(via @YouGov / 30 - 31 May)

 

Don't blame me blame Peter Keller lol!

 

Survation has a 12% Tory lead & ICM 6% lead!

I want to believe.

 

(this false hope is just going to make the inevitable repeat Tory majority that little bit more disappointing though)