And the fact is 2k votes total across select constituencies would have won it.

 

But they *didn't* - end of story!

I think Michael is merely describing a minor psychological effect, that of perceived winner’s advantage, that possibly caused enough floating votes, a small but not insignificant number, to vote for the candidate they perceived as more electable. Which is an outcome that doesn’t seem entirely fair but it happens. In combination with the right media bias, this results in a conservative government more often than it should given how generally equal the splits otherwise are. This is worse because our system is a harmful winner takes all construct.

 

Such is the advantage to the leading party unless it is completely neck and neck.

I think Michael is merely describing a minor psychological effect, that of perceived winner’s advantage, that possibly caused enough floating votes, a small but not insignificant number, to vote for the candidate they perceived as more electable. Which is an outcome that doesn’t seem entirely fair but it happens. In combination with the right media bias, this results in a conservative government more often than it should given how generally equal the splits otherwise are. This is worse because our system is a harmful winner takes all construct.

 

Such is the advantage to the leading party unless it is completely neck and neck.

 

Possibly, but that is counterbalanced somewhat by the benefit Labour gain through their constituencies being smaller than average in size - and the longer we go between boundary changes, the more of an advantage it becomes.

 

Of course, whenever there *is* a boundary review, Labour kick & scream like toddlers having a tantrum about 'Tory bias'... :rolleyes:

 

Possibly, but that is counterbalanced somewhat by the benefit Labour gain through their constituencies being smaller than average in size - and the longer we go between boundary changes, the more of an advantage it becomes.

 

Of course, whenever there *is* a boundary review, Labour kick & scream like toddlers having a tantrum about 'Tory bias'... :rolleyes:

 

God's sake. Tories are GERRYMANDERING. They eant to change constituencies to how they have never been before because guess what? TORIES BENEFIT and it would create an eternal Tory state. That is why. Would their votes change? NO! They cheat to win.

 

And Iz is 100% correct. Ans aeeing as Corbyn was 2k shy of an overall majority vs bandwagon effect, media bias, constant attacks, well! His policies must be popular.

 

God's sake. Tories are GERRYMANDERING. They eant to change constituencies to how they have never been before because guess what? TORIES BENEFIT and it would create an eternal Tory state. That is why. Would their votes change? NO! They cheat to win.

 

Do you not realize that the Boundaries Commission is an *Independent* body, whose mandate is to equalise the size of constituencies as much as possible?

 

https://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/

 

There are less paranoid people than you confined in Broadmoor... :w00t:

You do realise that thr TORIES suggest HOW the changes are made and the commission responds to that, right? The Tories have decided to change how constituencies are based. You realise that, yes? You realise it is not fair. Like, at all, yes, to guarantee a one party state with no change in vote volume? Idiot.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardia...power-permanent

 

Cheer and clap for your right wing aristocrat masters. They're never wrong and never corrupt! :cheer:

 

Also the boundary commission's role is to follow the electoral rules to make it as fair as possible. That's it.

Possibly, but that is counterbalanced somewhat by the benefit Labour gain through their constituencies being smaller than average in size - and the longer we go between boundary changes, the more of an advantage it becomes.

 

Of course, whenever there *is* a boundary review, Labour kick & scream like toddlers having a tantrum about 'Tory bias'... :rolleyes:

Not that rubbish again. If you apply a uniform swing from Tory to Labour to give the two the same share of the vote and leave the other parties unchanged, the Tories win more seats than Labour. Any perceived bias in the past was down to a combination of various factors including lower turnout in safe Labour seats and Labour targeting seats more effectively than the Tories.

 

Incidentally, under the proposed new boundaries, the gap in seats under the above scenario is even greater despite there being 50 fewer seats.

Not that rubbish again. If you apply a uniform swing from Tory to Labour to give the two the same share of the vote and leave the other parties unchanged, the Tories win more seats than Labour. Any perceived bias in the past was down to a combination of various factors including lower turnout in safe Labour seats and Labour targeting seats more effectively than the Tories.

 

Incidentally, under the proposed new boundaries, the gap in seats under the above scenario is even greater despite there being 50 fewer seats.

 

So what solution do you propose? We certainly can't leave the unequal electorate situation for ever. Bearing in mind that PR is alas not gonna happen in the foreseeable...

 

 

PR or leave as is. The end. The Tories are trying to make a one party state and you are just guffawing like the village idiot and nodding as they do it.

PR or leave as is. The end. The Tories are trying to make a one party state and you are just guffawing like the village idiot and nodding as they do it.

 

The only thing I am guffawing at is the repetition of your tired old claims about the Tories!

So what solution do you propose? We certainly can't leave the unequal electorate situation for ever. Bearing in mind that PR is alas not gonna happen in the foreseeable...

You know as well as I do that the problems are an inherent part of FPTP.

You know as well as I do that the problems are an inherent part of FPTP.

 

But a succession of gov'ts without overall majorities thro FPTP will undermine the case against PR, or so we can hope...

Westminster voting intention...

 

if "the deadline for the UK to leave the EU has been extended beyond the 31st of October 2019":

 

LAB: 27%

CON: 26%

BREX: 20%

LDEM: 18%

GRN: 4%

 

via @ComRes, 16 - 17 Oct

 

 

OOOOOOOOFFFFFFFTTT.

EVIL TORIES OUT!

Westminster voting intention...

 

if "the deadline for the UK to leave the EU has been extended beyond the 31st of October 2019":

 

LAB: 27%

CON: 26%

BREX: 20%

LDEM: 18%

GRN: 4%

 

via @ComRes, 16 - 17 Oct

OOOOOOOOFFFFFFFTTT.

 

 

Another well hung parliament then.

Many Labour MP's and the SNP saying they won't back an election as they suspect some kind of clever trap by Boris to then somehow refuse the extension and crash us out with no deal still on 31st.

Many Labour MP's and the SNP saying they won't back an election as they suspect some kind of clever trap by Boris to then somehow refuse the extension and crash us out with no deal still on 31st.

This is what happens when a serial liar becomes PM. He simply cannot be trusted.

Not surprised by that given what's happened the last few weeks and with public opinion shifting against Boris. Now the important thing is how does it translate into seats? I expect the Brexit Party won't get too many seats, but come 2nd/3rd in a lot of constituencies. That would lead the way for a potential Labour/Lib Dem/SNP/Green colatition of sorts. I find it hard to believe the Conservatives will be in power in some form again after another GE. Another May-like scenario but worse.

But we are living in a one party media state, which does buoy the evil party. Brainwashing is a thing.

This is what happens when a serial liar becomes PM. He simply cannot be trusted.

 

And that's different from *every other* PM, how? :w00t:

 

I find it hard to believe the Conservatives will be in power in some form again after another GE. Another May-like scenario but worse.

 

Hard to believe, despite the polls?

 

But we are living in a one party media state, which does buoy the evil party. Brainwashing is a thing.

 

Ever wonder *how* you became so convinced there's a 'secret Tory plot to create a one party state' in the first place? :teresa:

 

The irony is - you accuse me of being brainwashed by the Daily Mail, yet are oblivious to to your own 100% reliance of leftist sources to form your own opinions...