General election results 2015

[ahinton]

But FPTP is iniquitous. Each election highlights this to a greater or lesser extent. In the past, it was the Liberals/Lib-Dems who suffered, thumped by Labour and Conservatives, while achieving second place in a large number of constituencies - lots of votes, but vey few seats.
Now UKIP and the Greens are suffering in the same way.
At the same time, the Conservatives have a majority of seats over all other parties, having polled 34% of the votes. In 1997, Labour had an absolutely huge overall majority, but still achieved a minority vote (43%). I almost felt sorry for the Conservatives, who had polled 31% but had only 161 seats.
When Harold Wilson beat Ted Heath for the first time, he did so with fewer votes than the Conservatives, but won more seats.

It's almost a joke, except that it's really rather serious.

It's very serious indeed. UKIP and the Greens are suffering in the same way, as you say, but it's far worse now, surely? One sixth of the votes between them and just one seat each out of 650?...

[ahinton]

house! ...

...of Commons?

[P. G. Tipps]

Where did I suggest any such thing? I certainy wouldn't be against the idea in principle, but you seem to forget that, although like others here I believe that FPTP's had is day and needs to be replaced with something far fairer, I am not sure which alternative system would be the best one to replace it. I would not be inclined to petition anyone AGAINST the continued use of FPTP until and unless I could be sure of whch alternative system I'd want to petition FOR!

So what now seems to be slowly emerging from your forest of words is that, though you don't at all like FPTP, you are wholly uncertain as to what system is best to replace it?.

Is it because you can't actually think of a suitable replacement or that you are so spoilt for choice you simply cannot make up your mind?

[ahinton]

So what now seems to be slowly emerging from your forest of words is that, though you don't at all like FPTP, you are wholly uncertain as to what system is best to replace it?.

No "emergence", no "forest", no "slowness". I have made it clear on a number of occasions that, whilst FPTP is becoming ever unfairer to ever more parties (it wasn't even particlarly fair to the Labour Party this time around), I do not know what would be the most suitable alternative; each of those that have so far been put forwarad have their potential or actual flaws and, since a change of electoral system would represent so fundamental a shift in the conduct of such elections, any change should not be undertaken lightly and it should be thoroughly researched from all angles in order best to try to ensure that the electorae is not as a coneuence thrown out of the frying pan into the fire. Indeed, it may be that an entirely new one would have to be designed rather than choosing an oiff-the-peg system. But, of course, if certain persons wilfully misunderstand any of this or don't read what's written, there's not a whole lot that I can do about that.

[french frank]

FPTP, for all its acknowledged unfairness (“life isn’t fair”) is the most likely to deliver something like joined-up government with a sense of mission. If, after five years, it is judged a failure, it can be dismissed.

Taking that single point from among many which - if I hadn't decided to spend little time here today - I could have replied to: "It can be dismissed" - yes, but only replaced by the the party which was dismissed as a failure five/ten/fifteen years previously.

Two points, one of which has been touched on: other countries manage, not simply with 'PR', but with politicians who are prepared to talk together, cooperate to come to a consensus - unlike in this country where even in a forum like this one can see the tribal bile spilling out.

The other point is the matter of the size of the government majority - seats (hence its ability to govern alone without referring to other parties) proportional to the number of votes received nationwide. It is certainly mathematically possible for the party that has the biggest popular vote throughout the country to end up with no seats at all. Although that extreme is unlikely in practice, the current system delivers a diluted form of that 'unfairness' (it has happened twice since the war that the party with fewer votes subsequently formed a government on the basis of having more seats): that the total number of seats is disproportionate to the support which the electorate has displayed for the different parties.

And that system is defended purely on the grounds that it gives a clear result, hence 'strong' government. It is unsatisfactory, not because it is 'unfair', but because it does not reflect the way the electorate has apportioned its votes.

A cheaper way of achieving the current state of affairs would be to toss a coin every five years - heads Conservatives, tails Labour - and forget about asking the voters what they want.

[P. G. Tipps]

No "emergence", no "forest", no "slowness". I have made it clear on a number of occasions that, whilst FPTP is becoming ever unfairer to ever more parties (it wasn't even particlarly fair to the Labour Party this time around), I do not know what would be the most suitable alternative; each of those that have so far been put forwarad have their potential or actual flaws and, since a change of electoral system would represent so fundamental a shift in the conduct of such elections, any change should not be undertaken lightly and it should be thoroughly researched from all angles in order best to try to ensure that the electorae is not as a coneuence thrown out of the frying pan into the fire. Indeed, it may be that an entirely new one would have to be designed rather than choosing an oiff-the-peg system. But, of course, if certain persons wilfully misunderstand any of this or don't read what's written, there's not a whole lot that I can do about that.

So that's really a rather long-winded way of saying that you haven't actually been persuaded that there is a better system to replace FPTP so presumably you'd now currently vote to keep it?

After all we can't have a 'no system' whilst the presumably long search for the elusive Democratic Nirvana goes on ... ?

[Bryn]

So that's really a rather long-winded way of saying that you haven't actually been persuaded that there is a better system to replace FPTP so presumably you'd now currently vote to keep it?

After all we can't have a 'no system' whilst the presumably long search for the elusive Democratic Nirvana goes on ... ?

There appears to be a stubborn intention to misread and impose erroneous views upon messages you respond to. The point ahinton was quite clearly making was that while there are a number of contenders which would more closely reflect the intended choices of the electorate, he has not as yet decided which of them is the best all round option. The Electoral Reform Society recognises the anti-democratic nature of FPtP and favours STV.

[Flosshilde]

What is an 'effective government'?

Yet another question waiting an answer from you, ScottyTipps (an answer that has any sense or meaning, that is).

[P. G. Tipps]

There appears to be a stubborn intention to misread and impose erroneous views upon messages you respond to. The point ahinton was quite clearly making was that while there are a number of contenders which would more closely reflect the intended choices of the electorate, he has not as yet decided which of them is the best all round option. The Electoral Reform Society recognises the anti-democratic nature of FPtP and favours STV.

While I quite obviously haven't 'misread' or 'sought to impose' anything. I simply asked ahinton a simple question.

You now appear to have answered on his behalf which confirms that he doesn't know (yet) a suitable system to replace FPTP.

The argument is not about better representation of the electorate as a whole.

That's the easy part.

It is all about finding a better system which still reflects the entitlement of the most popular party to govern effectively.

That's the difficult part!

A PR system which might well install a coalition of less popular 'losers' is the most 'undemocratic' of all!

[P. G. Tipps]

What you really mean, Flossie, is that you simply don't recognise an answer which you don't like!

Not that you are alone in that, by any means ...

[P. G. Tipps]

A cheaper way of achieving the current state of affairs would be to toss a coin every five years - heads Conservatives, tails Labour - and forget about asking the voters what they want.

Assuming you are not joking, such nonsensical hyperbole hardly benefits the arguments (and there are valid ones) against FPTP.

There are those who think that the most popular party elected by the voters has more entitlement to govern than any other.

You may prefer a behind-closed-doors emergence of a hotch-potch of a coalition, more representative of the total vote, which nobody actually voted for instead.

That's the real choice without any need for a coin!

[MrGongGong]

A cheaper way of achieving the current state of affairs would be to toss a coin every five years - heads Conservatives, tails Labour - and forget about asking the voters what they want.

Isn't that, more or less, what we have anyway?

No one has asked me what I really want, and I wouldn't trust myself with the economy anyway (not that Georgie is any better than the i Ching)

[vinteuil]

.
When Harold Wilson beat Ted Heath for the first time, he did so with fewer votes than the Conservatives, but won more seats.
.

.

There are those who think that the most popular party elected by the voters has more entitlement to govern than any other.

... so, Mr Tipps, which shd it have been - Wilson or Heath?

[french frank]

... so, Mr Tipps, which shd it have been - Wilson or Heath?

An interesting piece:

"But [Blair] quickly lost Labour’s long-earned support, while keeping the big majorities. No election was more important than 2001, often ignored by history. Nothing seemed to change. Labour lost just six seats, and the Tories won just one. But Blair had quietly lost 3 million voters."

[P. G. Tipps]

.... so, Mr Tipps, which shd it have been - Wilson or Heath?

Well, M. Vinteuil, as an election result is based on the number of seats won clearly Mr Wilson was the winner. Everyone knew it was seats that counted before they entered. FPTP does not always produce an outright winner as we all discovered in recent times and as I've been at pains to point out it is not perfect. However, it does have a much better chance of delivering the most popular party into government than any other system.

Nevertheless, such an anomaly is relatively rare and if my memory serves me correctly Mr Wilson did go back to the country soon afterwards and won with a whacking majority of both seats and votes. So the rare anomaly sort of righted (or lefted!) itself pretty quickly.

Next!