General election results 2015

[P. G. Tipps]

That site's yet to come back on track as it's being revamped, as I said. Yes, indeed, a petition could indeed thereafter be mounted there about that very issue, not least because the results of the most recent General Election seems to have illustrated better han any other the flaws, unfairnesses and injustices of FPTP, especially given the number of parties now involved - but that would have to wait until the system's back up and running again and for someone then to lunch such a petition.

In the meantime, however, would you please do us all the courtesy of answering (as you have so far signally omtted to do) whether or not you believe, as I suggested, that
(a) the LibDems "lost" the election (in the light of figures that I provided) rather more than the Tories "won" it and
(b) the fact that some one-sixth of all votes polled in that election (i.e. those for the Greens and UKIP) resulted in just two standing MPs
is part of an "acceptable" result for the voting public in terms of the resultant "democratic" nature of the election outcome?

Thanks in advance.

Ahinton, I confess I'm now at something of a loss as how to make what I've already said numerous times any clearer for you. However, I'll give it one last desperate try.

You may agree or disagree (most obviously the latter!) with what I've already posted though that in itself is rather odd as, basically, I've just been outlining the UK electoral system!

To explain further, this system does not make allowances for tactical voting, the reasons people vote the way they did, the number of people who didn't vote, etc etc. Under the UK system all that is wholly irrelevant. There is a simple 'for' vote. There is no such thing as an 'against' vote. Those who didn't vote because they say they didn't like any of the candidates, or because they couldn't find the polling booth after a day in the local pub, or are not interested in politics or whatever, simply don't count. That is not my opinion. It is simple fact.

Now, we can all agree or disagree as to what is the 'fairest' electoral system in a democracy. French Frank is correct in saying that a form of proportional system is undoubtedly the most truly representative of voters as a whole. I have absolutely no problem with that. That is also simple fact and not really open to any serious debate.

However, others, like myself, believe separate factors come into play when electing a government and FPTP, whilst clearly being unkind to minority parties, has the clear advantage of having a much better chance of delivering effective single government without the need for inter-party compromises for which nobody actually voted. Are such unelected coalitions very 'fair' and 'democratic'? I recollect only too well that at least one member here who now expresses unhappiness at FPTP also expressed similar unhappiness at the Coalition being 'unelected' last time!! One does strongly sense that, with some members, the real gripe is with the party that won, and any system that keeps it out would be the preferred option! Right now, until there is any change, we have FPTP, whether you, I, or anyone else, likes it or not.

So, my point all along has been to take issue with those who claim the election result was, in some obscure way, 'unfair' and 'undemocratic'. It was not. Everyone (presumably) knew the system before they entered party candidates or stood as individuals. Everyone who entered was under the same rules. It was a completely free vote for the electorate. The result was perfectly straightforward, above board, and the result crystal-clear. No one, afaik, has disputed the actual voting figures. The Tories won an overall majority of seats (however 'tiny') and are therefore entitled to form a government. It doesn't matter a scrap in that regard whether the result, in football terms, was 1-0 or 4-0 ... a win's a win and the winner takes all! That indeed may be for 'simpletons' but why make things unnecessarily complicated and tie everyone in knots including yourself with total irrelevancies, at least as far as the actual voting system is concerned?

So, there you have it. Though no one here is obliged to respond to anything, I have once again given you 'the courtesy' of a response, and I honestly cannot respond to you in any other way than actually and clearly responding!

Nota Bene!

[Flosshilde]

In the meantime, however, would you please do us all the courtesy of answering

You'll be lucky!

[french frank]

To explain further, this system does not make allowances for tactical voting, the reasons people vote the way they did, the number of people who didn't vote, etc etc. Under the UK system all that is wholly irrelevant.

I don't quite understand that point. It doesn't prevent people voting tactically: it's just impossible to say which voters have, how many or whether they have done so in opposing ways.

A so-called 'tactical vote' is a vote against a party perceived to be likely to win and for another party which has a chance of winning, neither being the preferred party, which is perceived as having little chance in their constituency (it may be neck and neck nationally). It is, effectively, a 'second preference'. It is what voters do, in practice, to mitigate the results of the FPTP system.

It is the FACT that this is, in the eyes of the FPTP supporters, 'irrelevant' that is at the root of the problem. Surely?

[MrGongGong]

To explain further, this system does not make allowances for tactical voting, the reasons people vote the way they did, the number of people who didn't vote, etc etc. Under the UK system all that is wholly irrelevant. There is a simple 'for' vote. There is no such thing as an 'against' vote. Those who didn't vote because they say they didn't like any of the candidates, or because they couldn't find the polling booth after a day in the local pub, or are not interested in politics or whatever, simply don't count. That is not my opinion. It is simple fact.

I disagree with your opinion (it's a good idea not to confuse opinions with facts IMV)

Say there were 4 parties

1: the "Sit in a bath of ice cubes listening to Einaudi because it's character building" party
2: the "Cup of tea and a scone" party
3: the "Long romantic walk on the beach at sunset" 'party
4: the "Visit Paris in the spring with a partner of your choice" party

100 people vote (leaving out those who don't for now)

40 vote for "Sit in a bath of ice cubes listening to Einaudi because it's character building"
20 vote for "Cup of tea and a scone"
25 for "Long romantic walk on the beach at sunset"
15 for "Visit Paris in the spring with a partner of your choice"

By your logic no one voted against the bath and music experience so we should ALL do that.

It's likely (in this scenario) that most people wanted something other than the bath BUT you don't think that matters because it's a "race"

It's not the best way of deciding IMV nor is it the best way of working out WHO should decide.

Of course, some people will probably have voted for the ice bath because they work for an ice factory

[burning dog]

the "Sit in a bath of ice cubes listening to Einaudi because it's character building" party

I'd even consider voting UKIP to stop them winning

[MrGongGong]

I'd even consider voting UKIP to stop them winning

In PG world that would make you a kipper kid and a 'supporter' :YIKES:

[ahinton]

Ahinton, I confess I'm now at something of a loss as how to make what I've already said numerous times any clearer for you. However, I'll give it one last desperate try.

No need for confession; I simly asked you to answer some question, Flossie wrote that I'd "be lucky" to receive answers and answers indeed came there none.

I think that you're making too much of this "for" and "against" business anyway but, insofar as it is an issue at all, whilst I would broadly agree with you that abstentions are neither "for" nor "against" gestures because they aren't "votes" at all, tactical votes do fall into the "against" area; how often have you heard people, especially in seats considered to be marginal, say that they've voted for candidate X in order to try to keep out candidate Y?

We - that's to say you, FF, me and many others - are at least in agreement that FPTP is not the fairest system. I would, however, questions your argument that its principal problem is that it's "unfair to minority parties". In terms of votes, UKIP is the third party; in terms of seats, it hardly exists. That's certainly unfair to UKIP but, having polled more than 10% of all votes cast - and around one-third of those for the "winning" Conservative party, UKIP is hardly a "minority party", is it? And to the extent that you might think it to be so, the LibDems - the party that was until just over a fortnight ago a coalition partner - is now even more of one.

I also agree with your suggestion that no one votes for a coalition.

I do not believe - and have not suggested - that the election result itself is undemocratic; the Conservatives did, after all, poll the most votes (well, in England, anyway) and have the most seats (although, as I also pointed out, Labour increased its vote total more than did the Conservatives and the almost 100 seat difference beteen the Parliamentary representation of those two parties is a very poor reflection of that); it's the system that's undemocratic, not lest in its dependence upon boundaries and the bounders who draw them to suit themselves. Are boundaries democratic?

So - less disagreement that you appear to have assumed and widespread agreement that democracy in UK is poorly represented by a voting system that fails dismally to reflect the wishes of the voters; indeed, this particular election seems to have demonstrated the shortcomings and unfairnesses of FPTP better than any in living memory.

Your point about there being no diffeence in effect between a 1-0 and a 4-0 win in football is nonsense in Parliamentary terms; it's true in football, of course but, in HoC, the thinner the majority of the "winner", the harder it becomes to effect strong government. As I said, it might be thought truer to say that the LibDems lost the election than that the Conservatives won it (for the reasons that I outlined above which I note you ignore) but, of course, only time will tell how hard a time call me Dave and Co. will have in the coming months and years.

[P. G. Tipps]

I don't quite understand that point. It doesn't prevent people voting tactically: it's just impossible to say which voters have, how many or whether they have done so in opposing ways.

A so-called 'tactical vote' is a vote against a party perceived to be likely to win and for another party which has a chance of winning, neither being the preferred party, which is perceived as having little chance in their constituency (it may be neck and neck nationally). It is, effectively, a 'second preference'. It is what voters do, in practice, to mitigate the results of the FPTP system.

It is the FACT that this is, in the eyes of the FPTP supporters, 'irrelevant' that is at the root of the problem. Surely?

Thanks for the sole intelligent response so far. You at least can recognise a response when you see one and when it is written in plain English!

The REASON why people vote IS irrelevant. The only thing that counts in the system is a vote 'for'. There is no 'maybe' or 'against' facility. You may (and do) deplore the fact that FPTP is not wholly representative of all votes cast and I've already acknowledged that point is completely valid. I think even 'simpletons' might understand that! However, we do not have a proportional system, as you are well aware, so there is no point in anyone moaning that it is 'unfair' when, under FPTP, it was fair to all parties! I do wonder if there would have been the same hullabaloo in some quarters if Labour had romped home with a thumping majority under the same system? I'm not insinuating you, yourself, exist in those quarters as it is well-known which party you promote!

On this occasion I'll willingly decline to give a response to my own question as it clearly would be a completely useless exercise as far as some here are concerned? Maybe this forum could be sponsored by Specsavers ... ?

[MrGongGong]

The REASON why people vote IS irrelevant. The only thing that counts in the system is a vote 'for'.

I do think you are (wilfully?) missing the point.
The reason why people vote isn't irrelevant at all.
Many of us resent having our motivations misrepresented (not necessarily by you)

I'm beginning to think that Russel Brand (and i'm NOT an enthusiast by any stretch of the imagination) was right BEFORE he decided that voting Labour was a good idea.
Mass non participation might be the only option (but given the sense of entitlement that politicians have I doubt that would have any effect at all)

so it's a lose lose situation i'm afraid

[Dave2002]

You'll be lucky!

I might be grateful if he didn't!

[Richard Barrett]

(wilfully?) missing the point

Heaven forfend!

[David-G]

I disagree with your opinion (it's a good idea not to confuse opinions with facts IMV)

Say there were 4 parties

1: the "Sit in a bath of ice cubes listening to Einaudi because it's character building" party
2: the "Cup of tea and a scone" party
3: the "Long romantic walk on the beach at sunset" 'party
4: the "Visit Paris in the spring with a partner of your choice" party

100 people vote (leaving out those who don't for now)

40 vote for "Sit in a bath of ice cubes listening to Einaudi because it's character building"
20 vote for "Cup of tea and a scone"
25 for "Long romantic walk on the beach at sunset"
15 for "Visit Paris in the spring with a partner of your choice"

By your logic no one voted against the bath and music experience so we should ALL do that.

It's likely (in this scenario) that most people wanted something other than the bath BUT you don't think that matters because it's a "race"

It's not the best way of deciding IMV nor is it the best way of working out WHO should decide.

Of course, some people will probably have voted for the ice bath because they work for an ice factory

So, who should form the Government in this scenario? Perhaps a coalition of the tea-drinkers, the walkers and the Parisophiles? But how is this fair to the 85% (bathers, tea-drinkers and walkers) who can't stand Paris? Or to the 80% who only drink coffee?

[MrGongGong]

So, who should form the Government in this scenario? Perhaps a coalition of the tea-drinkers, the walkers and the Parisophiles? But how is this fair to the 85% (bathers, tea-drinkers and walkers) who can't stand Paris? Or to the 80% who only drink coffee?

One has to decide what the function of government is.
So if (as we have now) we think that the 'winner' has complete liberty to do as they wish without any humility then we really are stuffed.

[Demetrius]

So, who should form the Government in this scenario? Perhaps a coalition of the tea-drinkers, the walkers and the Parisophiles? But how is this fair to the 85% (bathers, tea-drinkers and walkers) who can't stand Paris? Or to the 80% who only drink coffee?

Possibly. They would have to broker a compromise acceptable for all parties involved. Maybe drinking your beverage of choice in a Parisian café with a subsequent walk along the Seine to work off the calories of your preferred piece of baker's ware.

Or maybe the bathers could include a long walk on the beach in their character building exercise, with the choice of doing it stark naked during winter.

Either way, a majority of MPs would at least theoretically be able to govern in the interest of their constituency, which also represents the majority, and through internal means of party democracy might even participate in developing the compromise. (The members of a party can be asked to vote for/against a coalition agreement).


A different matter: the votes for the Liberal Democrats are counted as against the Conservatives. Can't imagine everyone who voted for them to be completely against conservatives.

[MrGongGong]

Here's an example (from todays Independent) of how politicians assume support

He told other European leaders he had a fresh mandate following his general election victory to win back powers from Brussels to London as he fired the opening shots of what is bound to be a long and tortuous process.

He doesn't have a "mandate" at all. He might be PM but saying he has a "mandate" implies that he has been granted power by the electorate.
He hasn't.
More people voted NOT to give this power.
I'm assuming this "mandate" also includes the people of Scotland as part of the UK?

Which is not to say that we don't need a pragmatic approach to running things
but the arrogance is outrageous.

And these are the people who found "block voting" unacceptable