Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Basically the higher the vote regardless of the party the better they generally do, since Labour won most of the recent elections then you can paint a picture of Labour being favoured.
Now it's the other way round with the Conservatives winning the elections so they're now doing proportionally better.
If your conclusion is that the current system favours Labour, that is incorrect, it simply favours the party with the most votes.
There's no expectation of a linear relationship between %vote and seats in a FPTP, multi party system. My understanding is that Labour currently have a small advantage based just on number of constituents per seat, and the Boundary Commission are addressing this.
There's no expectation of a linear relationship between %vote and seats in a FPTP, multi party system. My understanding is that Labour currently have a small advantage based just on number of constituents per seat, and the Boundary Commission are addressing this.
I don't see anything in their that constitutes actual bias, just changed voting patterns e.g. the point about amassing votes in safe seats has always been the case.
There are 2 major factors I see:
Fpp - and more significantly, Fpp on a constituency basis. However, we voted on av in 2011 and the electorate said no
Boundary size - currently being addressed
Comment