[Merged]US election stuff

[DodgyAgent]

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.

But there are other forms of bias

https://constitution-unit.com/2015/0...conservatives/

Why are you obsessed with something that is so irrelevant? Your lot are being stood up to and all you can do is to try and deny it.

[GB9]

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.

But there are other forms of bias

https://constitution-unit.com/2015/0...conservatives/

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

[pjclarke]

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.

But there are other forms of bias

https://constitution-unit.com/2015/0...conservatives/

[BrilloPad]

Ok. Please explain:

2015 Tory 37.7% 330 seats
2010 Tory 36.0% 306 seats
2005 Labr 35.2% 355 seats

Its what the illuminati wanted

[pjclarke]

I posted something from twitter that said that Trump won the popular vote

Why?

[GB9]

Scotland?

Mainly London I think. Smaller Labour voting constituencies. Fewer votes, more seats.

It was a comparison with the US electoral college. The reworking of the boundaries will resolve this. (And probably cause a different issue).

[vetran]

Ok. Please explain:

2015 Tory 37.7% 330 seats
2010 Tory 36.0% 306 seats
2005 Labr 35.2% 355 seats

Scotland?

[GB9]

You have not presented any evidence for me to avoid.

Please see evidence above.

[GB9]

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.

Ok. Please explain:

2015 Tory 37.7% 330 seats
2010 Tory 36.0% 306 seats
2005 Labr 35.2% 355 seats

[pjclarke]

So you want to avoid the evidence that the electoral boundaries in the UK are skewed in favour of the Labour party

You have not presented any evidence for me to avoid.