• 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!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "[Merged]US election stuff"

Collapse

  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • GB9
    replied
    Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • pjclarke
    replied
    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/

    Leave a comment:


  • BrilloPad
    replied
    Originally posted by GB9 View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • pjclarke
    replied
    I posted something from twitter that said that Trump won the popular vote
    Why?

    Leave a comment:


  • GB9
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by GB9 View Post
    Ok. Please explain:

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

    Leave a comment:


  • GB9
    replied
    Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
    You have not presented any evidence for me to avoid.
    Please see evidence above.

    Leave a comment:


  • GB9
    replied
    Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • pjclarke
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • GB9
    replied
    Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
    Ignoring the most recent one? Thanks, I decline the offer.
    So you want to avoid the evidence that the electoral boundaries in the UK are skewed in favour of the Labour party?

    Why an I unsurprised by that?

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
    Did you not get the memo? We get our truths from Twitter now. If there was a relationship historically, it broke down in 2015.

    But if you want to go get the numbers and post the truth, uncomfortable or otherwise, feel free.
    I posted something from twitter that said that Trump won the popular vote. Unlike you and your liberal left establishment I don't post "truths".

    Leave a comment:


  • pjclarke
    replied
    Originally posted by DodgyAgent View Post
    After all you would not want any uncomfortable truths interrupting your righteous agenda
    Did you not get the memo? We get our truths from Twitter now. If there was a relationship historically, it broke down in 2015.

    But if you want to go get the numbers and post the truth, uncomfortable or otherwise, feel free.

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
    Ignoring the most recent one? Thanks, I decline the offer.
    After all you would not want any uncomfortable truths interrupting your righteous agenda

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    Originally posted by GB9 View Post
    Look back through recent elections and compare the percentages of Tory votes and seats to Labour votes and seats.
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X