[Closed] i'm not thick or owt but.....

if this turned out to be the case and i was a lib dem i'd be **** furious that being much less popular gave labour more than twice as many seats..

It's hardly Labour's fault that the LibDems have their support spread out thinly throughout the country.

If the LibDems had their supporters in higher concentration than Labour or the Tories, then the reverse could be true - ie the LibDems could end up with more seats than other parties despite having less votes.

It's the way the cookie crumbles........but it crumbles the same way for everyone.

can someone explain the huge discrepancies in % of the vote and number of seats

cos it's about seats not the votes over the country.

Constituency boundaries. You can have two constituencies (let's say A and B) with 1000 people in each, and a total of 1499 Tory voters and 501 Labour voters. If there are 1000 Tory voters in A, then A will return a Tory MP. B will still have an overall Labour majority, and return a Labour MP.

So with a rough 75:25 split, you can get a 50:50 split in terms of MPs elected.

In odder situations, you can have constituencies C, D, E and F, where C consists of 1000 votors, D, E and F all consist of 500 voters each, but each constituency still gets an MP...

If you look back at the 2005 election, the split between parties wasn't that big in terms of overall votes cast - I think it was 36% to the Tories and 37 or 38% to Labour, but a massive difference in seats.

There have been arguments in the past for the redrawing of constituency boundaries as Labour tend to do well for the number of votes actually cast for them.

However, there is an element of this kind of exaggerated result built into the first past the post system, which can be useful in terms of avoiding hung parliaments...

Not sure if I understand it correctly, but it doesn't seem particularly democratic.

+1 for Tron's explanation. The argument for electoral reform should be about proportional representation though, not about redrawing boundaries to bias another political party.

can someone explain the huge discrepancies in % of the vote and number of seats?

It's because we have an archaic and clearly unfair sytem of election.

The alternative of course is that iDave is not thick but that Guardian journalists are biased in their interpretation, something they have proved regularly over the years.

Edukator, is that the worst troll I've ever seen? 😆

[i]Not sure if I understand it correctly, but it doesn't seem particularly democratic. [/i]

Keeerrrching...

It ain't. There is a small chance that Labour could get the smallest percentage of the popular vote, but still have a majority of MPs

The Economist had an interesting point a couple of weeks ago, expanding on Tron's explanation - apparently Labour get roughly 1 seat per c30,000 votes; for the Tories it's about 1 for every 45,000 votes, and for the Lib Dems it's closer to 1 every 95000 votes, due to the way they're spread about.,

What's the percentage for all parties, and what would it be if we had proportional representation ?
I suspect a lot more people would vote for the minority parties if they didn't see it as a wasted vote.
The current system keeps government alternating between the two main parties and helps maintain the illusion of democracy.

It's the way the cookie crumbles........but it crumbles the same way for everyone.

Except that it doesn't.

The system is ridiculous and REAL change is needed not that false bollox that Dave is pretending to offer.

The current system keeps government alternating between the two main parties and helps maintain the illusion of democracy.

Yup.

What tron said.

To take it to it's logical conclusion, assume 630 seats and population of 60m evenly spread across all constituancies and that everybody votes.
A party could win 100% of seats with 30,000,630 votes to 29,999,370 if they won each seat by the minimum necessary amount.
Actually, it's theoretically possible that they could win 100% of the seats on an exact 50:50 split of the vote, a dead heat in each constituancy. If there is a dead heat the procedure is to have a recount (or two or three recounts until everyone is satisified it is really a dead heat) If it is still a tie the returning officer is to conduct a toss of a coin!

By the way, PR is a really bad idea.
The advantage is that it does give party a 'fair' share of the seats, but the down side is that the parties will choose who your MP is to be, you will vote for a party and not for a person. I'm not saying FPTP is perfect, it's just less bad.

nicko74, I'd be very interested to know what those percentages were [i]before[/i] the current shamLabour government came to power. I believe there have been quite a few changes to voting areas etc since then. I wonder why.

CFH - you know that your beloved Tories did exactly the same thing when they were in power don't you?

been quite a few changes to voting areas etc since then. I wonder why.

If it is still a tie the returning officer is to conduct a toss of a coin!

So it's theoretically possible to have a general election result evenly split and decided by the toss of a coin ? .......now I'm getting excited about May the 6th 8)

Which returning officer would be the tosser by the way ?

andrewh - I disagree... say you live in an area, lets pick West Ox as an example, a true Tory strong hold, callmedave will, without question, be claiming his seat here.... what's the point in a West Ox constituent voting under FPTP regardless of their political persuasion, but especially if they're not Tory??

what's the point in a West Ox constituent voting under FPTP regardless of their political persuasion, but especially if they're not Tory??

PS. I'm not saying the coin tossing is likely, just possible.

I think in most PR countries you need to get 5% of the vote to get your first seat - it keeps the inevitable jedi party style counter culture demonstration votes from getting a seat (and of course the BNP).

Current system is still a chronic problem though, I just don't think its reasonable to say "that's the way the cookie crumbles" as above as an reasoned explanation.

Whilst I can't see our current crop of adversarial MPs making an awful lot happen in a hung parliament scenario, maybe over time a new breed of mps that, heaven forbid, actually listen to each other might be able to make it work better than the current ya bo polarised system we have now.

If everyone thought like that, none at all.
If everyone bothered to vote, who knows.

+1

the down side is that the parties will choose who your MP is to be, you will vote for a party and not for a person

I'm not saying FPTP is perfect, it's just less bad.

[i]you will vote for a party and not for a person[/i]

have you seen the candidates standing in South Northants? If they're any way representative of the standard of people hoping to become MPs then not voting for a person is not an issue

Whilst I can't see our current crop of adversarial MPs making an awful lot happen in a hung parliament scenario, maybe over time a new breed of mps that, heaven forbid, actually listen to each other might be able to make it work better than the current ya bo polarised system we have now.

As an aside, and partly in response to aracer and nickc, how does PR affect independant candidates? I can see how they can be elected under FPTP.
Serious question, not just being arguementative.

Is it that obvious Southern yeti? 😥

What's needed is a properly democratic electoral system like [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_2007 ]this.[/url]

If I hadn't voted the man on the left would have only had 18,983,137 votes. My favourite candidate was knocked out in the first round but I was still able to choose the lesser of two evils. Nice to know one's vote counts and is counted.

Trust me I will be voting, but it would seem that under FPTP voting in party strongholds is a formality.

In a democracy your vote counts.
In feudalism your count votes.

Good thread.

Does it really matter that much exactly who your MP is?

Of course it does, they are the ones that have to represent their constituency and the particular needs, worries, demands that are relevant to the constituents that reside there.

Good point, andrewh - that is a definitive disadvantage of PR. Though I'm guessing that whatever system we do get if they change things will be a mixed one, still involving (larger) constituencies in which independents can be elected.

Of course it does, they are the ones that have to represent their constituency and the particular needs, worries, demands that are relevant to the constituents that reside there.

How many independant MP's have been elected in the last 50 or so years and what real impact have they had? Meaning is it really something to be concerned about?

How many independant MP's have been elected in the last 50 or so years and what real impact have they had? Meaning is it really something to be concerned about?

For a proper democracy to work, yes. It doesn't matter how likely they are to get elected, but anyone who wants to should be able to stand for parliment, not just those chosen by a party.

ok, thanks for the insight. i will go back to having no interest in politics as quite clearly my vote is **** pointless. i will vote this time, but not entirely sure why.

Consider how different the world would be today and how many British lives would have been saved if the American election system were democratic. [url= http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html ]More people voted for Gore than Bush but Gore lost.[/url]

There's a very good chance of getting rid of our awful system this time though, as long as we get what most people want which is a hung parliament.

Of course it does, they are the ones that have to represent their constituency and the particular needs, worries, demands that are relevant to the constituents that reside there.

In theory - except of course that they almost all tow the party line and vote how they are told on anything important.

Fair point.. but... in some ways an independant could have more chance under PR. They could appeal to the whole of the country not just their own area. Take Galloway and his Unite movement from 2005.

Consider how different the world would be today and how many British lives would have been saved if the American election system were democratic. More people voted for Gore than Bush but Gore lost.

I remember during the aftermath of that election a British journalist was interviewing and American politician about the elctoral college system and asking why they persever with it. The American said 'it is how the constitution says we have to do it.'
The journalist replied 'the constitution also says you have to be a white male landowner in order to vote?'

So you know your MP personally, and he/she was elected solely because he/she does such a good job for the constituents rather than because of what party they stood for? Also see my point above about legislators vs social workers.

Well I've written to him and had a reply that gave me the impression that he was at least interested in what I was saying.

I doubt very much that he was elected solely because he does such a good job and I didn't vote for him because I didn't want to vote tory, but that's not the point, he's not a crap MP, he hasn't been implicated in any scandals, I don't want a crap MP, and I suspect that for a lot of people that matters and will help protect his majority even if some of the people might consider voting against him on party political issues.

I had a look at the number of voters per seat recently and the splits aren't that bad (with the odd exception in a couple of remote locations). The north of the border re-allocation of boundaries occurred as at one point there were ~10000 less voters for some Scottish seats compared to the rest of the UK.

I've always thought 5 year fixed term for every government (no picking the time to vote as you are popular) constituency based system for a lower house with a 50% proportional representation upper house on a 6 year term, the rest being perminant life peers. The life peerage I haven't sorted yet as I'd want a mix of common sense people from a wide range of backgrounds who would work for the best interests of the country.

Any other suggestions for electral reform?

A party could win 100% of seats with 30,000,630 votes to 29,999,370 if they won each seat by the minimum necessary amount.

andrewh - Member
By the way, PR is a really bad idea.
The advantage is that it does give party a 'fair' share of the seats, but the down side is that the parties will choose who your MP is to be, you will vote for a party and not for a person. I'm not saying FPTP is perfect, it's just less bad.

Not nessasarily - there ared many different variations on PR systems and not all work like that. Open List, closed list, single tranferabnle vote, multimember constituencies

Someone mentioed independents In Scotland under the PR systems there have been a few - last election altered the system slightly which had the effect of raising the thresholds so reduced the number of smaller parties and independents.

It all depends on the system of PR chosen and what you want it to do.

To go back to the OP - the main reason is the distribution of votors - the tories tend to win their seats by huge majorities so thats a lot of wasted votes - labour by much smaller majorities.

the down side is that the parties will choose who your MP is to be, you will vote for a party and not for a person.

There's a very good chance of getting rid of our awful system this time though, as long as we get what most people want which is a hung parliament.

I certainly don't. We'd have weeks (months?) of uncertainty, and the economy would go even further down the toilet.

Tron - not necessarily - many if not most countries are run by coalitions. There is no reason that a hung parliament will lead to instability - but thats what the two biggest parties want you to believe

Coalition governments have an excellent record in the UK. Churchill led one and Lloyd George another.

many if not most countries are run by coalitions

Indeed, in fact if you think about things, most political parties are themselves coalitions, with widely varied interests and politics.
I would like to see the prime minister voted for directly though, outside of party politics.

The American said 'it is how the constitution says we have to do it.'
The journalist replied 'the constitution also says you have to be a white male landowner in order to vote?'

then the "winner" could get 34% of the vote in each constituency and 100% of the seats.

Which is just a slightly more extreme version of the current situation, and could only be described as even vaguely fair by someone with a vested interest.

Check this out:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8609989.stm

You can give each party a share of the vote and see how many seats they get. If each of the main 3 get 33.3% then Labour would get more seats than both Tories and LD together!

The American system is somewhat more democratic I think insofar as you vote for various representatives and then an overall leader separately. So you could vote for a local rep based on how good he/she was at representing your views, but differently on ideological grounds for a president.

That goes some way towards solving what I shall call the Leominster problem.

Someone mentioned the upper house, this is one of the few times when something someone has said has made me change my mind about something.

Obviously, 100% elected is a bad idea. It just duplicates the lower house, and will want more powers if it is 'more democratic' so why not do away with it altogether? Because we need an overseeing, revising chamber.
100% appointed (life-peers) is a bad idea (see cash for peerages scandal)
Hereditory has the advantage that the members can do what they think is best for the country, rather than what is popular and will get them re-elected, but you run the risk of getting all sorts of undesirables in there just because their grandfather was a mate of Prince Albert in 1846.

Heard a really good suggestion from someone being interviewed on the today program ages ago. Pick, say 100 organisations who actually run the country. For example, Association of cheif police officers, National Union of teachers, British Medical Council, RSPCA, NSPCA, RAC/AA, etc, etc. Each of these can send one person of their choosing to the upper house. Hey presto, an upper chamber full of experts but devoid of politicans. Why have we heard no more of this idea? And can anyone remember who suggested it?

PS Not suggesting this for the lower house, I think elected works fine. Just got to agree a system now...

My own idea for reforming the upper house is better.

We need representatives of the people, not necessarily those skilled at climbing greasy poles.
So, have an optional secondary prize in the national lottery of 5 years as a Senator (or whatever). SO there would be a rolling membership of 260 or so, all provided with a salary and appropriate accommodation in London. It would be self-financing, as many people who don't go in for the lottery now would take part if that was a prize.

That's even more of a lottery than the heriditery system...

Given that most lottery tickets are sold to idiots, I can't see it working.

As for independent MPs, stuff them. I wouldn't want an independent MP. Does any individual MP have the time or knowledge to read, absorb and comprehend every piece of legislation that comes through the house? I doubt it.

No, but that's because we pass too many laws.
Foolish ones, for the most part.

I wouldn't want an independent MP. Does any individual MP have the time or knowledge to read, absorb and comprehend every piece of legislation that comes through the house? I doubt it.

what's the point in a West Ox constituent voting under FPTP regardless of their political persuasion, but especially if they're not Tory??

The split of the national vote affects political parties' access to things like funding and party political broadcast slots, I believe. It's not much but it's something! Also as someone said on another thread, the more people who vote in a constituency, the greater the number of votes a candidate needs to retain their deposit. Therefore the more non-BNP voters there are the more likely BNP candidates are to lose their deposits. 🙂

Coalition governments have an excellent record in the UK. Churchill led one

Was that because Hitler won his election using PR?

Pick, say 100 organisations who actually run the country. For example, Association of cheif police officers, National Union of teachers, British Medical Council, RSPCA, NSPCA, RAC/AA, etc, etc.

Police officers (part of the executive) should be given seats in the legislature?

Government employees (doctors and teachers) should be allowed to vote on their own terms and conditions?