What difference is that supposed to make?
What difference is that supposed to make?
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Local council elections are not taken that seriously here, state elections in federal nations actually are and are more comparable to national elections than local ones.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
But you're still only comparing the share of the vote they got in only one part of Germany compared to the whole of the UK. There are parts of the country where UKIP got shares of the vote in the general comparable to the AfD share in Saxony, and that was before the current migrant crisis.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Did they take more than a quarter of any Parliaments seats? If they took more than a quarter of the seats in the Scottish Parliament making any plausible coalition unmanageable then I'd think it was pretty significant.
No, because the electoral system we use in this country is hilariously stacked against them, as you are well aware. Under a proportional system UKIP would have taken something like 85 seats at the last election, which is roughly a quarter.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
But as I've said time and again we have a better electoral system that doesn't pander to extremists who lose under our system. Again, feel like we're going around in circles.
Though your maths is flawed. A quarter of 650 seats is 163 not the approximately 82 the Kippers would have taken.
Hypothetically, if UKIP won the popular vote and ended up with like 20 seats or whatever it is they'd get under the FPTP system you'd be comfortable with that, from a democratic point of view?
Aye. Got the amount needed for a majority mixed up with the total amount of seats.Though your maths is flawed. A quarter of 650 seats is 163 not the approximately 82 the Kippers would have taken.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Well Schengen is falling apart, so maybe a lot of things should be renegotiated?
We tend to focus on the lunatic fringe in these discussions, for understandable reasons, but FPTP systems disadvantage not just the lunatic fringe but ALL other parties beyond the two dominant ones. If we had the British system here in Sweden, the Sweden Democrats would not be in any level of govt., so you might think that I'd be very much in favour of such a system. After all, considering my background and my values, I should want to keep those xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, racist and frankly stupid asshats out of power, right?
Wrong. Any system that would keep those clowns out would also keep other smaller legitimate parties out, to the detriment of Sweden's governance at all levels from municipalities all the way up to the state. I don't want small parties to have undue influence on govt. but I value the pressure they put on larger parties to debate and negotiate with their opponents and to listen to legitimate and useful ideas from others. I also value their role in keeping politics at the local level a little more sane and transparent and a little less corrupt than it would have been otherwise. Moreover, I value this system for encouraging people to vote and inspiring them to be politically interested and active. Keeping the lunatic fringe out isn't worth sacrificing the other things I value about this system. Just because people can't always be trusted to do everything right doesn't mean that we should keep them out of politics. No, not even uneducated and stupid ones who aren't as smart and rational and clear-sighted and in the know as ourselves
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Or as we say in German you throw the baby out with the bathwater.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Hypothetically if UKIP won the popular vote they'd almost certainly end up with either the most seats or very close to it, depending upon how well spread out and efficient the votes were. Yes I'd think it's appropriate as they'd have achieved what they'd have got.
It is extremely rare to win the popular vote and not get most seats, though a bias can creep into the system (due to flawed boundaries) that should be addressed through regular boundary reviews and boundaries of equal size etc
This is wrong. Because of the demographics of UKIP supporters, UKIP needs 100 times as many votes per seat as Lab or Con.
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gene...ach-party.html
If you had a scenario where it was, let's say Lab: 25%, Con: 25%, UKIP: 35% LD and Others: 15% then Ukippers still end up with only a handful of seats because they come second or third to Lab or Con in most places.
Because we've been a largely two party system for as long as we've been a democracy worthy of the name, and the LDs are by comparison only minorly disadvantaged: being pushed into a more distant third place than the actual third place they should be in. This is now changing, and FPTP is not fit for purpose.It is extremely rare to win the popular vote and not get most seats, though a bias can creep into the system (due to flawed boundaries) that should be addressed through regular boundary reviews and boundaries of equal size etc
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Wrong. They need 100x as many votes because they lost in all but one seat. There are tipping points to success below which you do very badly (see UKIP) and above which you do very well (see SNP). It has nothing to do with demographics, had their vote share been considerably higher they'd have won many more seats and would have needed a lot less votes per seat.
I doubt it, I suspect in that scenario we'd have either a majority UKIP government or a UKIP-led government with UKIP as first party. It is extraordinairily rare if not unheard of for a party to come first by a large margin and not to win a plurality of seats.If you had a scenario where it was, let's say Lab: 25%, Con: 25%, UKIP: 35% LD and Others: 15% then Ukippers still end up with only a handful of seats because they come second or third to Lab or Con in most places.
Why's it changing? We are a two party nation once again. Despite the media giving unprecedented levels of publicity to also-ran parties the two party share of the vote went up considerably and we chose two parties (in England) to represent us.Because we've been a largely two party system for as long as we've been a democracy worthy of the name, and the LDs are by comparison only minorly disadvantaged: being pushed into a more distant third place than the actual third place they should be in. This is now changing, and FPTP is not fit for purpose.
Regional politics in the tertiary nations of the UK differ. But in England we are a two-party country more than for a long-time.
Let's say I accept this argument (which I don't but I'll deal with why below). This is still undemocratic, because out of power parties still get to vote in parliament. It is frankly bullshit that a party with less than 5% of the popular vote should wield 8.6% of votes on Parliament while another that got 12.6% of the vote should have less than a single percent. I don't understand the level of mental gymnastics required to think that that's remotely OK.
It's almost impossible to occur when you have two parties unless you have some really freakish results, but it's all too easy to concoct a scenario with 3 parties when you win the popular vote but don't win a majority of seats. All you need to do is have your vote divided evenly across the country, not concentrated in certain regions and safe seats, and therefore consistently come second.I doubt it, I suspect in that scenario we'd have either a majority UKIP government or a UKIP-led government with UKIP as first party. It is extraordinairily rare if not unheard of for a party to come first by a large margin and not to win a plurality of seats.
Since you apparently have a hard time grasping this, let me illustrate. Consider the following hypothetical election in which England has only seven constituencies which have 1000 voters each (due to post apocalyptic conditions).
LAB CON UKIP LD & Others Essex 150 450 350 50 Sussex 370 250 350 30 East Angelia 190 490 290 30 Wessex 375 250 300 75 Northumbria 400 100 350 150 Kent 150 375 350 125 Mercia 425 100 375 100 2060 (29%) 2015 (28%) 2365 (33%) 560 (8%)
Labour wins a majority with four seats, UKIP win no seats despite winning the popular vote. FPTP is utterly inadequate for any scenario where there are more than two parties in contention.
How do you reason that? Cons could 36.1% of the vote in 2010, and 36.9 in 15%, and Lab gained 1.5%. UKIP gained over 10%, Greens nearly 3%, SNP over 3%. The LD's were annihilated, but it doesn't magically mean we've become a 2 party system again, a least in terms of the popular vote.Why's it changing? We are a two party nation once again. Despite the media giving unprecedented levels of publicity to also-ran parties the two party share of the vote went up considerably and we chose two parties (in England) to represent us.
Why are you talking about England exclusively, exactly? Northern Ireland is a very particular situation so should be ignored for purposes of this discussion, but why does what's happening in Scotland and Wales suddenly not count?Regional politics in the tertiary nations of the UK differ. But in England we are a two-party country more than for a long-time.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Well, no. Not really. The thing is, that's a construct you (or someone else) created to show what could theoretically be possible, but it disregards both actual voting behavior and why parties get voted for. If you had three parties which were each completely different from each other (different positions on issues, different goals and demographics, etc) then you could get maybe something like that but in the real world where that just isn't possible why in the world would the same party consistently outvote Labor in Conservative districts and Conservatives in Labor districts in a particular election? How do people possibly end up voting that way? The fact is they don't. Which is why Rand's comment about tipping points is actually accurate as far as reality goes.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Because UKIP takes supporters from both Labour and Con. They may appear at first glance to be a party somewhat to the right of the Tories, but in reality their anti-immigration, anti-EU stance draws supports from both main parties. Remember a common theme of anti-immigration rhetoric is that low skilled workers take jobs which should go to British workers, and if that's true then the people on the receiving end of high immigration are going to be the working class, i.e. Labour's core vote. Anti-immigration is familiar ground for Tories, and of course many of them are utterly rabid about the EU.
I believe, but don't feel like looking up right now, that UKIP came second to either the Tories or Labour in a lot of constituencies in 2015, so this is not some hypothetical. I remember them doing particularly well in the North East, which is classic Labour territory.
Also remember that while this is indeed a scenario I invented specifically to make UKIP win the popular vote but not win a single seat, it is far from the only possible one with an undemocratic outcome. Especially if we throw the Lib Dems back into the mix - presumably they won't be pariahs forever.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
It's not undemocratic, we elect local individual representatives not proportional parties. The party that got 8.6% of the votes in Parliament won those seats by being each MP being the single most popular representative in their own locale. I don't understand the level of mental gymnastics required to think that's remotely unreasonable.
To construct a scenario it is possible yes. To have that scenario happen in real life, no. There are 650 constituencies and the odds of some freakish construct you invent actually occurring is minuscule. But if somehow that does occur then fair enough, it means that those MPs failed to be the most popular in their location so they failed to get elected.It's almost impossible to occur when you have two parties unless you have some really freakish results, but it's all too easy to concoct a scenario with 3 parties when you win the popular vote but don't win a majority of seats. All you need to do is have your vote divided evenly across the country, not concentrated in certain regions and safe seats, and therefore consistently come second.
We don't have 7 seats we have 650 and your fiction is just that, fiction.Since you apparently have a hard time grasping this, let me illustrate. Consider the following hypothetical election in which England has only seven constituencies which have 1000 voters each (due to post apocalyptic conditions).
LAB CON UKIP LD & Others Essex 150 450 350 50 Sussex 370 250 350 30 East Angelia 190 490 290 30 Wessex 375 250 300 75 Northumbria 400 100 350 150 Kent 150 375 350 125 Mercia 425 100 375 100 2060 (29%) 2015 (28%) 2365 (33%) 560 (8%)
Labour wins a majority with four seats, UKIP win no seats despite winning the popular vote. FPTP is utterly inadequate for any scenario where there are more than two parties in contention.
The popular vote is utterly irrelevant and meaningless. 99% of seats went to the two parties in England. Though even if you care about the popular vote then the two party share of the vote went up and the "everyone else" share of the vote went down. Despite record media coverage for "everyone else".How do you reason that? Cons could 36.1% of the vote in 2010, and 36.9 in 15%, and Lab gained 1.5%. UKIP gained over 10%, Greens nearly 3%, SNP over 3%. The LD's were annihilated, but it doesn't magically mean we've become a 2 party system again, a least in terms of the popular vote.
Because the four nations of the UK have their own peculiar politics. England is two-party (Tory and Labour), NI is four parties or two nationalist and two republican parties, Scotland is one party (SNP), only Wales is truly more than two non-sectarian parties.Why are you talking about England exclusively, exactly? Northern Ireland is a very particular situation so should be ignored for purposes of this discussion, but why does what's happening in Scotland and Wales suddenly not count?
Then I will explain them to you. The purpose of any democratic system worthy of the name is not to adhere to any particular set of rules, or uphold long standing traditions or represent arbitrary geographic regions, but to represent the will of the people. Like, if the majority of people want a thing to happen, then it should happen. When a system fails to do that by, e.g. not accurately converting the popular mandate into representation then that system is failure.
One party coming second in most places but winning over all is really not a 'freakish coincidence'.To construct a scenario it is possible yes. To have that scenario happen in real life, no. There are 650 constituencies and the odds of some freakish construct you invent actually occurring is minuscule. But if somehow that does occur then fair enough, it means that those MPs failed to be the most popular in their location so they failed to get elected.
I could have done it just as easily for 650 constituencies, it just would have take me about 12 hours.We don't have 7 seats we have 650 and your fiction is just that, fiction.
And that is a bad thing.The popular vote is utterly irrelevant and meaningless.
Only if you decide to exclude the SNP for no reason.99% of seats went to the two parties in England. Though even if you care about the popular vote then the two party share of the vote went up and the "everyone else" share of the vote went down. Despite record media coverage for "everyone else".
Scotland is at least a three party country, and perhaps a five depending on how you count.Because the four nations of the UK have their own peculiar politics. England is two-party (Tory and Labour), NI is four parties or two nationalist and two republican parties, Scotland is one party (SNP), only Wales is truly more than two non-sectarian parties.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Our system does that better than any other.
We had a referendum on voting reform once already, you were I believe in the one-third that voted for reform, I was in the two-thirds that voted against. Cry me a river about it not being the particular reform you now want, win an election seeking reform and job done until then this is so moot it's absurd.
Of course it is, point to one time it ACTUALLY occurred in REALITY.One party coming second in most places but winning over all is really not a 'freakish coincidence'.
Which is the point. You could do it, but it would still be a work of fiction. Game of Thrones is about as believable.I could have done it just as easily for 650 constituencies, it just would have take me about 12 hours.
So you say.And that is a bad thing.
SNP won zero votes and zero seats in England so give me a single reason to include them in analysis of England? Because of votes cast in a different nation? Why not include the French Front National while we're at it? They also won zero votes and zero seats afterall.Only if you decide to exclude the SNP for no reason.
If you count parties with just one single MP it is a four party nation.Scotland is at least a three party country, and perhaps a five depending on how you count.
In what way? You just said the popular vote was irrelevant in the last post, which you made less than half an hour ago.
I did not know discussing things that had been voted down in a referendum was out of bounds on this forum.We had a referendum on voting reform once already, you were I believe in the one-third that voted for reform, I was in the two-thirds that voted against. Cry me a river about it not being the particular reform you now want, win an election seeking reform and job done until then this is so moot it's absurd.
ITT we learn nothing can happen for the first time.Of course it is, point to one time it ACTUALLY occurred in REALITY.
I'm fairly certain they must have covered hypothetical scenarios at some point in your education.Which is the point. You could do it, but it would still be a work of fiction. Game of Thrones is about as believable.
What is it about the idea of UKIP growing in popularity but their vote being distributed evenly around the country because they lack the long history and traditional support bases of the two main parties and so they win the popular vote because they come second almost everywhere but outright win very few seats that you find so implausible? What, specifically, makes you think that can't happen or is very unlikely?
You disagree?So you say.
You cited "record media coverage for everyone else". You didn't provide a source, but I'm willing to bet that "everyone else" included the SNP.SNP won zero votes and zero seats in England so give me a single reason to include them in analysis of England? Because of votes cast in a different nation? Why not include the French Front National while we're at it? They also won zero votes and zero seats afterall.
Also, when we voted in the general election, the Scots voted in the same election.
So there's two reasons.
I was looking at the Scottish Parliament. They have three parties with 10 or more seats, and 5 total.If you count parties with just one single MP it is a four party nation.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
It is a hypoethetical. Notice how the real-world results you describe came with only having a fraction of the support you're endowing them with for this. There's a reason for that.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Well, yes, technically 1/3 is a fraction, but I don't think that's what people usually mean when they use that phrase.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
I think it is. It is a very small fraction in this case. If there were real world examples of this actually occurring you'd be pointing to those rather than using cases from Westeros.
In 2005, UKIP were at 2% of the vote. In 2015, they were at 12%. It's hardly Game of Thrones to reckon they might be pulling in 30% or so in 2025 or 2030. I hope to the gods they don't, but still...
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
But it is to write up a fictional 30% spread across 650 seats that denies them seats. If they're on 30% they'd be winning seats, a comparable number to what Labour have today most likely.
If their support is spread more evenly across the country than the main 2, which matches the pattern of their vote in 2015, they're not going to win anywhere near as many seats as Labour.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote