vilakins | Proportional representation

This may be of interest to some British people post-election. On the news tonight they did a calculation of what the results would be if our MMP (mixed member proportional) system had been used. To explain that: MMP gives everyone two votes, one for a local candidate and one for a party. The winning candidate takes each electorate, then list MPs are added from each party list to make up the proportions of the party votes (excepting parties getting less than 5% of that vote).

There are 650 seats in the UK Parliament, 28 of which were won by small parties and can be set aside. As those parties didn't get over 5% of the vote, they don't take part in the next calculation which goes on the number of votes each party got.

Of the votes for the main three, Conservatives got 41%, Labour 33%, and the Lib Dems 26%. This would give them the following numbers of seats:
- Conservatives 255, 51 down
- Labour 205, 53 down
- Lib Dems 162, 102 up (or 105; the words from Tooth Man--an announcer loathed by me--didn't match the figures on screen)

So the Lib Dems would be in a much stronger position to support a coalition with either side.

I gather the dissatisfaction with the first-past-the-post system may mean a change.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Very interesting, thank you!

I gather the dissatisfaction with the first-past-the-post system may mean a change.
I really hope so. The unfairness of the current system is becoming more and more obvious, but neither of the main parties have much incentive to change it since it benefits them so much. I've got my fingers crossed that Nick Clegg will hold out for voting reform if the Lib Dems end up forming a coalition with either of the others.

Take it to the people! We had a plebiscite on whether to change, and then which system to use.

This is why Labour and the LibDems want to change the system - it's absurdly unfair! The Tories, of course, don't want to change it because it advantages them. Still, if Clegg gets into bed with Cameron, Cameron's promised a committee to review the electoral system - but I'd be amazed if they actually managed to get proportional representation through.

Was very interesting to see the actual figures - thanks!

What propelled the change here was Labour getting more than 50% of the votes once, and losing because they got fewer seats. They held two plescites, one on whether to change the system, and the next on which system to go to. If the people decide, it could go through!

We also have our elections on Saturday when lots of people volunteer to work (and get paid for it), and people who can't vote then do so beforehand. We never have the huge queues you had: most people come early and it tails off in the evening well before closing.

Your system sounds a heck of a lot better in both ways than ours! I hope that this latest election will really do something to change the system here. At least if there is a Labour/Lib coalition - which seems pretty unlikely at the moment, but not impossible - we'll have a good shot at getting that change.

Huge queues are unusual. That's why the polling stations were taken by surprise.

So there was a much bigger turnout than usual?

It seems to have been slightly up (http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm) on last time.

I'm not sure that's a sufficient explanation, particularly when you consider that postal voting has become much more common in recent years (you used to have to prove that there was a specific reason why you couldn't attend the polling station, but now it's encouraged whether you're available or not).

One theory is that because of the intense pressure to cut costs across the board some councils provided fewer staff for the job.

But I'm wondering whether there's some reason why more people decided to go later than usual. If it had been the previous night, I'd have said it was the big football match (City v Spurs, with a lot riding on the result). Maybe they just hadn't decided how to vote? In Sheffield, it was reported that a lot of the late arrivals were students, and one of our local stations where it happened was in Ladybarn, a big student area (though a friend said he gave a voter a lift to the other Ladybarn station at 9 p.m. and didn't see any queue). I don't think that accounts for my own station, in a rather well-heeled area; I was astonished to hear that was affected.

Maybe it will help us next time we're knocking up. "Go and vote now! You can't be sure of exercising your democratic rights if you put it off!"

People were so worried by the idea of a hung parliament that the hard core supporters who don't usually bother to vote in very safe seats also turned up.

But there was also word (via twitter) that in some places people had gone to put their vote in around 9pm and there were no queues, and that these places miraculously had massive queues by around 9.45pm, just before polling closed at 10. So I don't think it's as clear cut an issue as just huge turnout.

Also, and I'll be posting this on my journal, this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8665835.stm) may interest you. Apparently the UK civil service has been sniffing around the NZ mmp system to see if it might be suitable over here.

We had a decent turn-out round here. 79% in our constituency, and 83% up the road. Be interesting to compare to last time.

That's very good, by modern standards! Our best ward was only 72%, and our worst 50% (though I suppose that would have been slightly higher if the queue at Ladybarn had got in). Overall we were 62% (up from 55% in 2005, when it was difficult to get the Labour vote out).

Edited 2010-05-08 15:07 (UTC)

I got a lot of revision done that day and totally forgot to vote. It's a dumb system. Thanks for the actual figures...and for the gift! *eats cookies* nom nom nom

that is very interesting indeed, thank you

And there were people without voting cards who went late? Perhaps the cost cutting might have been a big factor. I find it odd that councils run it; we have a national setup that's extremely well organised with polling stations efficiently managed with calculated numbers of staff reporting to an electorate office; I've worked twice and been very impressed. People are willing to sign up because the pay's not bad and the work long hours but not hard and actually rather fun.

I also got paid to work for two weeks afterwards doing recounts and checking that voters hadn't voted more than once i.e. been crossed off on more than one roll (one student went to seven stations, the idiot). Because they don't use existing employees, there's a big pool of people willing to step up.

People mobbing particular stations wouldn't have helped.

I think our system works well and is fairly simple, unlike the Australian preferential voting one. It also gives me a voice since I live in a National electorate so my candidate vote never counts. It will take them a while to implement it though. Also, it seems that having councils running it isn't very efficient; I've worked in two elections and been very impressed at how well it's run nationally.

That's a good article.

You get a representative parliament and people who live in overwhelmingly safe seats for the opposition (as I do) get a vote than counts. Everyone's vote counts.

You forgot? You must be like me and put your head down and ignore all distractions. I hope your revision went well.

The cookies won't be as nice as your home-made ones, but hey! :-D

Proportional representation

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject