Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

How The 2010 Election Would Have Gone Under Av And Stv


TGP

Recommended Posts

Here's hoping this works....

Graphic-PR-election-resul-001.gif

If it didn't.....

AV

Tories -26

Labour +4

Liberal +22

Others - 0

STV

Tories -61

Labour -51

Liberal +105

Others +7

As you can see.... there SHOULD be a Lib/Lab/Others Majority within the current parliament FOR an AV referendum if a free vote for AV was held (as is currently being mootted as the possible "ER component" of a LibCon deal).

Yours,

TGP

Edit: For clarity

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's hoping this works....

Graphic-PR-election-resul-001.gif

If it didn't.....

AV

Tories -26

Labour +4

Liberal +22

Others - 0

STV

Tories -61

Labour -51

Liberal +105

Others +7

As you can see.... there SHOULD be a Lib/Lab/Others Majority if a free vote on AV is allowed (as is currently being mootted as the possible "ER component" of a LibCon deal).

Yours,

TGP

*ponders emigrating again*

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's hoping this works....

Graphic-PR-election-resul-001.gif

If it didn't.....

AV

Tories -26

Labour +4

Liberal +22

Others - 0

STV

Tories -61

Labour -51

Liberal +105

Others +7

As you can see.... there SHOULD be a Lib/Lab/Others Majority if a free vote on AV is allowed (as is currently being mootted as the possible "ER component" of a LibCon deal).

Yours,

TGP

Can you also post the assumptions that would have to be made to construct these charts? As they were prepared by a group that is fairly obviously pro-PR I'm not entirely convinced they would be entirely rigorous.

Also, how do you conclude that there SHOULD be a Lib/Lab/Others majority? If you meant that there COULD be, fine, but saying there SHOULD be is not credible. If you add the Conservative vote to all the other non-Labour votes you could come to an equally meaningless conclusion about a Con/Lib/Others majority.

This is my worry with PR, some advocates seem extraordinarily keen on one vote counting, as long as it enables them to make someone else's vote not count quite as much. In fact exactly what some advocates of FPTP are so keen on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you also post the assumptions that would have to be made to construct these charts? As they were prepared by a group that is fairly obviously pro-PR I'm not entirely convinced they would be entirely rigorous.

Also, how do you conclude that there SHOULD be a Lib/Lab/Others majority? If you meant that there COULD be, fine, but saying there SHOULD be is not credible. If you add the Conservative vote to all the other non-Labour votes you could come to an equally meaningless conclusion about a Con/Lib/Others majority.

This is my worry with PR, some advocates seem extraordinarily keen on one vote counting, as long as it enables them to make someone else's vote not count quite as much. In fact exactly what some advocates of FPTP are so keen on.

Well, I just ripped it off the Guardian "Election 2010 Live Blog"

The site fot ehse guys is here

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/

If you can find out how they did it, go for it. I couldn't see anything about this there (I suspect it was specially commissioned by the guardian).

However.......I'm not sure how they can "fix" it to suit their purposes.

Just HOW would you alter the figures to make it more attractive ? Giving Tories extra seats makes it as discouraging to Tories as attractive to labour voters.... giving lib-dems more seats at (say) labour expense makes it less attractive to laboru as it is more attractive to tories.

GIVEN that the Tories are notionally going to be the "party in power"..... it's only make sense to skew it in their favour if you wanted reform enacted upon....... yet ALL results show them losing seats to ER, int he case of the sites favoured method (STV) one F*** of a load of seats.

On this basis, I can't really see how or why it'd be fixed......if they were "fixing" the result, they'd have shown STV as not losing as many tory seats as it does (as STV is their preferred system).

But, by all means, if you find out their methodology let me know. I'd love to have a look at it.

Yours,

TGP

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, how do you conclude that there SHOULD be a Lib/Lab/Others majority? If you meant that there COULD be, fine, but saying there SHOULD be is not credible. If you add the Conservative vote to all the other non-Labour votes you could come to an equally meaningless conclusion about a Con/Lib/Others majority.

This is my worry with PR, some advocates seem extraordinarily keen on one vote counting, as long as it enables them to make someone else's vote not count quite as much. In fact exactly what some advocates of FPTP are so keen on.

OOOps, missed this......

When I saaid there "should be a majority"..... I wasn;t talking about the electoral coalition.

This topic was following on from a discussion I was having on another thread talking about how, with current seats, a "free vote" in the house on AV wouldn't pass on the basis that "turkey's don't vote for christmas"

When I was saying "there should be a majority" it was that vote I was talking about...... Given the AV results above...... The Libs, Labs and Others should ALL be in favour of AV..... on that basis (and given surrent seats) a free vote in the HoC should pass an AV referendum bill on a 339-306 vote with only the tories voting against (as the only parties of turkey's in this vote for AV christmas).

Sorry if that was confusing.

Obviously....... under any of these systems...... any coalition the parties felt was the best fit for their policies should be considered. In fact, in all three systems I would prefer (on NC's "largest party gets to go first" basis) that the tories were given first dibs on a coalition..... and that there ONLY be a lib/lab coalition IF talks on a Con/Lib or Con/Lab coalition failed first.

Yours,

TGP

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I just ripped it off the Guardian "Election 2010 Live Blog"

The site fot ehse guys is here

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/

If you can find out how they did it, go for it. I couldn't see anything about this there (I suspect it was specially commissioned by the guardian).

However.......I'm not sure how they can "fix" it to suit their purposes.

Just HOW would you alter the figures to make it more attractive ? Giving Tories extra seats makes it as discouraging to Tories as attractive to labour voters.... giving lib-dems more seats at (say) labour expense makes it less attractive to laboru as it is more attractive to tories.

GIVEN that the Tories are notionally going to be the "party in power"..... it's only make sense to skew it in their favour if you wanted reform enacted upon....... yet ALL results show them losing seats to ER, int he case of the sites favoured method (STV) one F*** of a load of seats.

On this basis, I can't really see how or why it'd be fixed......if they were "fixing" the result, they'd have shown STV as not losing as many tory seats as it does (as STV is their preferred system).

But, by all means, if you find out their methodology let me know. I'd love to have a look at it.

Yours,

TGP

I'm not suggesting it is 'fixed' I'm saying that some of the forms of PR referred to, require questions to be asked of the voter that were not asked in this general election. Therefore you would have to extrapolate and/or make certain assumptions, possibly based upon 'polls' to present such specific charts. Without knowing what these assumptions were it is impossible to judge validity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not suggesting it is 'fixed' I'm saying that some of the forms of PR referred to, require questions to be asked of the voter that were not asked in this general election. Therefore you would have to extrapolate and/or make certain assumptions, possibly based upon 'polls' to present such specific charts. Without knowing what these assumptions were it is impossible to judge validity.

Again, I can;t speak to their methodology as I haven't read it...

I suspect they essentially assumed that everyones "1st vote" would be the same..... then gave their 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. votes based on polling that had asked voters of each party who their 2nd/3rd/4th and so on choices were.

I did see such polling pre-election.

So.... If You voted labour..... maybe the poll showed

2nd choice..... Lib 60%, Green 30%, BNP 5%, Tory 5%

3rd Choice..... Lib 30%, Green 60%, Tory 10%

And for Conservative it showed....

2nmd Choice ..... UKIP 60%, Lib 20%, Green 10%, Lab 10%.

and so on.

It's on these I think they ranked the lower down choices..... then they performed the AV calculations based on current constituencies.......and STV calculations based perhaps on Counties (as is proposed) or perhaps on EU election constituencies.

As I said.... this is FAR from perfect..... not least because it assumes someones 1st choice is who they voted for in the FPTP 2010 election (when for many I doubt it was)..... it just gives you "some indication".

But I am only reconstructing all of this from the fact I saw such "2nd/3rd preference polls".

As I said. If you can find out how they did it for sure, let me know.

Yours,

TGP

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I can;t speak to their methodology as I haven't read it...

I suspect they essentially assumed that everyones "1st vote" would be the same..... then gave their 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. votes based on polling that had asked voters of each party who their 2nd/3rd/4th and so on choices were.

I did see such polling pre-election.

So.... If You voted labour..... maybe the poll showed

2nd choice..... Lib 60%, Green 30%, BNP 5%, Tory 5%

3rd Choice..... Lib 30%, Green 60%, Tory 10%

And for Conservative it showed....

2nmd Choice ..... UKIP 60%, Lib 20%, Green 10%, Lab 10%.

and so on.

It's on these I think they ranked the lower down choices..... then they performed the AV calculations based on current constituencies.......and STV calculations based perhaps on Counties (as is proposed) or perhaps on EU election constituencies.

As I said.... this is FAR from perfect..... not least because it assumes someones 1st choice is who they voted for in the FPTP 2010 election (when for many I doubt it was)..... it just gives you "some indication".

But I am only reconstructing all of this from the fact I saw such "2nd/3rd preference polls".

As I said. If you can find out how they did it for sure, let me know.

Yours,

TGP

Fair enough!

With all due respect to you as this isn't what I think you were / are doing - there has been a significant amount (across all political parties) of bold statements this week about 'what the public want' based upon little more than opinion backed up by cherry picked statistics. It just dumbfounds me that I can barely find a single person who are genuinely represented by these 'facts'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's hoping this works....

Graphic-PR-election-resul-001.gif

If it didn't.....

AV

Tories -26

Labour +4

Liberal +22

Others - 0

STV

Tories -61

Labour -51

Liberal +105

Others +7

As you can see.... there SHOULD be a Lib/Lab/Others Majority within the current parliament FOR an AV referendum if a free vote for AV was held (as is currently being mootted as the possible "ER component" of a LibCon deal).

Yours,

TGP

Edit: For clarity

Thanks for this information. B)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't the last european election PR?

If so surely we could expect roughly the same in a PR general election here?

My link

It was, but a quirky system called a regional list system. There is no link between the constituency and the representative and it can sometimes be quite un-proportional.

Welsh and Scottish elections use a hybrid sysytem called the Additional Member System (AMS), whereby you get two votes - one for the constituency representative and one for the party. It's more proprtional in Scotland than in Wales because of the higher number of members elected off the party list.

Both the list sytem and AMS give quite substantial power to the parties in how candidates are selected, where they appear on the list and so forth. STV by contrast empowers the elector because he/she is able to choose not only between parties but also between candidates from the same party.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you can see. The tories lose some seats. Labout gaina a few, the LD's gain a few more. Mainly because the UK has a center-left majority that the Tories have successfully ignored for years as they split their vote.

Now.... this isn't entirely accurate in that this (I assume) ranks voters on how they actually voted and then how opinion polls showed these voters 2nd and 3rd choices were etc. etc.

In the real world the results would probably be slightly different as I supect many (most ?) people would change their FIRST choice vote. But it is indicative.

Our simulations should be regarded as illustrative, indicating the extent to which a different system might have produced a different result. However, the picture they give is necessarily a rough one.

]In looking at AV and STV we have assumed that votes cast on 6 May would have been first preferences. That, of course, is not the case: firstly, there was a considerable amount of tactical voting, often aimed at producing a hung parliament, and secondly many people would not have voted for their preferred party on the grounds they could not win (for this reason the simulations probably underestimate support for the Green Party). Change the voting system, and we are likely to change the way people vote.

AV and STV use preference voting (i.e. voters can rank candidates in order of preference). In our models we have used the second preference data of a ComRes poll of 26 April 2010 (fieldwork on 24/25 April 2010). This data, however, has a number of shortcomings when it comes to estimating how votes for smaller parties might transfer, and has obvious difficulties in Scotland and Wales. It also does not provide second or third preferences which in some situations might be significant. However, in the great majority of seats the simulated outcome is not particularly sensitive to the accuracy of the assumptions made on transfers.

The polling data suggests that many voters would not wish to express a second preference, and consequently the impact of AV is not as great as other simulations have suggested. If a system of preference voting were to be introduced (as has been done for local government in Scotland) it is possible that the preceding information campaign would increase the use of second and subsequent preferences.

Our modelling of STV has used constituencies electing 3, 4 or 5 MPs. We have grouped existing constituencies in such a way that county boundaries are not crossed and the multi-member constituencies consist of areas likely to have common interest of characteristics. Two single member constituencies have been retained Orkney and Shetland and Na h-Eileanan an Iar and one two-member constituency in Westmoreland.

With STV voters would often have some choice between candidates of the major parties. Our simulation assumes that voters rank all candidates of their preferred party above candidates of other parties. In practice this is unlikely to be the case, but in most constituencies our projection would not be sensitive to such effects.

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/news.php?ex=0&nid=469

I don't think they should have bothered, a single Com Res Poll back in April and assuming tactical voting doesn't exist isn't a good start for something as complex as STV or AV.

It may be called an illustration but they gave out exact numbers which the public reading their newspapers will think are based on fact or at least several recent polls.

I think this is the single poll they used http://www.comres.co.uk/systems/file_download.aspx?pg=595&ver=1

The ComRes poll, to be broadcast on ITV News at Ten and published in The Independent, will show Conservatives on 32%, Liberal Democrats on 31% and Labour on 28%. This compares with figures from ComRes yesterday that put the Conservatives on 34%, Liberal Democrats on 29% and Labour on 28%. Todays Liberal Democrat vote share is that Partys highest ever rating in a ComRes poll.

Despite being in third place behind the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, this poll gives Labour the most seats, 268, with the Conservatives on 238 seats and Liberal Democrats 112. Labour would be 58 seats short of an overall majority

Link to post
Share on other sites

If given the choice on a referendum on a switch to AV, one which I'm sure the public would accept it, and then if these AV results turned out to be true then the LD would still be in position of power following an AV election. The LibDems would still be king maker to either of the other main parties, giving each a working majority without help from the nationalist.

Clegg could play the longer game and force another round of electoral reforms options in the following 2015 government and might even do better than estimated in a 2015 AV election due to LibDems been seen as 'somewhere in-between' Labour and Tory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Always assuming people vote for the Lib Dems in such numbers when they realise it might mean them calling the shots from 3rd place like now.

And if they back this Labour rump, I doubt any voting system will protect them.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Always assuming people vote for the Lib Dems in such numbers when they realise it might mean them calling the shots from 3rd place like now.

And if they back this Labour rump, I doubt any voting system will protect them.....

Well, I suspect taking Cameron's AV referendum offer and either the libCon coalition deal or "Confidence and Supply +" is certainly the best thing for the country AND the Lib-Dems.

However, as I pointed out the other day (back when you were scoffing at this analysis and saying that flirting with LabLibOth wouldn't bring the offer that it did).... even IF a coalition with labour would massively damage the lib Dems, Losing them 50% of their vote. IF they get STV out of it they'd STILL be in better shape than now !!!! Thats how inequitable to the Lib Dems the current FPTP system is. They could lose 50% of their voters and STILL get 80 seats from STV.

Hell, looking at the Analysis above....... the Lib-Dems could lose 60% of their voters and STILL be 8 seats more "powerful" than today AND they'd have a permanent new situation that would exist long after the LibLabOth coalition was gone and forgotten (allowing them to recoup up to the 100-150 mark in future elections in a way FPTP doesn't allow).

When a syystem is SO BAD for your party that you could lose 60% of your vote under another system and STILL do better in the short term (and have much better long term prospects) a very high amount of short term damage is acceptable.

Besides....... would a little humility about this analysis kill you ? After yesterdayts performance ? I would've thought today you'd be a bit more willing to consider the possibility you might not be right.

Yours,

TGP

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spoken like a true yellow lying LibDem scumbag.

After today's little eye opener I have zero tolerance for LibDems or their rotten supporters. God I hate lying politicians.

Lol, and apparently I'M the troll.

:rolleyes:

Yours,

TGP

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.