UKIP get 4 million votes but only one seat
-
Well it seems that UKIP must have had some real bad luck to play by the rules if they only took 1 seat which makes me question how the votes are counted. Even then leftists from Labour could not beleive the results. Its always other countries that we accuse of vote rigging if we don't have a puppet in power but never question vote fixing at home.
I am always amazed of people who start on vote rigging when they lose, their has been vote rigging in this election and it is being investigated, however the instances are so low as not to have effected the result. If you haven't the support in depth in any area why should you get a say over parties that do have that support? Why should I have a local MP who not only did I not vote for but the majority in my constituency didn't vote for? PR means that you can end up with the deciding vote on an issue being decided by someone who only a small proportion of the populous would ever consider voting for, IE far right hate party or an English ISIS party or a rabid Socialist group with PR you can and will end up with these types in parliament and even worse probably in a coalition Government
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
It's really not.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
its closer to PR than FPTP it also has most of the failing of PR
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
its closer to PR than FPTP it also has most of the failing of PR
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
the issue then is that 1.5 mill Scotish voters have 56 seats. The system should be that it should be x MPs for x voters an MP for central Sheffield should have a constituency with the same number of voters as does one for the Highlands This is the flaw with the system not FPTP or PR but boundaries that are not set equal. the fact that geological areas results in groups of MPs is not restricted to Scotland, look how Labour tends to win in northern Cities and Conservatives in Rural
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
The system should be that it should be x MPs for x voters
Cameroon has plans to restructure so its fairer. Its also going to mean even less labour seats. It seems that with the loss of the working class, labour really has nothing to offer these days. (with Blairs 'New Labour' dead). I would like to have seen Farage better represented, as much as his party is a joke still; its members are ranting loonies, he himself makes a lot of sense, and represents a big chunk of UK sentiment.
-
the issue then is that 1.5 mill Scotish voters have 56 seats. The system should be that it should be x MPs for x voters an MP for central Sheffield should have a constituency with the same number of voters as does one for the Highlands This is the flaw with the system not FPTP or PR but boundaries that are not set equal. the fact that geological areas results in groups of MPs is not restricted to Scotland, look how Labour tends to win in northern Cities and Conservatives in Rural
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Even if every constituency had exactly the same number of voters, it's still possible that the party with the most individual votes could lose the election. You'd still end up with people crying foul and complaining that their party didn't win. :)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Even if every constituency had exactly the same number of voters, it's still possible that the party with the most individual votes could lose the election. You'd still end up with people crying foul and complaining that their party didn't win. :)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
you could have a party for every voter and an MP for every voter and someone would still complain about unfairness
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
the issue then is that 1.5 mill Scotish voters have 56 seats. The system should be that it should be x MPs for x voters an MP for central Sheffield should have a constituency with the same number of voters as does one for the Highlands This is the flaw with the system not FPTP or PR but boundaries that are not set equal. the fact that geological areas results in groups of MPs is not restricted to Scotland, look how Labour tends to win in northern Cities and Conservatives in Rural
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
the fact that geological areas results in groups of MPs
Does that mean that granite is given more weight than sandstone?
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
I am always amazed of people who start on vote rigging when they lose, their has been vote rigging in this election and it is being investigated, however the instances are so low as not to have effected the result. If you haven't the support in depth in any area why should you get a say over parties that do have that support? Why should I have a local MP who not only did I not vote for but the majority in my constituency didn't vote for? PR means that you can end up with the deciding vote on an issue being decided by someone who only a small proportion of the populous would ever consider voting for, IE far right hate party or an English ISIS party or a rabid Socialist group with PR you can and will end up with these types in parliament and even worse probably in a coalition Government
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Do you dispute that 4,000,000 people voted and between them they only got one seat, a single voice to shout back at the other 400 Mp's ? Vote rigging ! Well the scotish voted a few months ago on pulling out of the UK and it was about 50/50 but now we are presented with 90% of scots just a few months later all voting SNP. It could be because the british put up death taxes or scots didn't like the old boss of the party, it could be this or that or it could just be something does not quite add up with the numbers and it was fixed. I don't have the answers but i do have a few facts.
-
Dr Gadgit wrote:
but never question vote fixing at home.
What vote fixing; do you actually understand how our electoral system operates?
Wot like first past the post Do you understand electronic votes have been proved to be fixed by a man who wrote the software for these machiness in the USA Vote fixing has gone on all over the world for years and not just in places that the BBC wants to point it out. I can agree PR (Look that up if you don't know what it means) is not the best system but i still say soemthing is wrong when a party keeps coming close but never quites wins a seat and if it was all down to the way votes are counted then the Lib-Dems would also only have about one seat. What i do know is numbers don't lie
-
Do you dispute that 4,000,000 people voted and between them they only got one seat, a single voice to shout back at the other 400 Mp's ? Vote rigging ! Well the scotish voted a few months ago on pulling out of the UK and it was about 50/50 but now we are presented with 90% of scots just a few months later all voting SNP. It could be because the british put up death taxes or scots didn't like the old boss of the party, it could be this or that or it could just be something does not quite add up with the numbers and it was fixed. I don't have the answers but i do have a few facts.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. The stupid part in this case being the voting system. You are fully aware that you theoretically can win the election in UK, or the US too for what it matters, with only 26% of the votes? And this assumes only two parties, it's even worse when you have more parties to vote on.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
Do you dispute that 4,000,000 people voted and between them they only got one seat, a single voice to shout back at the other 400 Mp's ? Vote rigging ! Well the scotish voted a few months ago on pulling out of the UK and it was about 50/50 but now we are presented with 90% of scots just a few months later all voting SNP. It could be because the british put up death taxes or scots didn't like the old boss of the party, it could be this or that or it could just be something does not quite add up with the numbers and it was fixed. I don't have the answers but i do have a few facts.
You have lots of facts but you don't seem to understand them. The Scots decided against independence but decided they did want a party focused on Scotland to represent them in the government of the union. Makes sense to me, I'd have been amazed if it was otherwise. Lots of people may have voted for UKIP, spread around the country, but nowhere did a significant large enough number of people think that they were the right party to represent them. Even the seat they have was one they had bought from the Conservatives last year. It has nothing at all to do with vote rigging, just a consequence of the plurality voting system we have in the UK. Those are the only answers you need for your facts.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
-
Do you dispute that 4,000,000 people voted and between them they only got one seat, a single voice to shout back at the other 400 Mp's ? Vote rigging ! Well the scotish voted a few months ago on pulling out of the UK and it was about 50/50 but now we are presented with 90% of scots just a few months later all voting SNP. It could be because the british put up death taxes or scots didn't like the old boss of the party, it could be this or that or it could just be something does not quite add up with the numbers and it was fixed. I don't have the answers but i do have a few facts.
no system is total fair and UKIP fell foul of the system in that whilst they were popular they were not popular enough nothing about this is vote rigging and if you think this you need to look up the term and the voting system used in the UK. UKIP came second in a huge number of constituencies but you do not get any prize for second only for winning as for Scotland are you aware that the SNP vote actually works out pretty much the same as the referendum? but the no vote was split between the other parties (90% by the way, where did you pluck that figure from?) also the SNP stated that this was a vote for Scottish representation in Westminster and NOT a vote on independence (you may believe or disbelieve this but that is what they stated). and as to your last line you have no facts only opinions the fact is that under the current system you need to win your constituency second counts for nothing, their is no need to rig the vote when UKIP lost without rigging you may argue that the system is flawed but both AV and PR also disenfranchises a proportion of the vote - it what happens in a democracy, the only way to avoid it is to have a one party state
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
I voted against PR
How did you manage that when the options on offer were FPTP or AV. PR wasn't up for anyone to vote for or against.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
-
don't blame the system until you understand it, each seat is actually contested by an individual, who may be affiliated to a party, but its that person who gets voted to parliament, that person is responsible to his constituents. In PR you can end up with someone that, not only have you never heard of, but couldn't find his seat with two maps and a satnav. You also end up with bigwigs in the party being guaranteed a seat with the system at present you can send up with people like Balls being booted out, had this been PR the Labour party would have made sure he had a seat. You can also have the sitting MP changing allegiance something you don't get with PR. Also PR can be a big stick to avoid dissent in the party as the allocation of seats is purely at the whim of the party, p*ss them off and out you go, with FPTP that person can still stand for the seat and the party risks them retaining the seat and end up outside the party or as a member of a different party FPTP also tends to result in stronger government as it is not reliant on small parties to retain power, it also stops small parties having influence far in excess of the their popularity. No system is perfect but to say that FPTP is bad is not to understand it, it is no worse that PR.
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
I understand the voting system and agree FPTP has its faults but if it was all down to the way votes are counted then the lib-dems would by the laws of averages would also only be left with about one seat. Also see my comments on the SNP rise to power so soon after scotland had an election on spliting from the UK. The thing is that i don't let the BBC/NBC/Fox do my thinking for me and something seem to smell wrong here and its not like i feel for the UKIP party who have trouble nailing any policy to the mast of the ship
-
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
the fact that geological areas results in groups of MPs
Does that mean that granite is given more weight than sandstone?
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
no it means that labour gets elected in coal mining areas (check the relationship between pits and labour seats and it a pretty good match if you exclude London) PS yep I should have put geographical and thought I had, buit with my spelling I am probably lucky I got that close
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
chriselst wrote:
PR wasn't up for anyone to vote for or against.
It's a version of PR, just impossible to understand. And it would probably have made things far worse if implemented.
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
It's a version of PR,
AV is a majoritarian voting system, it is categorically not a PR system. And it is quite simple really, just explained very, very badly when we had the referendum. I think I voted against it myself at the time, although I now think it would have been better. I'm still not keen on proportional systems.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
-
I understand the voting system and agree FPTP has its faults but if it was all down to the way votes are counted then the lib-dems would by the laws of averages would also only be left with about one seat. Also see my comments on the SNP rise to power so soon after scotland had an election on spliting from the UK. The thing is that i don't let the BBC/NBC/Fox do my thinking for me and something seem to smell wrong here and its not like i feel for the UKIP party who have trouble nailing any policy to the mast of the ship
what has the law of averages got to do with it? no averages involves its is simple addition and subtraction as to SNP, two different votes on different subjects, whilst some overlap one was a specific vote on a how the wished to be governed the other was a vote on how they are currently governed. What seems to be wrong is that you seemed to be unable to grasp the truth of the system being employed and are imposing false logic upon it
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
no system is total fair and UKIP fell foul of the system in that whilst they were popular they were not popular enough nothing about this is vote rigging and if you think this you need to look up the term and the voting system used in the UK. UKIP came second in a huge number of constituencies but you do not get any prize for second only for winning as for Scotland are you aware that the SNP vote actually works out pretty much the same as the referendum? but the no vote was split between the other parties (90% by the way, where did you pluck that figure from?) also the SNP stated that this was a vote for Scottish representation in Westminster and NOT a vote on independence (you may believe or disbelieve this but that is what they stated). and as to your last line you have no facts only opinions the fact is that under the current system you need to win your constituency second counts for nothing, their is no need to rig the vote when UKIP lost without rigging you may argue that the system is flawed but both AV and PR also disenfranchises a proportion of the vote - it what happens in a democracy, the only way to avoid it is to have a one party state
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
"UKIP came second in a huge number of constituencies but you do not get any prize for second only for winning" Just how many times do you need to keep coming second before bells start to ring and if that was the case then would the lib-dems not had been disadvantaged just the same ? if you flip a coin 500 times and the results are not in the range of 49-51% then you know that something is wrong. By the time you take into accont the number of people who can vote in the UK and then deduct all the people who didn't vote and look at the number left who went out and voted UKIP then you are talking about 23% of the populations by my guess as being left with about 0.35% of a seat
-
what has the law of averages got to do with it? no averages involves its is simple addition and subtraction as to SNP, two different votes on different subjects, whilst some overlap one was a specific vote on a how the wished to be governed the other was a vote on how they are currently governed. What seems to be wrong is that you seemed to be unable to grasp the truth of the system being employed and are imposing false logic upon it
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
"what has the law of averages got to do with it" The law says that the chances of winning the pools twice in a row is unlikly but not impossible and the same can be said about keep coming second given so many seats and so many YES votes for the party. Clearly the Lib-Dems must have had lady luck on their side.
-
"UKIP came second in a huge number of constituencies but you do not get any prize for second only for winning" Just how many times do you need to keep coming second before bells start to ring and if that was the case then would the lib-dems not had been disadvantaged just the same ? if you flip a coin 500 times and the results are not in the range of 49-51% then you know that something is wrong. By the time you take into accont the number of people who can vote in the UK and then deduct all the people who didn't vote and look at the number left who went out and voted UKIP then you are talking about 23% of the populations by my guess as being left with about 0.35% of a seat
Dr Gadgit wrote:
you are talking about 23% of the populations
Or you could just look it up and see that it is 12.6% What the fuck flipping a coin has got to do with it I don't know. You do realise that when people vote they mostly vote the same as they have done before, some change their mind, very very few vote randomly. There should be no trend towards some fair set of results.
Dr Gadgit wrote:
Just how many times do you need to keep coming second before bells start to ring
Are you struggling to understand how Arsenal always finish in the top 4 of the Premiership but haven't won for over 10 years as well?
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
