UKIP get 4 million votes but only one seat
-
if you cannot understand how maths plays a part in poker or the laws of avrages plays a part in "Belivable" Election results then i am not the best person to help you, sorry
no you are not, as averages do not play a part in UK elections as it is first past the post, think of a horse race in which a horse finishes second in every race, it does not matter who wins as this horse never wins despite having probably the best AVERAGE result. in this case 1 win and 499 last places is better than 500 second places. by the way how does the fact that certain constituencies will always vote for a particular party regardless of what is occurring country wide, your laws of averages would preclude that from occurring
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
no you are not, as averages do not play a part in UK elections as it is first past the post, think of a horse race in which a horse finishes second in every race, it does not matter who wins as this horse never wins despite having probably the best AVERAGE result. in this case 1 win and 499 last places is better than 500 second places. by the way how does the fact that certain constituencies will always vote for a particular party regardless of what is occurring country wide, your laws of averages would preclude that from occurring
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
"no you are not, as averages do not play a part in UK elections" Yes i am and yes they do. For UKIP to be left with just one seat it would be like pulling 12 cards in a row and them all being red ! Not impossible but not very likly and how do you explain Lib-dems getting 8 seasts when they are a minority party and spread across the country didn't get more votes that UKIP I don't think. If everything is above board like you think it is then please give me links for 1. Total number of votes cast (Not as a percent) 2. Total votes for UKIP (Think its 4m, can not be sure) 3. Total votes for Libdems (Not seats or percent, votes please) These numbers you would think should be easy to find using our freind Google but my browser is broken or something because I have trouble finding them I've read that 66.1% of the public voted but i am not sure if that is out of the total population of 65 billion or what groups are excluded. Again, Please help with any numbers because i read that 54% of scots voted to stay with England about six months ago but then i read "Labour has confirmed its sole remaining Scottish MP - Ian Murray in Edinburgh South - will be the party's shadow Scottish secretary." So they didn't want out but then (At a guess) 85% Plus vote for the SNP party to take them out of england and won all but one seat in FPTP elections. I know, Alex must had been so unliked that over half the scotish population decided to vote the other way on a matter close to most scotich people. Please, Please Lets have some base numbers and not some bad luck story for Alex or the UKIP losses.
-
"no you are not, as averages do not play a part in UK elections" Yes i am and yes they do. For UKIP to be left with just one seat it would be like pulling 12 cards in a row and them all being red ! Not impossible but not very likly and how do you explain Lib-dems getting 8 seasts when they are a minority party and spread across the country didn't get more votes that UKIP I don't think. If everything is above board like you think it is then please give me links for 1. Total number of votes cast (Not as a percent) 2. Total votes for UKIP (Think its 4m, can not be sure) 3. Total votes for Libdems (Not seats or percent, votes please) These numbers you would think should be easy to find using our freind Google but my browser is broken or something because I have trouble finding them I've read that 66.1% of the public voted but i am not sure if that is out of the total population of 65 billion or what groups are excluded. Again, Please help with any numbers because i read that 54% of scots voted to stay with England about six months ago but then i read "Labour has confirmed its sole remaining Scottish MP - Ian Murray in Edinburgh South - will be the party's shadow Scottish secretary." So they didn't want out but then (At a guess) 85% Plus vote for the SNP party to take them out of england and won all but one seat in FPTP elections. I know, Alex must had been so unliked that over half the scotish population decided to vote the other way on a matter close to most scotich people. Please, Please Lets have some base numbers and not some bad luck story for Alex or the UKIP losses.
-
"no you are not, as averages do not play a part in UK elections" Yes i am and yes they do. For UKIP to be left with just one seat it would be like pulling 12 cards in a row and them all being red ! Not impossible but not very likly and how do you explain Lib-dems getting 8 seasts when they are a minority party and spread across the country didn't get more votes that UKIP I don't think. If everything is above board like you think it is then please give me links for 1. Total number of votes cast (Not as a percent) 2. Total votes for UKIP (Think its 4m, can not be sure) 3. Total votes for Libdems (Not seats or percent, votes please) These numbers you would think should be easy to find using our freind Google but my browser is broken or something because I have trouble finding them I've read that 66.1% of the public voted but i am not sure if that is out of the total population of 65 billion or what groups are excluded. Again, Please help with any numbers because i read that 54% of scots voted to stay with England about six months ago but then i read "Labour has confirmed its sole remaining Scottish MP - Ian Murray in Edinburgh South - will be the party's shadow Scottish secretary." So they didn't want out but then (At a guess) 85% Plus vote for the SNP party to take them out of england and won all but one seat in FPTP elections. I know, Alex must had been so unliked that over half the scotish population decided to vote the other way on a matter close to most scotich people. Please, Please Lets have some base numbers and not some bad luck story for Alex or the UKIP losses.
No they dont, it is first past the post no averages involved as for the cards that analogy isnt relavent as that does not match what the situation is, or are you saying that one one can win 12 tournaments or races or events in a row? As that would be a closer anaLogy As t your list 1, irelavant as the number of votes do not relate to seats, only those votes cast in a particular seat count to that seat 2, again irrelavent as its the votes cast in each seat against those cast for otjer parties in THE SAME SEAT that are relavent 3, again irrelavent as each seat needs considering seperately the total number of votes for each party is easy every uk news outlet has that info the 66.1% is the percentage of registered voters that actually voted, if you are not registered then no vote (or are a convicted criminal) again with the broken logic, just because 55% voted to stay in the uk does not mean that the snp could only get 45% as people the snp only got about 45% of the vote but the others got even less and the votes are non transferable The matter might be close to the heart but the majority decided that they were better off with the UK, that does not mean that they wouldnt prefer an MP with a more nationalistic tendancies As to figures it is pointless as you have a basic lack of understanding of the whole process so would not correct be able to analyse those figures
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
I should give up; you really, really do not understand our electoral system. Are you sure you are from the UK, and not Captain Ceesharp in disguise?
Begining to think its not a case of not understanding but refusal to understand
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
nope you still don't get it do you, any coin toss analogy is invalid as the distribution is not random nor linear your analogy is like saying as 1 in 4 people is Chinese and their are 4 people in your family then one of your family must be Chinese.
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:
your analogy is like saying as 1 in 4 people is Chinese and their are 4 people in your family then one of your family must be Chinese.
ROTFL, I have to tell this one to my son: "- Wang Lee, I have a good one for you".
-
I should give up; you really, really do not understand our electoral system. Are you sure you are from the UK, and not Captain Ceesharp in disguise?
-
No they dont, it is first past the post no averages involved as for the cards that analogy isnt relavent as that does not match what the situation is, or are you saying that one one can win 12 tournaments or races or events in a row? As that would be a closer anaLogy As t your list 1, irelavant as the number of votes do not relate to seats, only those votes cast in a particular seat count to that seat 2, again irrelavent as its the votes cast in each seat against those cast for otjer parties in THE SAME SEAT that are relavent 3, again irrelavent as each seat needs considering seperately the total number of votes for each party is easy every uk news outlet has that info the 66.1% is the percentage of registered voters that actually voted, if you are not registered then no vote (or are a convicted criminal) again with the broken logic, just because 55% voted to stay in the uk does not mean that the snp could only get 45% as people the snp only got about 45% of the vote but the others got even less and the votes are non transferable The matter might be close to the heart but the majority decided that they were better off with the UK, that does not mean that they wouldnt prefer an MP with a more nationalistic tendancies As to figures it is pointless as you have a basic lack of understanding of the whole process so would not correct be able to analyse those figures
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
"1, irelavant as the number of votes do not relate to seats, only those votes cast in a particular seat count to that seat" Clearly not if you keep coming second. I cannot give you clear numbers and i know each county is not quite the same but if 4 million votes for Libdems spread across the UK results in 8 seats than 4m UKIP votes should result in a simular number of seats. if this is not so then something is wrong with the laws of averages or something is wrong in how the votes are being counted. The only other way to agree is if we said that on average if a person votes libdems then it will be in a small constituancy and they only ever vote if they know they will win. Possible but i find it hard to beleive myself
-
Dr Gadgit wrote:
Vote rigging !
Nothing has been rigged. You obviously have no understanding of the British electoral system. I can only assume that you have never voted before.
I understand bits, bytes and numbers so save the insults about not understanding the system. If you could read then you would see my understanding of FPTP and PR is just as good as yours and if you was good at maths then you would have numbers to debunk my maths. Yes we know that no two balls are quite the same but if i fire 50 million balls at small slot and get eight balls passing through the hole and i then repeat the exsperiment again using the same balls, the same speeds and the same gun then i would exspect simular results and not one the first time and eight the second time. Maybe watching this "Double slit" experiment will help you understand the laws of averages https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc[^] OK It does blow the mind if you understand what the implications are of the experiment but i would not argue with maths or Dr Quantum Anyone reading this that has not seen the above experiment should take a peek!
-
"1, irelavant as the number of votes do not relate to seats, only those votes cast in a particular seat count to that seat" Clearly not if you keep coming second. I cannot give you clear numbers and i know each county is not quite the same but if 4 million votes for Libdems spread across the UK results in 8 seats than 4m UKIP votes should result in a simular number of seats. if this is not so then something is wrong with the laws of averages or something is wrong in how the votes are being counted. The only other way to agree is if we said that on average if a person votes libdems then it will be in a small constituancy and they only ever vote if they know they will win. Possible but i find it hard to beleive myself
Dr Gadgit wrote:
if this is not so then something is wrong with the laws of averages or something is wrong in how the votes are being counted.
No, the problem is that your interpretation is wrong: you are expecting a uniform distribution of UKIP / LD votes across all constituency, but that isn't the case: The votes are "clumpy" with higher distributions in some areas and lower in others, and this is the same for all parties. For example, LD votes tend to be higher in areas with high number of student voters, while Tory votes tend to be higher in very affluent areas such as the south / south west of England. Labour tend to get better results in northern areas which traditionally relied on coal for employment. It's entirely possible (and I haven't checked, because I'm not interested) that UKIP votes were uniformly distributed, and that's exactly what contributed to the low number of MPs as a result!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
"1, irelavant as the number of votes do not relate to seats, only those votes cast in a particular seat count to that seat" Clearly not if you keep coming second. I cannot give you clear numbers and i know each county is not quite the same but if 4 million votes for Libdems spread across the UK results in 8 seats than 4m UKIP votes should result in a simular number of seats. if this is not so then something is wrong with the laws of averages or something is wrong in how the votes are being counted. The only other way to agree is if we said that on average if a person votes libdems then it will be in a small constituancy and they only ever vote if they know they will win. Possible but i find it hard to beleive myself
Image a greatly simplified situation, with three parties, three seats, and four people voting in each seat.
- Seat 1: All four people vote for party A. Party A wins the seat.
- Seat 2: One person votes for party A; one person votes for party B; two vote for party C. Party C wins the seat.
- Seat 3: One person votes for party A; one person votes for party B; two vote for party C. Party C wins the seat.
If you count the individual votes, party A has six votes (50%), party B has two votes (16.67%), and party C has four votes (33.33%). If you count the seats, party A has one seat (33.33%), party B has zero seats (0%), and party C has two seats (66.67%). Party C has twice as many seats as party A, despite getting fewer votes. Questions:
- At what point has "the law of averages" gone wrong in this example?
- At what point have the votes been counted incorrectly in this example?
- How has this election been "rigged"?
- Are you seriously unable to grasp such simple concepts, or are you just trolling this site?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
I understand bits, bytes and numbers so save the insults about not understanding the system. If you could read then you would see my understanding of FPTP and PR is just as good as yours and if you was good at maths then you would have numbers to debunk my maths. Yes we know that no two balls are quite the same but if i fire 50 million balls at small slot and get eight balls passing through the hole and i then repeat the exsperiment again using the same balls, the same speeds and the same gun then i would exspect simular results and not one the first time and eight the second time. Maybe watching this "Double slit" experiment will help you understand the laws of averages https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc[^] OK It does blow the mind if you understand what the implications are of the experiment but i would not argue with maths or Dr Quantum Anyone reading this that has not seen the above experiment should take a peek!
What insults? I merely pointed out that you do not (or refuse to) understand our electoral system. And every message you post serves only to reinforce that view. Talk of bytes, numbers, averages and throwing balls is totally irrelevant. Our voting system is actually quite simple: the person with the most votes gets elected. I am sorry that you are unable, or unwilling, to accept that, but there is no easier way to explain it.
-
I understand bits, bytes and numbers so save the insults about not understanding the system. If you could read then you would see my understanding of FPTP and PR is just as good as yours and if you was good at maths then you would have numbers to debunk my maths. Yes we know that no two balls are quite the same but if i fire 50 million balls at small slot and get eight balls passing through the hole and i then repeat the exsperiment again using the same balls, the same speeds and the same gun then i would exspect simular results and not one the first time and eight the second time. Maybe watching this "Double slit" experiment will help you understand the laws of averages https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc[^] OK It does blow the mind if you understand what the implications are of the experiment but i would not argue with maths or Dr Quantum Anyone reading this that has not seen the above experiment should take a peek!
You also might understand ice hockey but that has about as much relavence you think that the numbers are relavent and they are not, The numbers you use are an overall number and you either fail to understand or you delibrately avoid it If you did understand the numbers you would understand that you cannot apply it to incompatable sets What applies to small sets cannot always be applied to the whole, especuespecially when the human factor is applied Are you too stupid to understand that the distribution is not linear and a vote in dundee does not count in bristol so unless you somekind of quantum vote your whole argument just shows not only a basic lack of understanding but an illability to learn
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
SNP gets 1.5 million votes and about 60 seats. Exit polls got it all wrong or they were fixed so people think that there one vote counts towards the results when it does not because 4,000,000 people (about 20% who voted) got less than 0.5% when turned into voices. I am suprise we are not seeing riots over this like you would see in other countries and it says to me that democracy in the UK is dead. Not living in Scotland I could not vote SNP but already they have lost my respect for not saying something about UKIP being written out and Labour never had my respect in the first place and had they won then they would have blamed everything on the conservatives for the next four years so maybe its best Cameron gets to reep the results of a population that are sick and tired of being taken for fools. All these MP's are down at the bar buying each other drinks come friday and i don't think the change the UK needs will ever come from a balot box.
Yeah, its unjust, but Cameron is going to change the electoral boundaries to make seats approximate more closely, votes. Good thing too, the sparsely populated Scottish highlands have a grossly unfair influence.
-
ok the math in simple form seat 1 30 voters seat 2 50 voters seat 3 60 voters party a gets 20 votes in each seat party b gets 0 votes in seat 1 and 2 but 25 votes in seat 3 party c get 10 in seat 1, 30 in seat 2 and 15 in seat 3 party a gets 60 votes and gets one seat party b get 25 votes and gets one seat party c gets 45 votes and gets one seat no rigging and party b gets nearly 1/4 of the votes but gets 1/3 of the seats party a gets nearly 1/2 the votes but again only 1/3 of the seats see how averages don't actually relate to what is occurring? this is because each seat is a separate entity
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
"Ukip surged to 3.7m votes and became third party - but only got one MP Party has got more votes than Lib Dems and SNP but 'hardly any seats' Calls for first past the post system to be scrapped to ensure votes count" See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3072898/Nigel-Farage-QUITS-Ukip-leader-failing-MP-bid-South-Thanet.html[^] I am not alone in saying something seems wrong and sorry it took a long time, hidden by Google but here are some real numbers to get your head around http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results[^] Liberal Democrat = 2,415,888 = 8 seats Green Party = 1,157,613 = 1 Seat UKIP = 3,881,129 = 1 seat Due to FPTP we cannot and would not exspect a linear result but at the top of the scale the ration would not be massive and comes in at about 32,000 votes per seat. At the bottome of the scale we cannot exspect an acurate result and you could flip a coin 3 times and hit heads each time but my argument is that if UKIP goes to the arcade and throws 3.8 million rings to win a fish then they should by chance win more fish than the Libdems. Put another way if I can run on average at 3.8 miles an hour and you can run on average at a mere 2.4 miles an hour when the average is close to six MPH then we are not going to win many races but if we do than the chances are i will still win more races that you. The laws of averages is on my side and the only way that i could win one if you win eight is if my legs were broken first.
-
Dr Gadgit wrote:
if this is not so then something is wrong with the laws of averages or something is wrong in how the votes are being counted.
No, the problem is that your interpretation is wrong: you are expecting a uniform distribution of UKIP / LD votes across all constituency, but that isn't the case: The votes are "clumpy" with higher distributions in some areas and lower in others, and this is the same for all parties. For example, LD votes tend to be higher in areas with high number of student voters, while Tory votes tend to be higher in very affluent areas such as the south / south west of England. Labour tend to get better results in northern areas which traditionally relied on coal for employment. It's entirely possible (and I haven't checked, because I'm not interested) that UKIP votes were uniformly distributed, and that's exactly what contributed to the low number of MPs as a result!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
Top award, best answer so far and i agree this would have an effect on the results but not a 800% swing on the results. if UKIP only fought for large constituacy areas and not small ones and the Dems only went for the little ones and won then yes, with a bit of bad luck you could be right but i don't think this is the case. The fact that the top of country tends to vote Red and the bottom blue does not effect the results, its the ratio of votes to seats ploted on a log graph that counts here and you would need to say that on average the constituacies who won dem seats were about twelth times smaller than the seat won by UKIP. I came to the number 12 because not only did they win eight times more seats but the number of total votes spread across those seats was 30% or more smaller. With respect to everone i think we have done this one to death and i have got to go and cut some code now.
-
What insults? I merely pointed out that you do not (or refuse to) understand our electoral system. And every message you post serves only to reinforce that view. Talk of bytes, numbers, averages and throwing balls is totally irrelevant. Our voting system is actually quite simple: the person with the most votes gets elected. I am sorry that you are unable, or unwilling, to accept that, but there is no easier way to explain it.
" I merely pointed out that you do not (or refuse to) understand our electoral system. " Thats OK Richard because I merely pointed out that you seem to have trouble reading my previous posts when talking about my understanding on a subject that i started. Did you checkout the double slit ?
-
"Ukip surged to 3.7m votes and became third party - but only got one MP Party has got more votes than Lib Dems and SNP but 'hardly any seats' Calls for first past the post system to be scrapped to ensure votes count" See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3072898/Nigel-Farage-QUITS-Ukip-leader-failing-MP-bid-South-Thanet.html[^] I am not alone in saying something seems wrong and sorry it took a long time, hidden by Google but here are some real numbers to get your head around http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results[^] Liberal Democrat = 2,415,888 = 8 seats Green Party = 1,157,613 = 1 Seat UKIP = 3,881,129 = 1 seat Due to FPTP we cannot and would not exspect a linear result but at the top of the scale the ration would not be massive and comes in at about 32,000 votes per seat. At the bottome of the scale we cannot exspect an acurate result and you could flip a coin 3 times and hit heads each time but my argument is that if UKIP goes to the arcade and throws 3.8 million rings to win a fish then they should by chance win more fish than the Libdems. Put another way if I can run on average at 3.8 miles an hour and you can run on average at a mere 2.4 miles an hour when the average is close to six MPH then we are not going to win many races but if we do than the chances are i will still win more races that you. The laws of averages is on my side and the only way that i could win one if you win eight is if my legs were broken first.
but as pointed out by everyone this is not fixed it is just the way the system works, in each seat the candidate with the most votes wins, UKIP's problem is that there was ALWAYS a candidate who had more votes (bar 1 seat) whilst the Lib Dems had more votes than any other candidate in 8 seat taking your example and putting into terms that match the real world your runner can run an average over a race (note that this per race) of 3.8mph but does this for all 6 races runner 2 manages 4.2 for 2 races and 2.5 for the other 4 runner 3 manages 5 for 2 races and 0.8 for the other 4 runner 4 manages 4.7 for 2 races and 2 for the other 4 your average is 3.8 runner 2 averages 3 runner 3 averages 2.2 runner 4 averages 2.9 you clearly have the best average, but if runner 2 does his best times in races 1 and 2, runner 3 does his in races 3 and 4 and runner 4 does his in races 5 and 6 then clearly you will win nothing - this is what happened to UKIP is the system wrong? maybe, but then again each seat decided they preferred another candidate so I could argue that the result is fair and represents what the people actually wanted locally rather than being imposed nationally, not a bad thing imho
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
" I merely pointed out that you do not (or refuse to) understand our electoral system. " Thats OK Richard because I merely pointed out that you seem to have trouble reading my previous posts when talking about my understanding on a subject that i started. Did you checkout the double slit ?
it was pointed out that there was no fix and that your statement that somehow UKIP was prevent from getting seats by dubious means (implied not stated) is in error and that you were applying faulty logic in your statements, so I would say any problems in misunderstand is either on your side or due to you being unclear what you mean. it is worth noting that of all the posts on this thread I don't seem to find any that supports your assertions
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
" I merely pointed out that you do not (or refuse to) understand our electoral system. " Thats OK Richard because I merely pointed out that you seem to have trouble reading my previous posts when talking about my understanding on a subject that i started. Did you checkout the double slit ?
