UKIP get 4 million votes but only one seat
-
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.
Feel free to explain how Lib-dems can win 8 seats with less votes than UKIP that only won one. The size of the constituance could account for some seats (Slow runners should enter small races) but it does not account for a 800% factor. On average if me and you play a game of pontoon against a banker then the banker will win (FPTP weighted towards winners) but unless I am real stupid then me and you by the laws of averages should both win about an equal amount of games and not eight one to you even when you have to sit out some game because you have less cash (Less votes) than me. I see nothing wrong with my logic One in 13 cards from mixed pack of cards should be an Ace so unless you think that you can be served 100 cards and only ever get one Ace is just bad luck and not card cheating then all i can sugest is that you don't do card games.
-
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...
"The votes are "clumpy" with higher distributions in some areas and lower in others" Yes agree but on the whole these clumps will average out across the board. What rules could be applied to Lib-dems that gives them just the right concentration of votes to win eight time more seats with less votes spread across those seats than UKIP. I can accept that up north they vote red and down south they vote blue but that does not result in the conservatives winning eight to one. Lib-dems must be very loyal and sell up homes to move to an area where the party has a strong candidate to win like this but i would say lib-dems are a mixed bag just like UKIP and you need to look at the total number of votes for the party. "LD votes tend to be higher in areas with high number of student voters" And UKIP tend to do well in places that have seen a mass influx of immigrants in big towns which are also homes to univercitys so i still cannot see how these small factors can account for the numbers. 12.6% of population get one seat 8.7% (I think it was) get eight seats These numbers don't compute even if you throw in small factors like the average size of the constituency
-
thats a bit like asking just what hand of cards should have included an Ace ! UKIP keept just missing an Ace and yet the Lib-dems kept getting them even when none of them were good at cards. UKIP had more votes so a better chance of "Just beating the odds" and it comes down to the laws of probabilities. I have looked at trying to model this in a computer program but cannot come up with an equation that fits the bill.
talk about missing the point, it is nothing like a game of cards their is NO CHANCE involved so no law of probability is invoked. if UKIP got 99.9% of the vote it would still mean that other parties could get a seat if MORE PEOPLE VOTED FOR ANOTHER PARTY THAN UKIP IN A PARTICULAR SEAT which bit of this is beyond you? your argument is like saying that the Socialist get a lot of votes in France and this should mean that they get more here, see the flaw?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
talk about missing the point, it is nothing like a game of cards their is NO CHANCE involved so no law of probability is invoked. if UKIP got 99.9% of the vote it would still mean that other parties could get a seat if MORE PEOPLE VOTED FOR ANOTHER PARTY THAN UKIP IN A PARTICULAR SEAT which bit of this is beyond you? your argument is like saying that the Socialist get a lot of votes in France and this should mean that they get more here, see the flaw?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
"talk about missing the point, it is nothing like a game of cards their is NO CHANCE involved so no law of probability is invoked. You is wrong or would you still say that if UKIP just kept missing a win by ten votes for each seat ? In theory if we just had Labour and the conservative in the race then the conservates could win every seat even if 40% of all vote cast are for Labour. Things in life don't work like that and it is you that is missing the point
-
"The votes are "clumpy" with higher distributions in some areas and lower in others" Yes agree but on the whole these clumps will average out across the board. What rules could be applied to Lib-dems that gives them just the right concentration of votes to win eight time more seats with less votes spread across those seats than UKIP. I can accept that up north they vote red and down south they vote blue but that does not result in the conservatives winning eight to one. Lib-dems must be very loyal and sell up homes to move to an area where the party has a strong candidate to win like this but i would say lib-dems are a mixed bag just like UKIP and you need to look at the total number of votes for the party. "LD votes tend to be higher in areas with high number of student voters" And UKIP tend to do well in places that have seen a mass influx of immigrants in big towns which are also homes to univercitys so i still cannot see how these small factors can account for the numbers. 12.6% of population get one seat 8.7% (I think it was) get eight seats These numbers don't compute even if you throw in small factors like the average size of the constituency
"The votes are "clumpy" with higher distributions in some areas and lower in others" Yes agree but on the whole these clumps will average out across the board. WHY? it might if there was only two parties (and I say might as their are other factors involved) but as their isn't then how does an average work? What rules could be applied to Lib-dems that gives them just the right concentration of votes to win eight time more seats with less votes spread across those seats than UKIP. maybe that certain areas have a large proportion of LibDems votes than those voting for other parties whilst support for UKIP is spread more evenly so the LibDem peak areas are enough for victory whilst the average for UKIP is always exceed by peaks for other parties I can accept that up north they vote red and down south they vote blue but that does not result in the conservatives winning eight to one. not true, even in some of these areas the conservative vote was greater than that of Libdems or UKIP, but overall the UKIP came second in a large number of seats but second in this voting system is worth nothing Lib-dems must be very loyal and sell up homes to move to an area where the party has a strong candidate to win like this but i would say lib-dems are a mixed bag just like UKIP and you need to look at the total number of votes for the party. could it be that they have a candidate in that area that is well liked and gets the local vote? or that some quirk means that a high number of Libdem votes live in a certain area like a certain value of housing, certain schools, certain types of jobs? "LD votes tend to be higher in areas with high number of student voters" And UKIP tend to do well in places that have seen a mass influx of immigrants in big towns which are also homes to univercitys so i still cannot see how these small factors can account for the numbers. because you are trying to find a pattern that is not there, you need to forget the big picture of the whole country and look at what happens in each seat, micro not macro otherwise you will never understand 12.6% of population get one seat 8.7% (I think it was) get eight seats These numbers don't compute even if you throw in small factors like the average size of the constituency but the votes are not counted as an overall number but as the most votes per candidate in each seat, this why you can get an independent getting in with a total number of votes th
-
"talk about missing the point, it is nothing like a game of cards their is NO CHANCE involved so no law of probability is invoked. You is wrong or would you still say that if UKIP just kept missing a win by ten votes for each seat ? In theory if we just had Labour and the conservative in the race then the conservates could win every seat even if 40% of all vote cast are for Labour. Things in life don't work like that and it is you that is missing the point
but they didn't did they, some times it was a few hundred other it was thousands, sometimes they came second sometimes 4 ,5 or even 6th, in only one seat did enough of the voter decided they wanted UKIP and that may have been down to a lot voting for the same guy they did last time rather than the party he was standing for
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
Feel free to explain how Lib-dems can win 8 seats with less votes than UKIP that only won one. The size of the constituance could account for some seats (Slow runners should enter small races) but it does not account for a 800% factor. On average if me and you play a game of pontoon against a banker then the banker will win (FPTP weighted towards winners) but unless I am real stupid then me and you by the laws of averages should both win about an equal amount of games and not eight one to you even when you have to sit out some game because you have less cash (Less votes) than me. I see nothing wrong with my logic One in 13 cards from mixed pack of cards should be an Ace so unless you think that you can be served 100 cards and only ever get one Ace is just bad luck and not card cheating then all i can sugest is that you don't do card games.
easy in those 8 seats more people wanted a lib dem MP than wanted an mp for another party, in all the other seats more people wanted a NON UKIP MP than wanted an UKIP MP now you're being stupid, FPTP is not a card game and what applies to cards does not apply to an election FPTP is not weighted towards the winners it is completely governed by the winners, FPTP elections are not a simple set of rules as a card game its like each game of cards being different rules to the previous or even a different sport your example is like saying because a football team wins all the competitions it entered that the best individual play MUST come from that team
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
"The votes are "clumpy" with higher distributions in some areas and lower in others" Yes agree but on the whole these clumps will average out across the board. WHY? it might if there was only two parties (and I say might as their are other factors involved) but as their isn't then how does an average work? What rules could be applied to Lib-dems that gives them just the right concentration of votes to win eight time more seats with less votes spread across those seats than UKIP. maybe that certain areas have a large proportion of LibDems votes than those voting for other parties whilst support for UKIP is spread more evenly so the LibDem peak areas are enough for victory whilst the average for UKIP is always exceed by peaks for other parties I can accept that up north they vote red and down south they vote blue but that does not result in the conservatives winning eight to one. not true, even in some of these areas the conservative vote was greater than that of Libdems or UKIP, but overall the UKIP came second in a large number of seats but second in this voting system is worth nothing Lib-dems must be very loyal and sell up homes to move to an area where the party has a strong candidate to win like this but i would say lib-dems are a mixed bag just like UKIP and you need to look at the total number of votes for the party. could it be that they have a candidate in that area that is well liked and gets the local vote? or that some quirk means that a high number of Libdem votes live in a certain area like a certain value of housing, certain schools, certain types of jobs? "LD votes tend to be higher in areas with high number of student voters" And UKIP tend to do well in places that have seen a mass influx of immigrants in big towns which are also homes to univercitys so i still cannot see how these small factors can account for the numbers. because you are trying to find a pattern that is not there, you need to forget the big picture of the whole country and look at what happens in each seat, micro not macro otherwise you will never understand 12.6% of population get one seat 8.7% (I think it was) get eight seats These numbers don't compute even if you throw in small factors like the average size of the constituency but the votes are not counted as an overall number but as the most votes per candidate in each seat, this why you can get an independent getting in with a total number of votes th
Sure it could be this or that and just down right bad luck that a five year old child wins 8 goldfish by throwing 2.8m rings and the six year old only wins one after throwing 3.6m rings. Maybe the wind blew each time the 6 years old had a turn and i have looked at trying to write a computer model to make the point but to be honest that factors involved are too complicated for me to do this and it would all become very subjective on the loading applied. I know the BBC says I am wrong so i must be wrong and UKIP go quiet when i bring this up but i have often gone agaist the pack and have been proven to be right from time to time.
-
easy in those 8 seats more people wanted a lib dem MP than wanted an mp for another party, in all the other seats more people wanted a NON UKIP MP than wanted an UKIP MP now you're being stupid, FPTP is not a card game and what applies to cards does not apply to an election FPTP is not weighted towards the winners it is completely governed by the winners, FPTP elections are not a simple set of rules as a card game its like each game of cards being different rules to the previous or even a different sport your example is like saying because a football team wins all the competitions it entered that the best individual play MUST come from that team
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
"FPTP is not weighted towards the winners" Yes it is else we would not have the PR debate not that i think any system is prefect or anything. if you enter 50 races against me but can only run on average at half the speed as me then it does not mean you will win half as many races as me.
-
Sure it could be this or that and just down right bad luck that a five year old child wins 8 goldfish by throwing 2.8m rings and the six year old only wins one after throwing 3.6m rings. Maybe the wind blew each time the 6 years old had a turn and i have looked at trying to write a computer model to make the point but to be honest that factors involved are too complicated for me to do this and it would all become very subjective on the loading applied. I know the BBC says I am wrong so i must be wrong and UKIP go quiet when i bring this up but i have often gone agaist the pack and have been proven to be right from time to time.
its nothing like the throwing of rings, it is human choice involved this alone would bend any result set, take you pack of cards - rather than playing poker lay them out on the table face up, ask a passer by to pick a card, note what is picked, replace the card and repeat for a new passer by, keep doing this for a significantly large number of people now by your argument all the cards should have been picked the same number of times, but in the real world certain cards will get picked more than others, face cards and aces, "lucky" numbers will all have a significantly higher number of selections but according to you this means that it was fixed
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
"FPTP is not weighted towards the winners" Yes it is else we would not have the PR debate not that i think any system is prefect or anything. if you enter 50 races against me but can only run on average at half the speed as me then it does not mean you will win half as many races as me.
it isn't weighted towards winners in the respect that if you DONT win you get nothing so it is only weighted if you regard a guaranteed 100% as a weighting which by definition is NOT weighting http://mktresearch.org/wiki/Weighting[^]
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
but they didn't did they, some times it was a few hundred other it was thousands, sometimes they came second sometimes 4 ,5 or even 6th, in only one seat did enough of the voter decided they wanted UKIP and that may have been down to a lot voting for the same guy they did last time rather than the party he was standing for
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
My brain must be too logical to get the point across to you. 12.6% of the population must just have had some real bad luck as a group whilst 8.7% all had fantastic luck. Arguments present so far would sugest that no questions would be asked if Lib-Dems only had 1m votes and got twenty seats and UKIP could have had 8m votes and still just end up with one seat by your logic. Tell me just how twisted would the results need to be before logic dictates to you that something is wrong, votes are fixed.
-
it isn't weighted towards winners in the respect that if you DONT win you get nothing so it is only weighted if you regard a guaranteed 100% as a weighting which by definition is NOT weighting http://mktresearch.org/wiki/Weighting[^]
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
My brain must be too logical to get the point across to you. 12.6% of the population must just have had some real bad luck as a group whilst 8.7% all had fantastic luck. Arguments present so far would sugest that no questions would be asked if Lib-Dems only had 1m votes and got twenty seats and UKIP could have had 8m votes and still just end up with one seat by your logic. Tell me just how twisted would the results need to be before logic dictates to you that something is wrong, votes are fixed.
I understand what you are saying, I (and everyone else) just understand that your assumptions are completely wrong, it does not matter how you analyse the data when your initial assumptions of the process is so badly flawed then your result is guaranteed to be in error you seem to think the result is down to luck or chance or some such, when it is down to individual choice, a choice that is effected by far greater pressures than just the percentage of votes overall. how does people voting for someone they know fit with your distribution?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
its nothing like the throwing of rings, it is human choice involved this alone would bend any result set, take you pack of cards - rather than playing poker lay them out on the table face up, ask a passer by to pick a card, note what is picked, replace the card and repeat for a new passer by, keep doing this for a significantly large number of people now by your argument all the cards should have been picked the same number of times, but in the real world certain cards will get picked more than others, face cards and aces, "lucky" numbers will all have a significantly higher number of selections but according to you this means that it was fixed
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
You are right we would get some cards that seem to be lucky winners and we could deal out 520 cards and no one ever gets dealt the ace of spades. Thats the nature of the beast. But the same rules do not apply if we increase the number of goes to 31 million and then the results would be near 1/52 or even 1/53 but nothing like 1/25 as needed for Lib-dems to just keep pitching the post. if you are interested and you will have to google if you want to know more. A system of something like 250 computers have been setup across the globe and each one flips something like 20 coins a second and the results are all sent back to a central server. As you would guess the results are always about 50/50 +/- 0.000001% but every now and then apparantly all the computers start to throw heads or tails by a large factor of about 44/56 Get your head around that one.
-
OK FPTP is not weighted as yoy say in the least and people calling for PR don't understand anything about weighting
wow you really do not understand how these things work do you a vote is a vote, their is no weighting involved in either system, a white Scotsman has the same number of votes as a black women from London no weighting involved in either system now one vote can be worth more if its a higher % of the total than another but it is still one vote
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
You are right we would get some cards that seem to be lucky winners and we could deal out 520 cards and no one ever gets dealt the ace of spades. Thats the nature of the beast. But the same rules do not apply if we increase the number of goes to 31 million and then the results would be near 1/52 or even 1/53 but nothing like 1/25 as needed for Lib-dems to just keep pitching the post. if you are interested and you will have to google if you want to know more. A system of something like 250 computers have been setup across the globe and each one flips something like 20 coins a second and the results are all sent back to a central server. As you would guess the results are always about 50/50 +/- 0.000001% but every now and then apparantly all the computers start to throw heads or tails by a large factor of about 44/56 Get your head around that one.
but no, the thing you insist on is the thing that in fact is not applicable, their is no uniformity of spread in the voting that you get in cards if you did 300 billion you would still get an uneven spread of card SELECTION as it is not a uniform distribution, it is by definition a selection and as such is nearly impossible to model with logic, how do you program in those idiots who cannot fill in a cross in the box correctly? or those that put in one box when they mean to vote for someone else, or those that will vote for a party regardless or those that will vote for a joke party the parameters are endless and so is the result as a mathematical construct, you could spend 100 years build a mathematical model to predict the result of a seat and the night before the vote the candidate your model predicts could be seen on TV tripping up and your whole model goes out of the window
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
I understand what you are saying, I (and everyone else) just understand that your assumptions are completely wrong, it does not matter how you analyse the data when your initial assumptions of the process is so badly flawed then your result is guaranteed to be in error you seem to think the result is down to luck or chance or some such, when it is down to individual choice, a choice that is effected by far greater pressures than just the percentage of votes overall. how does people voting for someone they know fit with your distribution?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
"when it is down to individual choice" Yes each ring thrown is individual You have 2.7m yellow rings and I have 3.6m purple rings and off we go around the fair ground to throw our rings at pins. Sometimes we have 20 pins behind the stall and other times we have 30 pins. Now and then we both compete in the same game where winner takes all (Most rings on pins) and at other times we go our own way but hardly ever come first because the blue and red players both throw rings faster than we do but i am a little bit faster than you. This is first past the post, no one knows who is going to win untill the rings are counted. Now you being yellow, you is smarter than I and decide to tell all your voters to move to certain areas to concentrate your votes to increase the number of rings you can play in certain games (Most would tell you to get lost) just to be in with a chance of winning. Purple voters are more dispursed, won't move when i ask them, no tatical voting. As luck would have it you just happen to concentrate your voters so you only have to run off againt one other big player (Lots of rings) at the stall. Yes i can conceed you could win in theory 8 goldfish and I only end up with one but the world is not like that and us purple player might not be quite as smart or lucky as you at picking our stalls but we are not total fools and are dispursed across the country almost the same as you due to the size of random consuituancies across the country. I am not saying I know the forula or factors that would need to be applied here or if you would agree but since i had more rings than you to beging with I would still exspect quite a lot more goldfish than you since FPTP exspands any leads and i might just be upset if you got five out of nine seats and keep quites about it but you eight and me one, well don't blame me for raising a big red flag. You don't know any of the men working behind the stalls do you ! I am not being rude but i think we have done this one to death
-
wow you really do not understand how these things work do you a vote is a vote, their is no weighting involved in either system, a white Scotsman has the same number of votes as a black women from London no weighting involved in either system now one vote can be worth more if its a higher % of the total than another but it is still one vote
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Yes mate "their is no weighting involved in either system" Laws of averages is a crazy theory made up by the jesus army PR=FPTP , No weighting and you say that i just don't get it. 2,700,000 -------------- X B=8 31,000,000 AND 3,600,000 -------------- X B=1 31,000,000 Please transpose 'B'
-
"when it is down to individual choice" Yes each ring thrown is individual You have 2.7m yellow rings and I have 3.6m purple rings and off we go around the fair ground to throw our rings at pins. Sometimes we have 20 pins behind the stall and other times we have 30 pins. Now and then we both compete in the same game where winner takes all (Most rings on pins) and at other times we go our own way but hardly ever come first because the blue and red players both throw rings faster than we do but i am a little bit faster than you. This is first past the post, no one knows who is going to win untill the rings are counted. Now you being yellow, you is smarter than I and decide to tell all your voters to move to certain areas to concentrate your votes to increase the number of rings you can play in certain games (Most would tell you to get lost) just to be in with a chance of winning. Purple voters are more dispursed, won't move when i ask them, no tatical voting. As luck would have it you just happen to concentrate your voters so you only have to run off againt one other big player (Lots of rings) at the stall. Yes i can conceed you could win in theory 8 goldfish and I only end up with one but the world is not like that and us purple player might not be quite as smart or lucky as you at picking our stalls but we are not total fools and are dispursed across the country almost the same as you due to the size of random consuituancies across the country. I am not saying I know the forula or factors that would need to be applied here or if you would agree but since i had more rings than you to beging with I would still exspect quite a lot more goldfish than you since FPTP exspands any leads and i might just be upset if you got five out of nine seats and keep quites about it but you eight and me one, well don't blame me for raising a big red flag. You don't know any of the men working behind the stalls do you ! I am not being rude but i think we have done this one to death
but that's not representative is it as the vote didn't go UKIP or LibDems, the lib dems were defeated by UKIP in 90+% of seats so in that respect your argument works the problem is that those damn Conservatives, Labour or SNP then came in and beat UKIP we can go on forever as you are determined to apply assumptions to the argument that are not only incorrect but blatantly stupid
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
