UKIP get 4 million votes but only one seat
-
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.
-
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.
-
and yet repeating the same irrelevant fact over and over again makes it valid? I guess there is no explaining to some people
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'
explain how the weighting works in a FPTP system then what is affected by the application od a weighting, you claim it is so, so prove it the law of averages is a perfectly good law if it was relevant but it isn't, the laws of gravity is also perfectly good but it has about as much relevance to this situation because a law is irrelevant in this case does not imply that the law is flawed only its application could you please explain when voter distribution was introduced as far as I was aware it was purely by geographical location and not % of votes/party within a location work this example will you 3 parties, A,B and C two seats seat 1, Party A get 10 votes, party B gets 9, party C gets none seat 2 , party A gets none, party B gets 9 and party C gets 10 which seat does Party B win? by the laws of average they should have won one if not both so if the laws apply then they must have won at least one, so which one and why? which seat does the weighting apply to?
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'
I don't know why people are still arguing with you on this as you are so far wrong and completely failing to understand why I cannot see it ever changing, you remind me of Captain Redbeard Rum "There are two schools of thought on that, I say it isn't and everyone else says it is". Having said that I'm going to have one last go. The numbers you keep using, the numbers above, they are entirely meaningless numbers, they are not used for anything, they are just added up at the end once everything is decided because people like to have statistics they can use to try and make a point. Statistics are utterly meaningless, they show everything and prove nothing. Voting takes place, is counted, and seats are awarded at a constituency level. The results and numbers at each constituency are completely and entirely unrelated to the results and numbers overall, they have no influence over each other, the totals when calculated at the end do not relate at all. There is no luck, no average, no repeating patterns, simply several hundred instances of the same things being done at the same time, but the same things being done by different things to different things. If a thousand dogs choose their favourite food from a selection of 8 types (one of which is called Tory, one Lib Dem, one UKIP, etc) at the same time as twenty thousand cats choose their favourite food from 4 types (named as before but different foods) and one hundred chickens choose their favourite from 5 types (and again), and you have tens more animals and food types then you will not end up with the totals percentage of votes and the total favourites for each name matching up at all. That is effectively how the UK General Election takes place, different numbers of different people vote for their favourite from a different set of candidates.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
-
explain how the weighting works in a FPTP system then what is affected by the application od a weighting, you claim it is so, so prove it the law of averages is a perfectly good law if it was relevant but it isn't, the laws of gravity is also perfectly good but it has about as much relevance to this situation because a law is irrelevant in this case does not imply that the law is flawed only its application could you please explain when voter distribution was introduced as far as I was aware it was purely by geographical location and not % of votes/party within a location work this example will you 3 parties, A,B and C two seats seat 1, Party A get 10 votes, party B gets 9, party C gets none seat 2 , party A gets none, party B gets 9 and party C gets 10 which seat does Party B win? by the laws of average they should have won one if not both so if the laws apply then they must have won at least one, so which one and why? which seat does the weighting apply to?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
"Go to Parentexplain how the weighting works in a FPTP system then what is affected by the application od a weighting, you claim it is so, so prove it " if you plot FPTP on a chart then you will see a logrithic curve and PR would be almost a stright line. Towards the top of the FPTP chart the factor between Labour and Cons in relation to votes is quite closes (Few errors 50/50 if you flick a coin 1bn times) At the bottom of the chart you have UKIP and Lib-Dems but because the number of votes/seats are low then the factors can have much wider swings (Toss a coin ten times, could get ten heads) The distribution of votes and constituency size are not big factors towards the top of the chart (Reds are from up north, blues down south) but play a bigger role towards the bottom of the chart so yes, more prone to errors. This still does not account for the eight to one win with less votes and i am sorry that i cannot help you anymore b-cus me dinner is cooking
-
"Go to Parentexplain how the weighting works in a FPTP system then what is affected by the application od a weighting, you claim it is so, so prove it " if you plot FPTP on a chart then you will see a logrithic curve and PR would be almost a stright line. Towards the top of the FPTP chart the factor between Labour and Cons in relation to votes is quite closes (Few errors 50/50 if you flick a coin 1bn times) At the bottom of the chart you have UKIP and Lib-Dems but because the number of votes/seats are low then the factors can have much wider swings (Toss a coin ten times, could get ten heads) The distribution of votes and constituency size are not big factors towards the top of the chart (Reds are from up north, blues down south) but play a bigger role towards the bottom of the chart so yes, more prone to errors. This still does not account for the eight to one win with less votes and i am sorry that i cannot help you anymore b-cus me dinner is cooking
nope that's doesn't explain how it effects the election of a MP only explains why the use of this in this situations is invalid, you cannot apply analysis at a macro level and apply the result to the micro, if you new your stuff you would realise this again I will state the problem Parties A,B,C seat 1 A gets 10 votes, b gets 9 votes c gets none seat 2 A gets no votes, B gets 9 votes c gets 10 which seat does B win? its a simple question, applying your logic which seat does b win? or if you prefer which seat does b not lose? explain how your argument works in this question and why B would actual have won?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
I don't know why people are still arguing with you on this as you are so far wrong and completely failing to understand why I cannot see it ever changing, you remind me of Captain Redbeard Rum "There are two schools of thought on that, I say it isn't and everyone else says it is". Having said that I'm going to have one last go. The numbers you keep using, the numbers above, they are entirely meaningless numbers, they are not used for anything, they are just added up at the end once everything is decided because people like to have statistics they can use to try and make a point. Statistics are utterly meaningless, they show everything and prove nothing. Voting takes place, is counted, and seats are awarded at a constituency level. The results and numbers at each constituency are completely and entirely unrelated to the results and numbers overall, they have no influence over each other, the totals when calculated at the end do not relate at all. There is no luck, no average, no repeating patterns, simply several hundred instances of the same things being done at the same time, but the same things being done by different things to different things. If a thousand dogs choose their favourite food from a selection of 8 types (one of which is called Tory, one Lib Dem, one UKIP, etc) at the same time as twenty thousand cats choose their favourite food from 4 types (named as before but different foods) and one hundred chickens choose their favourite from 5 types (and again), and you have tens more animals and food types then you will not end up with the totals percentage of votes and the total favourites for each name matching up at all. That is effectively how the UK General Election takes place, different numbers of different people vote for their favourite from a different set of candidates.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
I think he has a square peg, a round hole and a hammer
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
I don't know why people are still arguing with you on this as you are so far wrong and completely failing to understand why I cannot see it ever changing, you remind me of Captain Redbeard Rum "There are two schools of thought on that, I say it isn't and everyone else says it is". Having said that I'm going to have one last go. The numbers you keep using, the numbers above, they are entirely meaningless numbers, they are not used for anything, they are just added up at the end once everything is decided because people like to have statistics they can use to try and make a point. Statistics are utterly meaningless, they show everything and prove nothing. Voting takes place, is counted, and seats are awarded at a constituency level. The results and numbers at each constituency are completely and entirely unrelated to the results and numbers overall, they have no influence over each other, the totals when calculated at the end do not relate at all. There is no luck, no average, no repeating patterns, simply several hundred instances of the same things being done at the same time, but the same things being done by different things to different things. If a thousand dogs choose their favourite food from a selection of 8 types (one of which is called Tory, one Lib Dem, one UKIP, etc) at the same time as twenty thousand cats choose their favourite food from 4 types (named as before but different foods) and one hundred chickens choose their favourite from 5 types (and again), and you have tens more animals and food types then you will not end up with the totals percentage of votes and the total favourites for each name matching up at all. That is effectively how the UK General Election takes place, different numbers of different people vote for their favourite from a different set of candidates.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
"Voting takes place, is counted, and seats are awarded at a constituency level. The results and numbers at each constituency are completely and entirely unrelated to the results and numbers overall" Yes agree and it's a bit like playing the pools each week, just one winner, last weeks results are nothing to do with todays results. "Statistics are utterly meaningless" So no alarm bells would ring with you if 649 white people won over 3 years and only one black man won because after all blacks are more into basketball and it could be argued that black people have less money to spend on betting. I would not know the forula to calculate the odds of this happening in real life but some people will even if they won't all agree on values for the factors. "There is no luck" So no luck if UKIP just managed get beaten by a small margin on 30 seats but Lib-dems lost big time or just somehow managed to creeped past the post eight times to win. Too me a better name for "luck" might be a probaility factor, laws of averages or just a case of vote fixing, it does go on you know. Sorry, gone ,Dinner
-
"Voting takes place, is counted, and seats are awarded at a constituency level. The results and numbers at each constituency are completely and entirely unrelated to the results and numbers overall" Yes agree and it's a bit like playing the pools each week, just one winner, last weeks results are nothing to do with todays results. "Statistics are utterly meaningless" So no alarm bells would ring with you if 649 white people won over 3 years and only one black man won because after all blacks are more into basketball and it could be argued that black people have less money to spend on betting. I would not know the forula to calculate the odds of this happening in real life but some people will even if they won't all agree on values for the factors. "There is no luck" So no luck if UKIP just managed get beaten by a small margin on 30 seats but Lib-dems lost big time or just somehow managed to creeped past the post eight times to win. Too me a better name for "luck" might be a probaility factor, laws of averages or just a case of vote fixing, it does go on you know. Sorry, gone ,Dinner
Dr Gadgit wrote:
Sorry, gone ,Dinner
You're undoubtedly out to lunch. Stop looking at the totals. Totals aren't real. If you want to show it is a fix then you need to look at each constituency on a stand alone basis and explain why UKIP should have one it or the Lib Dems shouldn't. Spoiler alert: The answer every time is because fewer people voted for UKIP than someone else, or more people voted Lib Dem than someone else, depending on which constituency you are looking at (Clacton excepted, but then Clacton generally should be).
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
-
"Voting takes place, is counted, and seats are awarded at a constituency level. The results and numbers at each constituency are completely and entirely unrelated to the results and numbers overall" Yes agree and it's a bit like playing the pools each week, just one winner, last weeks results are nothing to do with todays results. "Statistics are utterly meaningless" So no alarm bells would ring with you if 649 white people won over 3 years and only one black man won because after all blacks are more into basketball and it could be argued that black people have less money to spend on betting. I would not know the forula to calculate the odds of this happening in real life but some people will even if they won't all agree on values for the factors. "There is no luck" So no luck if UKIP just managed get beaten by a small margin on 30 seats but Lib-dems lost big time or just somehow managed to creeped past the post eight times to win. Too me a better name for "luck" might be a probaility factor, laws of averages or just a case of vote fixing, it does go on you know. Sorry, gone ,Dinner
you are trying to make your view fit the facts instead of making your decision based on those facts you make up scenarios that support your view without considering if they fit the facts, if in your story the numbers were correct would it be a factor if only 1 black man did the pools against 1000 white men? how about stop and search, if 120 people were stopped and searched in a town after a crime and that 119 were white(insert colour of choice here) would that indicate bias? or would the fact that they were looking for a white (insert previously selected colour here) criminal be a factor? again I will state the actual situation parties a,b,c seat 1 party A 10 votes, party b 9 votes, party c 0 votes seat 2 party A 0 votes, party B 9 votes, party C 10 votes which seat(s) does B win? your rules, explain why you think B wins a seat?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
Dr Gadgit wrote:
Sorry, gone ,Dinner
You're undoubtedly out to lunch. Stop looking at the totals. Totals aren't real. If you want to show it is a fix then you need to look at each constituency on a stand alone basis and explain why UKIP should have one it or the Lib Dems shouldn't. Spoiler alert: The answer every time is because fewer people voted for UKIP than someone else, or more people voted Lib Dem than someone else, depending on which constituency you are looking at (Clacton excepted, but then Clacton generally should be).
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
from all accounts if what's his name wasn't been the incumbent he would also have lost
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
Dr Gadgit wrote:
Sorry, gone ,Dinner
You're undoubtedly out to lunch. Stop looking at the totals. Totals aren't real. If you want to show it is a fix then you need to look at each constituency on a stand alone basis and explain why UKIP should have one it or the Lib Dems shouldn't. Spoiler alert: The answer every time is because fewer people voted for UKIP than someone else, or more people voted Lib Dem than someone else, depending on which constituency you are looking at (Clacton excepted, but then Clacton generally should be).
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
he doesn't get it does he, he is determined to apply his warped logic to it whether it fits or not. basically I don't think he can except that under current rules UKIP didn't get the support it needed in enough areas to gain the seats, but he alone seems to miss the point that only a change to the system would have got them those seats and that is unlikely to happen the basic fact he misses every time is that the higher number always wins the seat and that is where UKIP failed and as you say the total vote is as about as relevant as the number of penguins in the artic come to think of it the weather probably had far bigger impact on the vote than anything he has come up with
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.