UKIP get 4 million votes but only one 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.
-
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
I do think you need to actually educate yourself on the system before commenting further, firstly the UK does not use electronic voting but uses the time honoured pencil cross on paper, each paper is numbered and that number is placed against the name of the voter on the electoral roll, these voting slips are then kept for a minimum of 10 years IIRC so votes can be traced to individuals should their be a need each constituency votes are counted in a big hall with neutral observers as well as the candidates and the press present, this makes rigging difficult although the postal vote recently introduced has led to attempts, usually at a local level. Numbers may not lie but neither does a failure to understand something make it wrong/fixed
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.
not luck just more support in certain communities than other parties, if a candidate has the majority of support in his constituency the he wins regardless of how his party does country wide, there is NO averages involved, local situations overrule all attempts to use averages. maybe the Lib dems just had candidates that were popular in their area
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:
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.
I think he is of the opinion that the vote is random and has no human input
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.
Dr Gadgit wrote:
Clearly the Lib-Dems must have had lady luck on their side.
Have you actually had a look at the figures for the constituencies and compared them to 5 years ago? The Lib Dems lost 15% of the vote nationally, they also lost around that much in consituencies, some more, some less, obviously (I hope). However, in a small number of constituencies they had a large enough majority that they could cope with a loss of that level and still keep the seat, in most they could not. UKIP had a very small share of the vote 5 years ago, the gains they made on a national level, when applied at a constituency level, did not give them enough of a gain to take anywhere. If both trends continue then you will be right next time out, Lib Dems wiped out, UKIP taking a serious number of seats. One result is a not quite enough to establish a trend however.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
-
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
I agree and if a anti-fracking party tried to get one seat even if 50% Plus of the people in the UK did not want fracking then we both know what the results will be. What we see palyed out on our silver screens is window dressing but boy do you see the knifes come out if an independant so much as blinks, soon snuffed out by all of them.
-
"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
Just how many times do you come second before you realise that you aren't good enough to win? You seem to be looking at the country as a whole but this is NOT the way the system works, each constituency is an election in its own right and is independent of any other. whilst the rest of the country can have an influence it is indirect. To take your coil flipping analogy one step further, if you flip it just twice does the first result effect the second? does the 499th effect the 500? (oh and by the way all the tests I have seen with coin tossing have results outside the range you state) yet the UKIP often got 30%+ of the vote in certain areas and still failed to gain a seat so that figure is as pointless as the coin toss, you need a majority of the votes in the Constituency do that and you win this can be seen in the fact that nationist parties win in Ireland and Wales
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
I agree and if a anti-fracking party tried to get one seat even if 50% Plus of the people in the UK did not want fracking then we both know what the results will be. What we see palyed out on our silver screens is window dressing but boy do you see the knifes come out if an independant so much as blinks, soon snuffed out by all of them.
wow paranoia too, you do realise that there are independents out there? admittedly in General elections the major parties tend to win out but the independents do win. If any party had 50% of the population behind it and they actually got off their bums to vote then they would have a majority end of story, if you have only 12% of the vote then you need to have them grouped into areas that give you a local majority. whilst the UKIP have a good base of support that base is thinly spread across the country therefore they failed to get more than one 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:
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.
Nice to se you are good with numbers even if you don't understand why us humans discovered that averages are useful "Or you could just look it up and see that it is 12.6%" Lets start of with the population of the UK and say it's 65 million and now lets remove people who cannot vote, did not register (66.1 % voted who could vote) See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11592557/General-election-2015-highest-turnout-since-Tony-Blair-landslide.html[^] Lets say that leaves 35 million and 4 million voted UKIP http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/11593312/nigel-farage-attacks-electoral-system-after-election.html[^] Well 4 million out of 35 comes in at higher than 12% or do i needed to exclude 1.5 million SNP voters that got just under 60 seats ?
-
Nice to se you are good with numbers even if you don't understand why us humans discovered that averages are useful "Or you could just look it up and see that it is 12.6%" Lets start of with the population of the UK and say it's 65 million and now lets remove people who cannot vote, did not register (66.1 % voted who could vote) See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11592557/General-election-2015-highest-turnout-since-Tony-Blair-landslide.html[^] Lets say that leaves 35 million and 4 million voted UKIP http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/11593312/nigel-farage-attacks-electoral-system-after-election.html[^] Well 4 million out of 35 comes in at higher than 12% or do i needed to exclude 1.5 million SNP voters that got just under 60 seats ?
OK, now I know you're a moron. Total registered voters was 46,425,386. 66.1% voted which makes 30,687,180 votes cast. UKIP got 3,881,129 votes. Which makes 12.6% of the vote. However, if you use you guessed numbers of 35 million votes and 4 million for UKIP, 4 is just over 11% of 35.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
-
Nice to se you are good with numbers even if you don't understand why us humans discovered that averages are useful "Or you could just look it up and see that it is 12.6%" Lets start of with the population of the UK and say it's 65 million and now lets remove people who cannot vote, did not register (66.1 % voted who could vote) See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11592557/General-election-2015-highest-turnout-since-Tony-Blair-landslide.html[^] Lets say that leaves 35 million and 4 million voted UKIP http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/11593312/nigel-farage-attacks-electoral-system-after-election.html[^] Well 4 million out of 35 comes in at higher than 12% or do i needed to exclude 1.5 million SNP voters that got just under 60 seats ?
Try forgetting about averages as they do not apply in this case. UKIP failed to amass enough support crying about it will not change that nor will implying foul play, the bottom line is that, based on the current system UKIP lost in all but one place, whilst SNP due to concentrating their 1.5 million votes over 59 seats got a sufficient % of votes to be declared the winner. For UKIP to win it needs to do ONE of the following 1, change the voting system (unlikely as no support by major parties or the electorate) 2, amass more votes 3, concentrate support across fewer seats (get all UKIPers to move to wales?)
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:
Clearly the Lib-Dems must have had lady luck on their side.
Have you actually had a look at the figures for the constituencies and compared them to 5 years ago? The Lib Dems lost 15% of the vote nationally, they also lost around that much in consituencies, some more, some less, obviously (I hope). However, in a small number of constituencies they had a large enough majority that they could cope with a loss of that level and still keep the seat, in most they could not. UKIP had a very small share of the vote 5 years ago, the gains they made on a national level, when applied at a constituency level, did not give them enough of a gain to take anywhere. If both trends continue then you will be right next time out, Lib Dems wiped out, UKIP taking a serious number of seats. One result is a not quite enough to establish a trend however.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
I would like to debate more with you but Google seems to hiding the actual number of votes when it comes to the lib-dems. Yes i know it should be an easy number to find but I've looked and seem to be just getting google spam search results on "Total Election votes count"
-
Try forgetting about averages as they do not apply in this case. UKIP failed to amass enough support crying about it will not change that nor will implying foul play, the bottom line is that, based on the current system UKIP lost in all but one place, whilst SNP due to concentrating their 1.5 million votes over 59 seats got a sufficient % of votes to be declared the winner. For UKIP to win it needs to do ONE of the following 1, change the voting system (unlikely as no support by major parties or the electorate) 2, amass more votes 3, concentrate support across fewer seats (get all UKIPers to move to wales?)
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:
(get all UKIPers to move to wales?
That seems a little unfair on the Welsh. How about East Anglia? If they all move there it might submerge, so that would be an added bonus.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
-
OK, now I know you're a moron. Total registered voters was 46,425,386. 66.1% voted which makes 30,687,180 votes cast. UKIP got 3,881,129 votes. Which makes 12.6% of the vote. However, if you use you guessed numbers of 35 million votes and 4 million for UKIP, 4 is just over 11% of 35.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
I don't think math is his strong suit (then again neither is the UK electoral system)
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
Just how many times do you come second before you realise that you aren't good enough to win? You seem to be looking at the country as a whole but this is NOT the way the system works, each constituency is an election in its own right and is independent of any other. whilst the rest of the country can have an influence it is indirect. To take your coil flipping analogy one step further, if you flip it just twice does the first result effect the second? does the 499th effect the 500? (oh and by the way all the tests I have seen with coin tossing have results outside the range you state) yet the UKIP often got 30%+ of the vote in certain areas and still failed to gain a seat so that figure is as pointless as the coin toss, you need a majority of the votes in the Constituency do that and you win this can be seen in the fact that nationist parties win in Ireland and Wales
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
"To take your coil flipping analogy one step further, if you flip it just twice does the first result effect the second? does the 499th effect the 500?" Nope it does not but you don't flip it 400 times and come up with any numbers like 20% if the system is wrong then the other minority group known as the lib-dems would also have about one seat between them all.
-
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
(get all UKIPers to move to wales?
That seems a little unfair on the Welsh. How about East Anglia? If they all move there it might submerge, so that would be an added bonus.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
Don't they all have to be from the same family to live in East Anglia?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
"To take your coil flipping analogy one step further, if you flip it just twice does the first result effect the second? does the 499th effect the 500?" Nope it does not but you don't flip it 400 times and come up with any numbers like 20% if the system is wrong then the other minority group known as the lib-dems would also have about one seat between them all.
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.
-
Try forgetting about averages as they do not apply in this case. UKIP failed to amass enough support crying about it will not change that nor will implying foul play, the bottom line is that, based on the current system UKIP lost in all but one place, whilst SNP due to concentrating their 1.5 million votes over 59 seats got a sufficient % of votes to be declared the winner. For UKIP to win it needs to do ONE of the following 1, change the voting system (unlikely as no support by major parties or the electorate) 2, amass more votes 3, concentrate support across fewer seats (get all UKIPers to move to wales?)
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Consider this ! Lots of voters will see the election as being a bit of a fix and not just UKIP but dems and greens. Now do a google for "uk election fix UKIP" I cannot see the wood throgh the trees in the google search results to find anyone that agrees with me. If i search for "Sex life of a fruit fly" i am sure i would soon find what i am looking for in seconds. Conclusion : 1. I am stark raving mad, no one agrees 2. Somthing is going on with my search results
-
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.
You are playing with words and we both know that the laws of averages plays a big part in science, even more in Quantum physics (Not that i agree with much they come up with) Bad luck can only count for so much and then it becomes a matter of card fixing as i see it and the laws of averages plays a part in any poker game so if you keep coming up just short then my advise is to walk away from the game.