UKIP get 4 million votes but only one seat
-
"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 ?
-
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.
ok big question for you, which seats should UKIP have won and why? I want you to justify making UKIP candidate MP of a constituency over the person they voted for!
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
ok big question for you, which seats should UKIP have won and why? I want you to justify making UKIP candidate MP of a constituency over the person they voted for!
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Bad news, rumours circulating that UKIP's one MP has had enough of Farage and is going back to the Conservatives. 4 millions votes and no seats, the fix continues fixing.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
-
Bad news, rumours circulating that UKIP's one MP has had enough of Farage and is going back to the Conservatives. 4 millions votes and no seats, the fix continues fixing.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
if they did bring in PR do you think you would ever see your "local" MP or would they say "no way am I spending any time so far from London, where is my seat anyway?" oh and under PR that swop wouldn't be allowed
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.
-
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.
-
If you recall it was the Lib Dems who forced through the referendum on PR. But that got thrown out because most people actually like the FPTP system. So we get the version of democracy we asked for.
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
But that got thrown out because most people actually like the FPTP system
That's not my interpretation. The referendum choice was not between FPTP and straightforward PR. The alternative to FPTP, given in the referendum, was so complex that most people probably did not understand it - so they voted for what they understood. If the referendum choice had included PR without the complex numbering system then perhaps would would now have PR.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
If you recall it was the Lib Dems who forced through the referendum on PR. But that got thrown out because most people actually like the FPTP system. So we get the version of democracy we asked for.
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
But that got thrown out because most people actually like the FPTP system
That's not my interpretation. The referendum choice was not between FPTP and straightforward PR. The alternative to FPTP, given in the referendum, was so complex that most people probably did not understand it - so they voted for what they understood. If the referendum choice had included PR without the complex numbering system then perhaps we would would now have PR.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
But that got thrown out because most people actually like the FPTP system
That's not my interpretation. The referendum choice was not between FPTP and straightforward PR. The alternative to FPTP, given in the referendum, was so complex that most people probably did not understand it - so they voted for what they understood. If the referendum choice had included PR without the complex numbering system then perhaps would would now have PR.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
Perhaps, but thankfully not for the forseeable future. The only people who really want PR are the Liberals.
I don't like PR, the FPTP system allows me to vote for who I want as MP, I may not get him but least I get to vote for my choice, PR means that not only may I not get the party I voted for I almost certainly be inflicted with an MP chosen by professional politician and are likely to be cronies or family members. PR generate a system of political elite that makes our current system look like a bunch of random people dragged off the street (oh and it makes getting rid of "senior" politicians impossible )
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?
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
Are you sure you are from the UK, and not Captain Ceesharp in disguise?
:laugh: :thumbsup: Haven't seen that name around here in a while. Thanks for the laugh.
"When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down 'happy'. They told me I didn't understand the assignment, and I told them they didn't understand life." - John Lennon
-
ok big question for you, which seats should UKIP have won and why? I want you to justify making UKIP candidate MP of a constituency over the person they voted for!
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
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.
-
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.
