SouthEast UK (EXC. LONDON) Tories control 92/102 seats why no majority? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 01, 2024, 03:16:38 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  International Elections (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  SouthEast UK (EXC. LONDON) Tories control 92/102 seats why no majority? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: SouthEast UK (EXC. LONDON) Tories control 92/102 seats why no majority?  (Read 1632 times)
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
« on: March 09, 2011, 01:21:51 PM »

The Tories are dead in Wales, Scotland and the North. The Midlands is the traditional "swing" region.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2011, 03:55:02 PM »

Perhaps these seat reductions which come at the expense of mainly non-Tory areas will readdress that - that's what they're hoping, anyway.

Not as much as they'd hope. Someone's clearly not explained 'differential turnout' to the government. No boundary change will make voters in Liverpool Riverside get to the polling station at the same rate as voters in Tatton or Witney meaning that it will always take, on average, fewer voters to elect a Labour MP under a single-member constituency system like FPTP or AV.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
« Reply #2 on: March 10, 2011, 11:42:30 AM »

Perhaps these seat reductions which come at the expense of mainly non-Tory areas will readdress that - that's what they're hoping, anyway.

Not as much as they'd hope. Someone's clearly not explained 'differential turnout' to the government. No boundary change will make voters in Liverpool Riverside get to the polling station at the same rate as voters in Tatton or Witney meaning that it will always take, on average, fewer voters to elect a Labour MP under a single-member constituency system like FPTP or AV.

Another reason why FPTP system is sooo stupid

Yeah, but the proposed Alternative Vote system won't fix this.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
« Reply #3 on: March 10, 2011, 11:47:14 AM »

It's worth noting that in 2010 the difference between the two mass parties in that respect was negligible.

True, but it's always an issue that's pointed to. The problem of "average votes needed" worsened for the LibDems in 2010 though.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.019 seconds with 13 queries.