Labour 2010 vs. Republicans 2006
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 04, 2024, 10:18:51 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)
  Labour 2010 vs. Republicans 2006		 « previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Who had the worst election?
#1
Labour		  
#2
Republicans		  
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results
Total Voters: 23

Author Topic: Labour 2010 vs. Republicans 2006  (Read 2452 times)
I spent the winter writing songs about getting better
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 113,446
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 07, 2010, 11:01:03 AM »
I'd say the Republicans, easily.
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,827
Ukraine
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 07, 2010, 12:59:37 PM »
Obviously the Republicans. All things considered, Labour did fairly well.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 07, 2010, 01:54:38 PM »
Quote from: Not technically yet Lt. Governor of the Pacific Oakvale on May 07, 2010, 12:59:37 PM
Obviously the Republicans. All things considered, Labour did fairly well.
Logged
platypeanArchcow
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 514


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -7.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2010, 02:42:50 PM »
Relative to expectations, Labour did better, of course.  But that just shows how polarized the US is.
Logged
k-onmmunist
Winston Disraeli
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,753
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2010, 03:57:59 PM »
Labour actually did pretty damn well considering the backlash against them.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,883


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 09, 2010, 04:02:51 PM »
Having a divided opposition helped Labour. Also, the constituencies seem to favor them if they were to tie to Conservative party in the popular vote.
Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 10, 2010, 04:57:25 AM »
In terms of the popular vote, Labour had its worst result since 1983 and its second worst result since 1918. It also did worse than the Conservatives did in 1997, considered a landslide defeat for them. Only because of the pro-Labour bias in the electoral system and the somewhat divided opposition makes it seem less bad.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 10, 2010, 05:04:08 AM »
Quote from: Nichlemn on May 10, 2010, 04:57:25 AM
It also did worse than the Conservatives did in 1997, considered a landslide defeat for them.
They took a smaller share of the popular vote, that is. Of course, the Tories' popular vote lead this year is not much more than half Labour's in 1997, and the Tory share in 1997 fell by almost twice as much compared to the previous election than Labour's did now, so...
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,904
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 10, 2010, 05:08:35 AM »
Popular vote figures before and after 1974 can't be usefully compared, fwiw.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 10, 2010, 05:19:05 AM »
Quote from: Bede on May 10, 2010, 05:08:35 AM
Popular vote figures before and after 1974 can't be usefully compared, fwiw.
Er... why?

Oh right. Libs didn't use to contest most seats. (At first I was thinking of the change in voting age, but that's negligible. And of course, figures up to 45 can't be strictly compared... but that's making things look better for Labour, not worse.)
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,904
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 10, 2010, 05:21:31 AM »
Quote from: the Pooka MacPhellimey on May 10, 2010, 05:19:05 AM
Quote from: Bede on May 10, 2010, 05:08:35 AM
Popular vote figures before and after 1974 can't be usefully compared, fwiw.
Er... why?

Oh right. Libs didn't use to contest most seats. (At first I was thinking of the change in voting age, but that's negligible. And of course, figures up to 45 can't be strictly compared... but that's making things look better for Labour, not worse.)

Yes, that's right. Most constituencies had only two candidates. Now, popular vote figures before 1931 or so are almost entirely useless.
Logged
Smid
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,151
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 10, 2010, 05:49:05 AM »
Quote from: Nichlemn on May 10, 2010, 04:57:25 AM
In terms of the popular vote, Labour had its worst result since 1983 and its second worst result since 1918. It also did worse than the Conservatives did in 1997, considered a landslide defeat for them. Only because of the pro-Labour bias in the electoral system and the somewhat divided opposition makes it seem less bad.

Welcome to the Forum, mate! Glad to see another Southern Hemisphere Commonwealth person on here!
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
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 0.215 seconds with 14 queries.