Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

David Cameron Wins a Slim Majority in UK General Election

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 49 posts

Re: David Cameron Wins a Slim Majority in UK General Election

#11

Post by coldpie »

mechazawa wrote: post #4
luxpir wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's broked. The party in power rarely see it as broked. Ergo, no proportional representation.

It still does not make any sense though. How is it possible that the amount of seats a party get seem so pseudo random?

Suppose you have 20 districts, each electing its own MP, and each with exactly four citizens. One citizen in each votes UKIP, one votes Labour, and two vote Conservative. Conservatives will win 20 seats, despite getting only 50% of the national vote, and the other parties will have none despite getting 25% each.

Re: David Cameron Wins a Slim Majority in UK General Election

#12

Post by ZeroGravitas »

jgrahamc wrote: post #9
luxpir wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's broked. The party in power rarely see it as broked. Ergo, no proportional representation.

We had a referendum on changing the voting system in 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vot... The change was rejected 68% to 32%.

Some context though:

* the alternative was a bit rubbish, only a minor improvement to the status quo, compared with the systems already successfully in use in Scotland and Wales which combine local representation with PR.

* both main parties and their tame press convinced people that it would basically lead to a combination of anarchy, communism and fascism in order to maintain their hold on power at the expense of democracy.

Re: David Cameron Wins a Slim Majority in UK General Election

#13

Post by jgrahamc »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #12
jgrahamc wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had a referendum on changing the voting system in 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vot... The change was rejected 68% to 32%.

Some context though: * the alternative was a bit rubbish, only a minor improvement to the status quo, compared with the systems already successfully in use in Scotland and Wales which combine local representation with PR. * both main parties and their tame press convinced people that it would basically lead to a combination of anarchy, communism and fascism in order to maintain their hold on power at the expense of d…

The "tame press". Seriously?

Re: David Cameron Wins a Slim Majority in UK General Election

#14

Post by M8 »

th0br0 wrote: post #5
thret wrote: post #2

This makes no sense to me. Ulster Unionist Party had 114,935 votes and got two seats. UKIP had 3,841,346 votes and got one seat. Conservative had 11,207,547 votes and received 326 seats.

That's the 'first-past-the-post' system at work here. Sadly it's unlikely to change anytime soon :(

Well, at least there won't be too much overspending. So it worked out well this time.

Any democratic system is flawed - e.g. letting both tax-generators and tax-consumers vote.

Re: David Cameron Wins a Slim Majority in UK General Election

#15

Post by ZeroGravitas »

jgrahamc wrote: post #13
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some context though: * the alternative was a bit rubbish, only a minor improvement to the status quo, compared with the systems already successfully in use in Scotland and Wales which combine local representation with PR. * both main parties and their tame press convinced people that it would basically lead to a combination of anarchy, communism and fascism in order to maintain their hold on power at the expense of d…

The "tame press". Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

If you don't believe me, what about David Axelrod:

"POLITICO: But what about the press? You say it has disproportionate power here. Do you think Britain’s conservative print media is more powerful than Fox News?

DA: Yeah, I do. I do think the parties approach media as partisan players. So you see parties disseminating messages through the print media in a way that is unusual.

DA: Fox is certainly very conservative, skews to the Republican side, but there isn’t a kind of lockstep between them and the Republicans. Fox tries to drive the Republican agenda more than reflecting it.

Here there are relationships between the parties and media outlets that are deeper so you see a lot of themes being previewed in the media in a way that you don’t see in the states.

POLITICO: Did you know what you were getting into?

DA: We discussed this when I signed on … I’ve worked in aggressive media environments before but not this partisan."

http://www.politico.eu/article/the-axelrod-exit-interview/

Re: David Cameron Wins a Slim Majority in UK General Election

#16

Post by Already__Taken »

jgrahamc wrote: post #9
luxpir wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's broked. The party in power rarely see it as broked. Ergo, no proportional representation.

We had a referendum on changing the voting system in 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vot... The change was rejected 68% to 32%.

The media tried very hard to make this sound complicated and scary. Ignoring its how the major parties elect their own leaders. [needs source]

Frankly changing the voting system would require everyone that votes to understand the implications of the system itself. From what I remember talking about the AV people would think of one thing that's different, call it a problem and no amount of explaining would matter.

Re: David Cameron Wins a Slim Majority in UK General Election

#17

Post by cositarica »

thret wrote: post #2

This makes no sense to me. Ulster Unionist Party had 114,935 votes and got two seats. UKIP had 3,841,346 votes and got one seat. Conservative had 11,207,547 votes and received 326 seats.

don't care. at least UKIP got one seat. FUCK UKIP.

Re: David Cameron Wins a Slim Majority in UK General Election

#18

Post by Sherlock »

thret wrote: post #2

This makes no sense to me. Ulster Unionist Party had 114,935 votes and got two seats. UKIP had 3,841,346 votes and got one seat. Conservative had 11,207,547 votes and received 326 seats.

What's interesting from a game theory point of view is to have so many different parties with a FPTP electoral system.

You would expect a two party system.

Re: David Cameron Wins a Slim Majority in UK General Election

#19

Post by ZeroGravitas »

Already__Taken wrote: post #16
jgrahamc wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had a referendum on changing the voting system in 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vot... The change was rejected 68% to 32%.

The media tried very hard to make this sound complicated and scary. Ignoring its how the major parties elect their own leaders. [needs source] Frankly changing the voting system would require everyone that votes to understand the implications of the system itself. From what I remember talking about the AV people would think of one thing that's different, call it a problem and no amount of explaining would matter.

An obscure note, parties do use AV to select their leaders, and for that purpose it's actually pretty good since there's only one position to fill. In a parliamentary election, adding some PR like in the devolved Scottish and Welsh assemblies makes more sense, and means AV was only a tiny improvement.

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/additional-member-system

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/alternative-vote

Re: David Cameron Wins a Slim Majority in UK General Election

#20

Post by kmfrk »

mechazawa wrote: post #4
luxpir wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's broked. The party in power rarely see it as broked. Ergo, no proportional representation.

It still does not make any sense though. How is it possible that the amount of seats a party get seem so pseudo random?

You've got 650 marginal elections where people can only pick one party - and not a coalition through prioritized votes. Compare this to the US where each congressional election is usually between two or three candidates/parties.

This makes forecasts primed for surprises due to margins of error alone, not including other factors.

Post reply on HN