Party. % of votes. % of seats
Con 37 51
Lab. 31 36
UKIP. 13 0.2
LibDem. 8 1.2
SNP. 5 9
Green 4 0.2
DUP 0.6 1.2
Plaid 0.6 0.5
SinnFein 0.6 0.5
UUP 0.4 0,3
SDLP 0.3 0.5
Others 1.1 0.2
It shows that the small nationalists have a rough proportionality between votes and representation, because their votes are concentrated in a small area, but that gross disproportionality shows up in other parties.
Ukip fares particulary badly, with an under-representation factor (URF, votes/outcome) of 115.
Greens under-representation factor is 20. LibDem is 65.
For Tories and Labour the system works to amplify their representation, with Tories amplified by 1.8, and Labour by a factor of 1.2.
All of which goes to confirm, as though we didn't know already, how grossly discriminatory is the hated/outdated FPTP system.
In terms of power, the factor for the ultimate "winners" is infinite, in that their 37% of the vote (which at a 2/3rds turnout, slips down to a mere 24% of the electorate) translates into 100% of the political power in this backward country. This is even more worrying when we remember that Osborne's plan is to experiment on Britain, reducing it according to his "small state" ideology - an experiment that has never been tried before, but is unlikely to make us happy.
Linked to the everyday corruption in the Westminster system, and the outrageously distorted media in our country, we the people should consider what kind of action we must take to bring Britain into the 21st century.
DUP 0.6 1.2
Plaid 0.6 0.5
SinnFein 0.6 0.5
UUP 0.4 0,3
SDLP 0.3 0.5
Others 1.1 0.2
It shows that the small nationalists have a rough proportionality between votes and representation, because their votes are concentrated in a small area, but that gross disproportionality shows up in other parties.
Ukip fares particulary badly, with an under-representation factor (URF, votes/outcome) of 115.
Greens under-representation factor is 20. LibDem is 65.
For Tories and Labour the system works to amplify their representation, with Tories amplified by 1.8, and Labour by a factor of 1.2.
All of which goes to confirm, as though we didn't know already, how grossly discriminatory is the hated/outdated FPTP system.
In terms of power, the factor for the ultimate "winners" is infinite, in that their 37% of the vote (which at a 2/3rds turnout, slips down to a mere 24% of the electorate) translates into 100% of the political power in this backward country. This is even more worrying when we remember that Osborne's plan is to experiment on Britain, reducing it according to his "small state" ideology - an experiment that has never been tried before, but is unlikely to make us happy.
Linked to the everyday corruption in the Westminster system, and the outrageously distorted media in our country, we the people should consider what kind of action we must take to bring Britain into the 21st century.
Richard
ReplyDeleteI like your analysis. But what do you think is the cure? It would be good to see the pros and cons of other systems. If the greens and others are going to call for #fairvotesnow ... what do we want. AV system was rejected, so not that presumably.
Could greens set up a webpage so that people could vote by listing their preferences in order. We could vote BY PR, For PR, if you see what I mean.
Otherwise electoral reform society could set this up : they are petitioning right now. Yes, I shall suggest it to them as well.
Hi Jean
ReplyDeleteThere are a vast number of electoral systems, some incredibly intricate, and all deliver slightly different results. Nothing, afaik, id perfectly proportional.
For Parliament, the Green Party prefers the AMS:
Here is the PfSS paragraph:
http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/pa.html
PA304 The most appropriate system for elections to the Westminster Parliament is the Additional Member System (AMS). Electors would vote on two ballots: one for the party of their first choice and the other for their constituency MP. MPs would be elected from constituencies as at present, but each party's representation would be topped up on a regional basis by additional members to bring its number of seats up to its proportion of votes polled, provided that proportion was above a minimum qualifying level of 3% of votes polled. There would be a requirement that each party's list has to be elected by a system of 'one member one vote' of the party's membership.
The advantage here is that the link between the constituency and (most ) MPs would still be maintained.
However we would be content with STV.
Here is a useful page from the ERS: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems
Thanks for commenting.
Hi Jean
ReplyDeleteThere are a vast number of electoral systems, some incredibly intricate, and all deliver slightly different results. Nothing, afaik, id perfectly proportional.
For Parliament, the Green Party prefers the AMS:
Here is the PfSS paragraph:
http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/pa.html
PA304 The most appropriate system for elections to the Westminster Parliament is the Additional Member System (AMS). Electors would vote on two ballots: one for the party of their first choice and the other for their constituency MP. MPs would be elected from constituencies as at present, but each party's representation would be topped up on a regional basis by additional members to bring its number of seats up to its proportion of votes polled, provided that proportion was above a minimum qualifying level of 3% of votes polled. There would be a requirement that each party's list has to be elected by a system of 'one member one vote' of the party's membership.
The advantage here is that the link between the constituency and (most ) MPs would still be maintained.
However we would be content with STV.
Here is a useful page from the ERS: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems
Thanks for commenting.