Something is fundamentally flawed

[dexthird]

A new YouGov poll for The Sun has put Labour in third place - behind the Liberal Democrats - for the first time in the General Election campaign.

It comes on the heels of Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg's winning performance in the first televised leaders' debate.

The poll puts the Conservatives in the lead on 33% (down four), the Liberal Democrats on 30% (up eight) and Labour on 28 (down three).

Professor Michael Thrasher has translated the figures into what the House of Commons may look like based on this poll.

The Conservatives would have 244 seats (up 34), Lib Dems would have 103 (up 41), Labour would have 271 (down 78) and the remaining 32 seats would be taken by other parties.

Labour would still be the largest party with 271 seats despite being third in the popular vote, because of the distribution of votes in 2005 and the application of uniform swing, he told Sky News.

How can this possibly be viewed as democratic? The party with the least votes have the largest number of seats. It's madness. And we're having discussions on here of the importance of casting your vote. Absolutely bonkers.

 

[joe-90]

It's called gerrymandering. They all do it given the chance.

 

[Nige F]

Does their deviance know no boundaries

 

[dexthird]

It's called gerrymandering. They all do it given the chance.

Surely we need an independent electoral commission who arrange for constituency sizes/borders to reflect the wishes of the electorate.

 

[Space cat]

The party with the least votes have the largest number of seats. It's madness.

It's an inherent weakness of our first past the post system. I can vaguely remember a case many years ago when the government (can't remember which) tried to alter constituency boundaries in a blatant attempt to move opposition voters into areas that were already lost causes.

A workable alternative is of course proportional representation but this also has its drawbacks. It would be quite possible that a BNP member would win a seat. Fair enough I suppose but would you want one in your constituency?

 

[lifesagasman]

no

 

[joe-90]

Does their deviance know no boundaries

That's very clever Nige.

 

[skitzee2k]

PR results in chaos...however, we should try to make the voting boundaries as fair as possible.

 

[dexthird]

I'm not sure that I'm talking about PR here, but am happy to be corrected.

If we are to have the winner of the largest minority of a constituency elected, then so be it. But this must surely be reflected as statistically true overall.

How can it be possible for the statistically smallest of the three largest minorities to become the majority within parliament. (I'll let you read that again - it does make sense )

 

[lifesagasman]

I'm not sure that I'm talking about PR here, but am happy to be corrected.

If we are to have the winner of the largest minority of a constituency elected, then so be it. But this must surely be reflected as statistically true overall.

How can it be possible for the statistically smallest of the three largest minorities to become the majority within parliament. (I'll let you read that again - it does make sense )

when the party of the first part.....

 

[Lincsbodger]

because if the majority of the large swings to the tories takes place in seats they already hold, or safe labour seat, then the swing can be fruitless.

The object is to take the key marginals, the seats with the smallest majorities. There full of peopel who cant make up there minds or people who cant be arsed to vote, so there an entirely different proposition.

hers a list of marginals:

http://www.justsolutions.eu/Marginals/labMarginals.asp

Labour has a majority of 56 at the moment, so if the tories can take 30 of those they will have a working majority. Thats needs a swing of about 8 percent to the tories IN THOSE SEATS.

 

[imamartian]

A workable alternative is of course proportional representation but this also has its drawbacks. It would be quite possible that a BNP member would win a seat.

I have to say i am disgusted at this comment... i am a huge believer in PR... because after all... a democracy is purely about the number of people who vote for a particular choice.... not which party can massage the voting areas so it works better in our favour...

if the BNP do get a seat (and i'm not condoning or denying their views) then it's right they should get a representation in the house based on their support?

 

[imamartian]

because if the majority of the large swings to the tories takes place in seats they already hold, or safe labour seat, then the swing can be fruitless.

The object is to take the key marginals, the seats with the smallest majorities. There full of peopel who cant make up there minds or people who cant be a***d to vote, so there an entirely different proposition.

hers a list of marginals:

http://www.justsolutions.eu/Marginals/labMarginals.asp

Labour has a majority of 56 at the moment, so if the tories can take 30 of those they will have a working majority. Thats needs a swing of about 8 percent to the tories IN THOSE SEATS.

with respect, that's all ******.... it should just be about having the most people in favour of your methodology!!

 

[dexthird]

because if the majority of the large swings to the tories takes place in seats they already hold, or safe labour seat, then the swing can be fruitless.

The object is to take the key marginals, the seats with the smallest majorities. There full of peopel who cant make up there minds or people who cant be a***d to vote, so there an entirely different proposition.

hers a list of marginals:

http://www.justsolutions.eu/Marginals/labMarginals.asp

Labour has a majority of 56 at the moment, so if the tories can take 30 of those they will have a working majority. That needs a swing of about 8 percent to the tories IN THOSE SEATS.

So from all those polls currently being taken, they somehow extrapolate that (for the sake of illustration and not based on real figures) a swing of 15% nationally would mean a swing of say 4% within those marginals based on previous evidence?

 

[imamartian]

because if the majority of the large swings to the tories takes place in seats they already hold, or safe labour seat, then the swing can be fruitless.

The object is to take the key marginals, the seats with the smallest majorities. There full of peopel who cant make up there minds or people who cant be a***d to vote, so there an entirely different proposition.

hers a list of marginals:

http://www.justsolutions.eu/Marginals/labMarginals.asp

Labour has a majority of 56 at the moment, so if the tories can take 30 of those they will have a working majority. That needs a swing of about 8 percent to the tories IN THOSE SEATS.

So from all those polls currently being taken, they somehow extrapolate that (for the sake of illustration and not based on real figures) a swing of 15% nationally would mean a swing of say 4% within those marginals based on previous evidence?

Polls are a waste of time and money... the only poll that matters is the election, and as i kep saying.... marginals don't reflect true siciety, and safe seats rule out real votes....!