The Irish electorate have apparently interpreted 'proportional representation' to mean 'vote for the parties to represent you in exactly the same proportions'...
“At some point soon, establishment Democrats will have to face the reality that Biden, for all his personal virtues, probably doesn’t have what it takes to win the nomination in 2020. After Biden’s ten months as an uninspiring active candidate, it seems folly to believe that all it will take is a campaign shakeup or a new stump speech to turn things around.”
“Sure, this dire verdict may be premature. For the moment, Biden is holding onto to his African American support in the February 29 South Carolina primary and leading in most national polls. But those numbers may look different next week if Biden limps home in fourth or even fifth in New Hampshire. In politics, universally known and liked former vice presidents don’t win by losing badly in both Iowa and New Hampshire.”
The Irish electorate have apparently interpreted 'proportional representation' to mean 'vote for the parties to represent you in exactly the same proportions'...
But they'll end up with unequal seat numbers. Their ridiculous system is not proportional.
The Irish electorate have apparently interpreted 'proportional representation' to mean 'vote for the parties to represent you in exactly the same proportions'...
But they'll end up with unequal seat numbers. Their ridiculous system is not proportional.
Transfers will be very interesting.
Looking forward to Clive Lewis using this result to campaign for PR in the UK.
Revealed: how drugs giants can access your health records https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/08/fears-over-sale-anonymous-nhs-patient-data ... Washington has already made clear it wants unrestricted access to Britain’s 55 million health records – estimated to have a total value of £10bn a year – as part of any post-Brexit trade agreement. Leaked details of meetings between US and UK trade officials late last year showed that the acquisition of as much UK medical data as possible is a top priority for the US drugs industry...
Not that it's going to happen but I do wish the Irish would consider different names for either or both of Fine Gael and Fiana Fail: I always get them the wrong way round.
It's like Ant and Dec here: no matter how many times you're told you're never sure which is which.
The Irish electorate have apparently interpreted 'proportional representation' to mean 'vote for the parties to represent you in exactly the same proportions'...
But they'll end up with unequal seat numbers. Their ridiculous system is not proportional.
Actually it's remarkable proportional (once you reach about 6%), oddly enough. I did a straight-line fit to the 2011 and 2016 seat proportions vs vote shares for the top five parties and it was a very good fit: R-squared 0.92.
This time will be a bit different because of SF not standing enough candidates.
Greens 8% Labour 4% Social Democrats 3% Solidarity People Before Profit 3%
A.) Useful as ever, @AndreaParma_82 , thank you B.) DAFUQ?? DAACTUALFUCK? HOW THE FUCK DID THAT HAPPEN?
Can that clusterfuck actually produce a government of any description?
Another election in six months seems very likely unless fear of SF knocks FF and FG heads together.
I would imagine a FF+FG coalitions is EXACTLY what SF want.
Note that Leo has blown a very substantial lead since the Euro elections of 2019.
Leo, like the LibDems and the TIGgers and Jess Phillips, is very popular with the opinion-shapers of the media, but less so with actual voters.
Ditto Pete Buttigieg.
They probably have no choice unless they are willing to work with SF now, which might not be a bad idea given how junior coalition partners are invariably punished at the subsequent election.
The Irish electorate have apparently interpreted 'proportional representation' to mean 'vote for the parties to represent you in exactly the same proportions'...
But they'll end up with unequal seat numbers. Their ridiculous system is not proportional.
Actually it's remarkable proportional (once you reach about 6%), oddly enough. I did a straight-line fit to the 2011 and 2016 seat proportions vs vote shares for the top five parties and it was a very good fit: R-squared 0.92.
This time will be a bit different because of SF not standing enough candidates.
Yes. Plus, of course, the exit poll is first preferences only. So it would be a fallacy to say that a system that doesn't give equal seats is not proportional, unless 2nd, 3rd preferences etc are also equal.
The Irish electorate have apparently interpreted 'proportional representation' to mean 'vote for the parties to represent you in exactly the same proportions'...
But they'll end up with unequal seat numbers. Their ridiculous system is not proportional.
Actually it's remarkable proportional (once you reach about 6%), oddly enough. I did a straight-line fit to the 2011 and 2016 seat proportions vs vote shares for the top five parties and it was a very good fit: R-squared 0.92.
This time will be a bit different because of SF not standing enough candidates.
Yes. Plus, of course, the exit poll is first preferences only. So it would be a fallacy to say that a system that doesn't give equal seats is not proportional, unless 2nd, 3rd preferences etc are also equal.
The other thing is that we need to be a cautious about the exit poll. It doesn't have the years of data to go on that the UK one has. So we shouldn't be surprised if the actual vote shares end up quite different.
The Irish electorate have apparently interpreted 'proportional representation' to mean 'vote for the parties to represent you in exactly the same proportions'...
But they'll end up with unequal seat numbers. Their ridiculous system is not proportional.
Actually it's remarkable proportional (once you reach about 6%), oddly enough. I did a straight-line fit to the 2011 and 2016 seat proportions vs vote shares for the top five parties and it was a very good fit: R-squared 0.92.
This time will be a bit different because of SF not standing enough candidates.
It should not be considered remarkable that a system billed as PR gives a proportional result.
It simply is not a proportional system. Parties having to guess how many candidates to field, voters voting tactically, and of course the nonsensical method of sloshing buckets of votes around from one recipient to another.
Didn't Buttigieg just get a substantial amount of actual voters to vote for him.
Certainly more than the "electable" Biden.
My only point is that there is a certain type of politician whose chances tend to be over-estimated by the media. And it is wise to be aware of that in any betting.
At a personal level, I am fine with Mayor Pete and would vote for him. I just think the media are inflating his chances.
The Irish electorate have apparently interpreted 'proportional representation' to mean 'vote for the parties to represent you in exactly the same proportions'...
But they'll end up with unequal seat numbers. Their ridiculous system is not proportional.
Actually it's remarkable proportional (once you reach about 6%), oddly enough. I did a straight-line fit to the 2011 and 2016 seat proportions vs vote shares for the top five parties and it was a very good fit: R-squared 0.92.
This time will be a bit different because of SF not standing enough candidates.
It should not be considered remarkable that a system billed as PR gives a proportional result.
It simply is not a proportional system. Parties having to guess how many candidates to field, voters voting tactically, and of course the nonsensical method of sloshing buckets of votes around from one recipient to another.
I strongly support PR. But not this.
It's usually straightforward enough for the parties to know how to manage vote share/candidates to maximise seats but this election has been exceptionally volatile.
The Irish electorate have apparently interpreted 'proportional representation' to mean 'vote for the parties to represent you in exactly the same proportions'...
But they'll end up with unequal seat numbers. Their ridiculous system is not proportional.
Actually it's remarkable proportional (once you reach about 6%), oddly enough. I did a straight-line fit to the 2011 and 2016 seat proportions vs vote shares for the top five parties and it was a very good fit: R-squared 0.92.
This time will be a bit different because of SF not standing enough candidates.
It should not be considered remarkable that a system billed as PR gives a proportional result.
It simply is not a proportional system. Parties having to guess how many candidates to field, voters voting tactically, and of course the nonsensical method of sloshing buckets of votes around from one recipient to another.
I strongly support PR. But not this.
It's not PR. It's much better, because the legitimate criticisms of PR don't apply. You vote for individuals, and you can express 2nd, 3rd etc preferences.
The Irish electorate have apparently interpreted 'proportional representation' to mean 'vote for the parties to represent you in exactly the same proportions'...
But they'll end up with unequal seat numbers. Their ridiculous system is not proportional.
Actually it's remarkable proportional (once you reach about 6%), oddly enough. I did a straight-line fit to the 2011 and 2016 seat proportions vs vote shares for the top five parties and it was a very good fit: R-squared 0.92.
This time will be a bit different because of SF not standing enough candidates.
It should not be considered remarkable that a system billed as PR gives a proportional result.
It simply is not a proportional system. Parties having to guess how many candidates to field, voters voting tactically, and of course the nonsensical method of sloshing buckets of votes around from one recipient to another.
I strongly support PR. But not this.
It's not PR. It's much better, because the legitimate criticisms of PR don't apply. You vote for individuals, and you can express 2nd, 3rd etc preferences.
The Irish electorate have apparently interpreted 'proportional representation' to mean 'vote for the parties to represent you in exactly the same proportions'...
But they'll end up with unequal seat numbers. Their ridiculous system is not proportional.
Actually it's remarkable proportional (once you reach about 6%), oddly enough. I did a straight-line fit to the 2011 and 2016 seat proportions vs vote shares for the top five parties and it was a very good fit: R-squared 0.92.
This time will be a bit different because of SF not standing enough candidates.
It should not be considered remarkable that a system billed as PR gives a proportional result.
It simply is not a proportional system. Parties having to guess how many candidates to field, voters voting tactically, and of course the nonsensical method of sloshing buckets of votes around from one recipient to another.
I strongly support PR. But not this.
It's not PR. It's much better, because the legitimate criticisms of PR don't apply. You vote for individuals, and you can express 2nd, 3rd etc preferences.
Yeah, and the net effect in terms of not being able to form a coherent government which anyone actually voted, and with lots of pork-barreling and undue influence by bizarre minor players, for is exactly like a pure PR system.
The Irish electorate have apparently interpreted 'proportional representation' to mean 'vote for the parties to represent you in exactly the same proportions'...
But they'll end up with unequal seat numbers. Their ridiculous system is not proportional.
Actually it's remarkable proportional (once you reach about 6%), oddly enough. I did a straight-line fit to the 2011 and 2016 seat proportions vs vote shares for the top five parties and it was a very good fit: R-squared 0.92.
This time will be a bit different because of SF not standing enough candidates.
It should not be considered remarkable that a system billed as PR gives a proportional result.
It simply is not a proportional system. Parties having to guess how many candidates to field, voters voting tactically, and of course the nonsensical method of sloshing buckets of votes around from one recipient to another.
I strongly support PR. But not this.
It's not PR. It's much better, because the legitimate criticisms of PR don't apply. You vote for individuals, and you can express 2nd, 3rd etc preferences.
With PR you don't need to express more than your first preference. Your feature is, to me, a bug.
Revealed: how drugs giants can access your health records https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/08/fears-over-sale-anonymous-nhs-patient-data ... Washington has already made clear it wants unrestricted access to Britain’s 55 million health records – estimated to have a total value of £10bn a year – as part of any post-Brexit trade agreement. Leaked details of meetings between US and UK trade officials late last year showed that the acquisition of as much UK medical data as possible is a top priority for the US drugs industry...
The CIA as well as "big pharma" will want this data. Assessing the health of foreign leaders is routine spycraft and HMG is handing it over on a plate.
The Irish electorate have apparently interpreted 'proportional representation' to mean 'vote for the parties to represent you in exactly the same proportions'...
But they'll end up with unequal seat numbers. Their ridiculous system is not proportional.
Actually it's remarkable proportional (once you reach about 6%), oddly enough. I did a straight-line fit to the 2011 and 2016 seat proportions vs vote shares for the top five parties and it was a very good fit: R-squared 0.92.
This time will be a bit different because of SF not standing enough candidates.
It should not be considered remarkable that a system billed as PR gives a proportional result.
It simply is not a proportional system. Parties having to guess how many candidates to field, voters voting tactically, and of course the nonsensical method of sloshing buckets of votes around from one recipient to another.
I strongly support PR. But not this.
It's not PR. It's much better, because the legitimate criticisms of PR don't apply. You vote for individuals, and you can express 2nd, 3rd etc preferences.
Yeah, and the net effect in terms of not being able to form a coherent government which anyone actually voted for is exactly like a pure PR system.
It wasn't a problem when FF were the largest party for 60 years but no system copes well with dead heats.
Not that it's going to happen but I do wish the Irish would consider different names for either or both of Fine Gael and Fiana Fail: I always get them the wrong way round.
It's like Ant and Dec here: no matter how many times you're told you're never sure which is which.
Ant always stands on the left, Dec on the right. Ditto Jedward.
The Irish electorate have apparently interpreted 'proportional representation' to mean 'vote for the parties to represent you in exactly the same proportions'...
But they'll end up with unequal seat numbers. Their ridiculous system is not proportional.
Actually it's remarkable proportional (once you reach about 6%), oddly enough. I did a straight-line fit to the 2011 and 2016 seat proportions vs vote shares for the top five parties and it was a very good fit: R-squared 0.92.
This time will be a bit different because of SF not standing enough candidates.
It should not be considered remarkable that a system billed as PR gives a proportional result.
It simply is not a proportional system. Parties having to guess how many candidates to field, voters voting tactically, and of course the nonsensical method of sloshing buckets of votes around from one recipient to another.
I strongly support PR. But not this.
It's not PR. It's much better, because the legitimate criticisms of PR don't apply. You vote for individuals, and you can express 2nd, 3rd etc preferences.
Yeah, and the net effect in terms of not being able to form a coherent government which anyone actually voted, and with lots of pork-barreling and undue influence by bizarre minor players, for is exactly like a pure PR system.
Much better than a party winning a landslide on <<50% of the vote!
The Irish electorate have apparently interpreted 'proportional representation' to mean 'vote for the parties to represent you in exactly the same proportions'...
But they'll end up with unequal seat numbers. Their ridiculous system is not proportional.
Actually it's remarkable proportional (once you reach about 6%), oddly enough. I did a straight-line fit to the 2011 and 2016 seat proportions vs vote shares for the top five parties and it was a very good fit: R-squared 0.92.
This time will be a bit different because of SF not standing enough candidates.
It should not be considered remarkable that a system billed as PR gives a proportional result.
It simply is not a proportional system. Parties having to guess how many candidates to field, voters voting tactically, and of course the nonsensical method of sloshing buckets of votes around from one recipient to another.
I strongly support PR. But not this.
It's not PR. It's much better, because the legitimate criticisms of PR don't apply. You vote for individuals, and you can express 2nd, 3rd etc preferences.
Yeah, and the net effect in terms of not being able to form a coherent government which anyone actually voted, and with lots of pork-barreling and undue influence by bizarre minor players, for is exactly like a pure PR system.
Much better than a party winning a landslide on <<50% of the vote!</p>
The government, whoever ends up in office, will be one that precisely no-one voted for. Once you get more than two parties, there are no good voting systems.
Much better than a party winning a landslide on <<50% of the vote!</p>
No, to govern is to choose. If you are choosing between (say) three totally incompatible programmes, you don't get a better result via a parliament where none of them can be implemented.
Not that it's going to happen but I do wish the Irish would consider different names for either or both of Fine Gael and Fiana Fail: I always get them the wrong way round.
It's like Ant and Dec here: no matter how many times you're told you're never sure which is which.
Ant always stands on the left, Dec on the right. Ditto Jedward.
The Irish electorate have apparently interpreted 'proportional representation' to mean 'vote for the parties to represent you in exactly the same proportions'...
But they'll end up with unequal seat numbers. Their ridiculous system is not proportional.
Actually it's remarkable proportional (once you reach about 6%), oddly enough. I did a straight-line fit to the 2011 and 2016 seat proportions vs vote shares for the top five parties and it was a very good fit: R-squared 0.92.
This time will be a bit different because of SF not standing enough candidates.
It should not be considered remarkable that a system billed as PR gives a proportional result.
It simply is not a proportional system. Parties having to guess how many candidates to field, voters voting tactically, and of course the nonsensical method of sloshing buckets of votes around from one recipient to another.
I strongly support PR. But not this.
It's not PR. It's much better, because the legitimate criticisms of PR don't apply. You vote for individuals, and you can express 2nd, 3rd etc preferences.
Yeah, and the net effect in terms of not being able to form a coherent government which anyone actually voted, and with lots of pork-barreling and undue influence by bizarre minor players, for is exactly like a pure PR system.
Much better than a party winning a landslide on <<50% of the vote!</p>
The government, whoever ends up in office, will be one that precisely no-one voted for. Once you get more than two parties, there are no good voting systems.
Except FPTP. The main purpose of which is to force the parties to agree on their coalitions before facing the electorate, not after.
It's still comfortably the least worst system available. I don't know how many European countries need to demonstrate why no proportional system works properly in order to satisfy their proponents here.
Much better than a party winning a landslide on <<50% of the vote!</p>
No, to govern is to choose. If you are choosing between (say) three totally incompatible programmes, you don't get a better result via a parliament where none of them can be implemented.
Yes you do. You get a compromise that satisfies more people
Much better than a party winning a landslide on <<50% of the vote!</p>
No, to govern is to choose. If you are choosing between (say) three totally incompatible programmes, you don't get a better result via a parliament where none of them can be implemented.
Yes you do. You get a compromise that satisfies more people
Anyway, don't stay up. It will be days before we know the seat totals in Ireland, and probably weeks before we know what government will emerge from shadowy talks in smoke-free rooms.
Much better than a party winning a landslide on <<50% of the vote!</p>
No, to govern is to choose. If you are choosing between (say) three totally incompatible programmes, you don't get a better result via a parliament where none of them can be implemented.
Yes you do. You get a compromise that satisfies more people
At least his choice of pizza toppings is sensible and appropriate.
By the way, that first picture is not Pete eating chicken wings, instead he has taken apart a cinnamon bun and for some reason is eating it with two hands.
Much better than a party winning a landslide on <<50% of the vote!</p>
No, to govern is to choose. If you are choosing between (say) three totally incompatible programmes, you don't get a better result via a parliament where none of them can be implemented.
That's a viewpoint framed in the absurdly adversarial politics we have here. Competent politicians can compromise and govern effectively.
It's like the first cuckoo of spring etc etc. Tory chancellor floats pension relief cut as a flying kite. Within nanoseconds he is brought back to earth.
The Treasury must have a file that reads 'Let's Cut Pension Relief' on a shelf, which they bring out every Budget. This has being going on since at least the Norman era.
Comments
Will Varadkar reJoyce? Or will this election be Fine Gael's Wake?
Fine Gael 22%
Fiana Fail 22%
Sinn Fein 22%
Greens 8%
Labour 4%
Social Democrats 3%
Solidarity People Before Profit 3%
B.) DAFUQ?? DAACTUALFUCK? HOW THE FUCK DID THAT HAPPEN?
Can that clusterfuck actually produce a government of any description?
“At some point soon, establishment Democrats will have to face the reality that Biden, for all his personal virtues, probably doesn’t have what it takes to win the nomination in 2020. After Biden’s ten months as an uninspiring active candidate, it seems folly to believe that all it will take is a campaign shakeup or a new stump speech to turn things around.”
“Sure, this dire verdict may be premature. For the moment, Biden is holding onto to his African American support in the February 29 South Carolina primary and leading in most national polls. But those numbers may look different next week if Biden limps home in fourth or even fifth in New Hampshire. In politics, universally known and liked former vice presidents don’t win by losing badly in both Iowa and New Hampshire.”
https://newrepublic.com/article/156510/joe-biden-collapsing
Looking forward to Clive Lewis using this result to campaign for PR in the UK.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/exit-poll-party-equality-in-percentages-does-not-work-out-in-seat-numbers-1.4166968
Revealed: how drugs giants can access your health records
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/08/fears-over-sale-anonymous-nhs-patient-data
... Washington has already made clear it wants unrestricted access to Britain’s 55 million health records – estimated to have a total value of £10bn a year – as part of any post-Brexit trade agreement. Leaked details of meetings between US and UK trade officials late last year showed that the acquisition of as much UK medical data as possible is a top priority for the US drugs industry...
It's like Ant and Dec here: no matter how many times you're told you're never sure which is which.
Note that Leo has blown a very substantial lead since the Euro elections of 2019.
Leo, like the LibDems and the TIGgers and Jess Phillips, is very popular with the opinion-shapers of the media, but less so with actual voters.
Ditto Pete Buttigieg.
This time will be a bit different because of SF not standing enough candidates.
My Brexit food box is now virus box.
Certainly more than the "electable" Biden.
Close is an under statement.
It simply is not a proportional system. Parties having to guess how many candidates to field, voters voting tactically, and of course the nonsensical method of sloshing buckets of votes around from one recipient to another.
I strongly support PR. But not this.
At a personal level, I am fine with Mayor Pete and would vote for him. I just think the media are inflating his chances.
Real voters: "erm, actually..."
FF 52
FG 42
SF 32
GREEN 8
LAB 4
SD 2
PBP 2
IND 16
only FF/FG 94 or FF/SF 84 is viable.
More accurate to say that the facts of the incident have not been tested in a trial.
Short-lived, whatever it is is.
It's still comfortably the least worst system available. I don't know how many European countries need to demonstrate why no proportional system works properly in order to satisfy their proponents here.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/109723/rebecca-long-bailey-vows-back-workers-every
Even those striking against a decision you've made, Becky?
But always a great day when Forest beat Leeds.
Defined contribution pensions being shat on again.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/02/08/tories-eye-mansion-tax-raid-pensions2/
Compared to last night
Starmer +31
Long-Bailey +14
Nandy +7
Thornberry +3
Allin-Khan reached the required threshold today
Compared to last night
Rayner +27
Butler +10
Burgon +3
Murray +4
Allin Khan +11
Still. Points for trying yet again Javid.
Never happens.