politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Some pretty grim polling in London for the Tories, Labour, and

murali_s said:

Casino_Royale said:

murali_s said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, you do have to wonder who comprises the 26% who are supporting the Conservatives in London. Given the party's entire raison d'etre at present is to stand against everything that London stands for, it's remarkable that they poll so highly. The self-hatred among this cohort must be off the scale.

London is certainly different to the rest of the nation, but perhaps not quite as different as you make out. It’s our capital city (of England and of the UK) and doesn’t stand for something wildly different from that. It doesn’t “belong” to any one tribe or form of political opinion.

There are still plenty of Conservatives (and, indeed, even Leavers) there who think London does well from the current Government and are fearful of the alternative.

Jesus! You obviously don't live and work in London. The Tories are in free-fall here and have been for a while. The Tories have nothing to offer the educated, sophisticated, young and ethnically diverse population of London.

Expect the Tories to be sub 20% at the next GE my deluded right-wing friend!

Umm. I work in London. I’m there every day and lots of my friends are Londoners.

Muppet.

What is it with these Brexit right-wing lunatic types on here?

I am just saying what quite a few moderate Tories have been saying for years. London is moving away from the Tories and continues to do so. The Tories offer NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH to Londoners and it shows in elections and polling.

Wake Up!

Yeah, ok.

Whatever.

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1039231540796960768?s=21

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1039231540796960768?s=21

Isn’t flag burning the only proper way to dispose of a flag?

DavidL said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1039243979471114247

37% think he respects the rule of law? What will it take?

May be they think it’s the law of the jungle?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1039243979471114247

Senate alert numbers lol

Dems gain Ted Cruz's seat?

I remember seeing a poll where the Dems were ahead in Indiana, and possibly Tennessee ! I am like +£3 GOP/+£36 Dems on the Senate right now. Wherever the votes are, the numbers look dire for Trump right now.
Of course this doesn't mean he isn't getting back in in 2020 but I really think the Senate is definitely in play now.

I'm coming to that conclusion as well.

Glad I'm on Dems for Senate. Looked a bit of a bonkers bet for a while, but now...

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1039231540796960768?s=21

Isn’t flag burning the only proper way to dispose of a flag?

Nope.

I once owned toilet rolls that resembled the French flag.

Touché.

rottenborough said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1039243979471114247

Senate alert numbers lol

Dems gain Ted Cruz's seat?

I remember seeing a poll where the Dems were ahead in Indiana, and possibly Tennessee ! I am like +£3 GOP/+£36 Dems on the Senate right now. Wherever the votes are, the numbers look dire for Trump right now.
Of course this doesn't mean he isn't getting back in in 2020 but I really think the Senate is definitely in play now.

I'm coming to that conclusion as well.

Glad I'm on Dems for Senate. Looked a bit of a bonkers bet for a while, but now...

You'll be considered a visionary if it comes off.

MikeL said:

Some Con opposition to new boundaries is that it increases the power of the Executive.

So here's an idea - don't introduce new boundaries by Statutory Instrument, but INSTEAD:

Introduce a new Bill to Parliament which:

1) Changes max number of Ministers, number who can be paid etc
2) Implements Boundary Commission reports

It's also much harder for Con MPs to vote against a Bill at 2nd / 3rd Reading than to oppose an SI.

Govt can even accept amendments as long as Bill does implement boundaries.

Agreeing to reduce the size of the payroll vote is a sensible policy that should follow on from reducing the number of MPs.

Personally I would remove Parliament entirely from the Boundary process other than setting the total number and size spread. Now that is done, boundary reviews should be done in the first year of a 5 year Parliament ready for use at the next election.

Yes, there would need to be a mechanism in place for what happens if the Commons votes to go for an early election - but it should not be beyond the capabilities of government lawyers to work that out.

But it is wrong for MPs to vote on these things.

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1039231540796960768?s=21

Isn’t flag burning the only proper way to dispose of a flag?

Blimey, that photo angle of Cruz's face takes "the camera adding 5 lbs" to a whole new level !

Alanbrooke said:

the polls highlight once again the slow death of the SPD

And the slow death of the CDU/CSU which polled 42% in 2013 and has lost a third of that.

Astonishing to see the COMBINED CDU/CSU/SPD number at 45%.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Benpointer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Is it the lagershed yet?

Because I have a joke to share.

It is

The person who invented the vibrator, did they think

'Build it and they will come [sic]?'

Don't give up the day job

Gallowgate said:

El_Capitano said:

There is no real affection for Corbyn in the Midlands cities - Birmingham voted in a Tory mayor, after all.

I wouldn’t read too much into that. Street wasn’t a normal Tory candidate and only won because of huge votes in middle class areas like Solihull. Birmingham itself is still a very Labour city.

I was however suprised by Walsall voting for Street.

EDIT: Oh and the Labour candidate was crap.

What, Sion Simon - the Nostrodamus of our times? How can you suggest such a thing.....

https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase

MarqueeMark said:

Gallowgate said:

El_Capitano said:

There is no real affection for Corbyn in the Midlands cities - Birmingham voted in a Tory mayor, after all.

I wouldn’t read too much into that. Street wasn’t a normal Tory candidate and only won because of huge votes in middle class areas like Solihull. Birmingham itself is still a very Labour city.

I was however suprised by Walsall voting for Street.

EDIT: Oh and the Labour candidate was crap.

What, Sion Simon - the Nostrodamus of our times? How can you suggest such a thing.....

https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase

Why has that article never been shared on PB before?

Andy_Cooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

eek said:

mikedulcero said:

You do know we can have a voting system that incorporates both constituencies and final % right?

That sounds very um European so couldn't really work in the new Brexit world...

Would it be the Single Stochastic Vote (SSV) ?
Votes are cast as at present, but then at the "count" one vote is drawn at random from the votes cast. The MP is the person whom that vote is for.
Averaged over 600/650 seats, the results would be roughly proportional, while still maintaining the constituency link with the MP.

It would only be as proportional on average as fptp

That's not true at all. It would be highly proportional. If UKIP averaged 4%, there would be a 4% chance (on average) in each seat. They'd win one in 25 seats (on average).

See my subsequent post

I still don't think that's correct. If you like I can take the 2017 UK election results and run a Monte Carlo analysis on it.

On the face of it, I was sceptical, but you're quite correct. The average expected numbers of MPs from SSV for 2017 would appear to be:
Con - 268
Lab - 264
LD - 46
SNP - 22
UKIP - 12
Green - 10
DUP - 7
Sinn Fein - 5
Plaid Cymru - 4
SDLP - 2
Alliance - 2
UUP - 2
Spkr - 1
Independents and Minor Parties - 5

And with MoE ranges (i.e. 95% confidence), the ranges would be:

Con : 255-283
Lab : 250-278
LD : 38-53
SNP : 20-24
UKIP : 4-21
Green : 1-19
DUP : 4-9
Sinn Fein : 4-6
Plaid Cymru : 3-6
SDLP : 1-3
Alliance: 1-3
UUP : 1-3
Spkr: 0-1
Independents and Minor Parties: (estimated 2-7)

MarqueeMark said:

Gallowgate said:

El_Capitano said:

There is no real affection for Corbyn in the Midlands cities - Birmingham voted in a Tory mayor, after all.

I wouldn’t read too much into that. Street wasn’t a normal Tory candidate and only won because of huge votes in middle class areas like Solihull. Birmingham itself is still a very Labour city.

I was however suprised by Walsall voting for Street.

EDIT: Oh and the Labour candidate was crap.

What, Sion Simon - the Nostrodamus of our times? How can you suggest such a thing.....

https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase

Ye there was a real candidate effect in the mayorals, also it was before that fucking disaster of a campaign and manifesto May/TimothyHill launched for the GE.
In fairness to Labour I think Burnham basically took Brady's constituency. Street was a superb result for the Tories for the West Mids mayoralty tho.

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1039231540796960768?s=21

That’d pretty shocking that Cruz can put up an ad like that. Presumably from a PAC (no “I’m Ted Cruz and I endorse this message”) but even so

Getting desperate?

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1039231540796960768?s=21

Is it possible, even conceivable that the Americans could have done worse than Trump? You would have thought not but I give you Ted Cruz.

OblitusSumMe said:

Andy_Cooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

eek said:

mikedulcero said:

You do know we can have a voting system that incorporates both constituencies and final % right?

That sounds very um European so couldn't really work in the new Brexit world...

Would it be the Single Stochastic Vote (SSV) ?
Votes are cast as at present, but then at the "count" one vote is drawn at random from the votes cast. The MP is the person whom that vote is for.
Averaged over 600/650 seats, the results would be roughly proportional, while still maintaining the constituency link with the MP.

It would only be as proportional on average as fptp

That's not true at all. It would be highly proportional. If UKIP averaged 4%, there would be a 4% chance (on average) in each seat. They'd win one in 25 seats (on average).

See my subsequent post

I still don't think that's correct. If you like I can take the 2017 UK election results and run a Monte Carlo analysis on it.

On the face of it, I was sceptical, but you're quite correct. The average expected numbers of MPs from SSV for 2017 would appear to be:
Con - 268
Lab - 264
LD - 46
SNP - 22
UKIP - 12
Green - 10
DUP - 7
Sinn Fein - 5
Plaid Cymru - 4
SDLP - 2
Alliance - 2
UUP - 2
Spkr - 1
Independents and Minor Parties - 5

That's an amazingmy.bonkers voting system, which I love in so many ways.

The main problem that I see is one that on the face of it is so simple. How do you draw a vote at random?

I'd imagine you pour the contents of all the ballot boxes for a given constituency into a big pit (with the order of the ballot boxes chosen at random; possibly by assigning a number to each box and pulling out the number at random each time) and the Returning Officer, blindfolded, jumps into the put, snatches one, and holds it up.
It'd be quite fun, I'd think.

Can I just say, completely off topic, families! Or rather children! As soon as you think they’re sort of settled and ok something kicks you/them in the arse.

Do you ever stop worrying about your children? And how can you help them when they’re young adults, have to make their own decisions but also need/ask for guidance?

It’s like bloody snakes and ladders!

oxfordsimon said:

Pulpstar said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1039231540796960768?s=21

Isn’t flag burning the only proper way to dispose of a flag?

Blimey, that photo angle of Cruz's face takes "the camera adding 5 lbs" to a whole new level !

He shares a make-up artist with Dame Edna on the basis of that pic!

More Mrs Doubtfire

Sunil_Prasannan said:

oxfordsimon said:

Pulpstar said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1039231540796960768?s=21

Isn’t flag burning the only proper way to dispose of a flag?

Blimey, that photo angle of Cruz's face takes "the camera adding 5 lbs" to a whole new level !

He shares a make-up artist with Dame Edna on the basis of that pic!

More Mrs Doubtfire

That is also possible. Needs work either way

Andy_Cooke said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Andy_Cooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

eek said:

mikedulcero said:

You do know we can have a voting system that incorporates both constituencies and final % right?

That sounds very um European so couldn't really work in the new Brexit world...

Would it be the Single Stochastic Vote (SSV) ?
Votes are cast as at present, but then at the "count" one vote is drawn at random from the votes cast. The MP is the person whom that vote is for.
Averaged over 600/650 seats, the results would be roughly proportional, while still maintaining the constituency link with the MP.

It would only be as proportional on average as fptp

That's not true at all. It would be highly proportional. If UKIP averaged 4%, there would be a 4% chance (on average) in each seat. They'd win one in 25 seats (on average).

See my subsequent post

I still don't think that's correct. If you like I can take the 2017 UK election results and run a Monte Carlo analysis on it.

On the face of it, I was sceptical, but you're quite correct. The average expected numbers of MPs from SSV for 2017 would appear to be:
Con - 268
Lab - 264
LD - 46
SNP - 22
UKIP - 12
Green - 10
DUP - 7
Sinn Fein - 5
Plaid Cymru - 4
SDLP - 2
Alliance - 2
UUP - 2
Spkr - 1
Independents and Minor Parties - 5

That's an amazingmy.bonkers voting system, which I love in so many ways.

The main problem that I see is one that on the face of it is so simple. How do you draw a vote at random?

I'd imagine you pour the contents of all the ballot boxes for a given constituency into a big pit (with the order of the ballot boxes chosen at random; possibly by assigning a number to each box and pulling out the number at random each time) and the Returning Officer, blindfolded, jumps into the put, snatches one, and holds it up.
It'd be quite fun, I'd think.

Not as fun as the Nabavi Variant!

Benpointer said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Andy_Cooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

eek said:

mikedulcero said:

You do know we can have a voting system that incorporates both constituencies and final % right?

That sounds very um European so couldn't really work in the new Brexit world...

Would it be the Single Stochastic Vote (SSV) ?
Votes are cast as at present, but then at the "count" one vote is drawn at random from the votes cast. The MP is the person whom that vote is for.
Averaged over 600/650 seats, the results would be roughly proportional, while still maintaining the constituency link with the MP.

It would only be as proportional on average as fptp

That's not true at all. It would be highly proportional. If UKIP averaged 4%, there would be a 4% chance (on average) in each seat. They'd win one in 25 seats (on average).

See my subsequent post

I still don't think that's correct. If you like I can take the 2017 UK election results and run a Monte Carlo analysis on it.

On the face of it, I was sceptical, but you're quite correct. The average expected numbers of MPs from SSV for 2017 would appear to be:
Con - 268
Lab - 264
LD - 46
SNP - 22
UKIP - 12
Green - 10
DUP - 7
Sinn Fein - 5
Plaid Cymru - 4
SDLP - 2
Alliance - 2
UUP - 2
Spkr - 1
Independents and Minor Parties - 5

That's an amazingmy.bonkers voting system, which I love in so many ways.

The main problem that I see is one that on the face of it is so simple. How do you draw a vote at random?

Would all the votes still be counted in an SSV system? If not, how would you guard against fraud?

Because there is a random element counting all the votes is a poor guard against fraud.

You would prevent fraud by following unbiased procedures.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Former Brexit minister Steve Baker, who quit in July over Chequers, said the Conservatives would face a catastrophic split if May relied on Labour votes to push her proposals through parliament.

Good point, Steve.

And if the ERG rely on Labour votes to scupper her proposals....?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/10/johnson-trying-to-stop-may-chequers-brexit-plan

With every day that passes, the ERG are increasingly revealing themselves to be a bunch of clueless f*ckers.

Richard_Nabavi said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Andy_Cooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

eek said:

mikedulcero said:

You do know we can have a voting system that incorporates both constituencies and final % right?

That sounds very um European so couldn't really work in the new Brexit world...

Would it be the Single Stochastic Vote (SSV) ?
Votes are cast as at present, but then at the "count" one vote is drawn at random from the votes cast. The MP is the person whom that vote is for.
Averaged over 600/650 seats, the results would be roughly proportional, while still maintaining the constituency link with the MP.

It would only be as proportional on average as fptp

That's not true at all. It would be highly proportional. If UKIP averaged 4%, there would be a 4% chance (on average) in each seat. They'd win one in 25 seats (on average).

See my subsequent post

I still don't think that's correct. If you like I can take the 2017 UK election results and run a Monte Carlo analysis on it.

On the face of it, I was sceptical, but you're quite correct. The average expected numbers of MPs from SSV for 2017 would appear to be:
Con - 268
Lab - 264
LD - 46
SNP - 22
UKIP - 12
Green - 10
DUP - 7
Sinn Fein - 5
Plaid Cymru - 4
SDLP - 2
Alliance - 2
UUP - 2
Spkr - 1
Independents and Minor Parties - 5

That's an amazingmy.bonkers voting system, which I love in so many ways.

The main problem that I see is one that on the face of it is so simple. How do you draw a vote at random?

In each constituency you hire a scantily-dressed young lady, preferably a well-endowed celebrity, to reach into a barrel of ballot papers and select one.

It would make the TV coverage much more interesting, you could get a result within a couple of hours, it would be cheap to implement, and you could include time for commercial breaks as well.

What's not to like?

Yes, there are lots of benefits to the system. With any physical method of choosing the winning ballot I'd worry about party leaflets giving advice on the optimal folding method to bias it.

I think then you might have to abandon paper and pencil and use coloured/numbered plastic tokens, or something similar to that, so you could control the physical characteristics of each vote.

Richard_Nabavi said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Andy_Cooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

eek said:

mikedulcero said:

You do know we can have a voting system that incorporates both constituencies and final % right?

That sounds very um European so couldn't really work in the new Brexit world...

Would it be the Single Stochastic Vote (SSV) ?
Votes are cast as at present, but then at the "count" one vote is drawn at random from the votes cast. The MP is the person whom that vote is for.
Averaged over 600/650 seats, the results would be roughly proportional, while still maintaining the constituency link with the MP.

It would only be as proportional on average as fptp

That's not true at all. It would be highly proportional. If UKIP averaged 4%, there would be a 4% chance (on average) in each seat. They'd win one in 25 seats (on average).

See my subsequent post

I still don't think that's correct. If you like I can take the 2017 UK election results and run a Monte Carlo analysis on it.

On the face of it, I was sceptical, but you're quite correct. The average expected numbers of MPs from SSV for 2017 would appear to be:
Con - 268
Lab - 264
LD - 46
SNP - 22
UKIP - 12
Green - 10
DUP - 7
Sinn Fein - 5
Plaid Cymru - 4
SDLP - 2
Alliance - 2
UUP - 2
Spkr - 1
Independents and Minor Parties - 5

That's an amazingmy.bonkers voting system, which I love in so many ways.

The main problem that I see is one that on the face of it is so simple. How do you draw a vote at random?

In each constituency you hire a scantily-dressed young lady, preferably a well-endowed celebrity, to reach into a barrel of ballot papers and select one.

It would make the TV coverage much more interesting, you could get a result within a couple of hours, it would be cheap to implement, and you could include time for commercial breaks as well.

What's not to like?

Furthermore, abandon the concept of a secret ballot, let every voter put their name on their vote, and the one whose vote is drawn wins a cash prize - that would increase participation.

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1039231540796960768?s=21

Is it possible, even conceivable that the Americans could have done worse than Trump? You would have thought not but I give you Ted Cruz.

Donald Trump came damn close to starting a war via Twitter earlier this year. Cruz may be a waste of oxygen and morally bankrupt, but he's not likely to do the crazy stuff Trump is.

https://twitter.com/anguswalkertalk/status/1039254593270673408

Cyclefree said:

Can I just say, completely off topic, families! Or rather children! As soon as you think they’re sort of settled and ok something kicks you/them in the arse.

Do you ever stop worrying about your children? And how can you help them when they’re young adults, have to make their own decisions but also need/ask for guidance?

It’s like bloody snakes and ladders!

Yeah, know the feeling, but I wouldn't be told at that age either.

Fox jr has a lovely girlfriend now, who has that most desirable feature, a forgiving nature. I wouldn't mind having them off the payroll though.

OblitusSumMe said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Andy_Cooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

eek said:

mikedulcero said:

You do know we can have a voting system that incorporates both constituencies and final % right?

That sounds very um European so couldn't really work in the new Brexit world...

Would it be the Single Stochastic Vote (SSV) ?
Votes are cast as at present, but then at the "count" one vote is drawn at random from the votes cast. The MP is the person whom that vote is for.
Averaged over 600/650 seats, the results would be roughly proportional, while still maintaining the constituency link with the MP.

It would only be as proportional on average as fptp

That's not true at all. It would be highly proportional. If UKIP averaged 4%, there would be a 4% chance (on average) in each seat. They'd win one in 25 seats (on average).

See my subsequent post

I still don't think that's correct. If you like I can take the 2017 UK election results and run a Monte Carlo analysis on it.

On the face of it, I was sceptical, but you're quite correct. The average expected numbers of MPs from SSV for 2017 would appear to be:
Con - 268
Lab - 264
LD - 46
SNP - 22
UKIP - 12
Green - 10
DUP - 7
Sinn Fein - 5
Plaid Cymru - 4
SDLP - 2
Alliance - 2
UUP - 2
Spkr - 1
Independents and Minor Parties - 5

That's an amazingmy.bonkers voting system, which I love in so many ways.

The main problem that I see is one that on the face of it is so simple. How do you draw a vote at random?

In each constituency you hire a scantily-dressed young lady, preferably a well-endowed celebrity, to reach into a barrel of ballot papers and select one.

It would make the TV coverage much more interesting, you could get a result within a couple of hours, it would be cheap to implement, and you could include time for commercial breaks as well.

What's not to like?

Yes, there are lots of benefits to the system. With any physical method of choosing the winning ballot I'd worry about party leaflets giving advice on the optimal folding method to bias it.

I think then you might have to abandon paper and pencil and use coloured/numbered plastic tokens, or something similar to that, so you could control the physical characteristics of each vote.

Electronic voting. Much easier to fiddle manage.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Former Brexit minister Steve Baker, who quit in July over Chequers, said the Conservatives would face a catastrophic split if May relied on Labour votes to push her proposals through parliament.

Good point, Steve.

And if the ERG rely on Labour votes to scupper her proposals....?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/10/johnson-trying-to-stop-may-chequers-brexit-plan

With every day that passes, the ERG are increasingly revealing themselves to be a bunch of clueless f*ckers.

Not sure I'd quite say that. They are quite remarkably successful wreckers. Steve Baker in particular was a devastatingly effective organiser of guerrilla attacks on Cameron.

"The urge to destroy is also a creative urge"

Mikhail Bakunin

This quote is also apposite for the ERG:

"If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself"

Foxy said:

Cyclefree said:

Can I just say, completely off topic, families! Or rather children! As soon as you think they’re sort of settled and ok something kicks you/them in the arse.

Do you ever stop worrying about your children? And how can you help them when they’re young adults, have to make their own decisions but also need/ask for guidance?

It’s like bloody snakes and ladders!

Yeah, know the feeling, but I wouldn't be told at that age either.

Fox jr has a lovely girlfriend now, who has that most desirable feature, a forgiving nature. I wouldn't mind having them off the payroll though.

We've no children ourselves (just lots of nephews and nieces) - so I'm not really in a position to comment but... Am I imiagining that today's 20 and 30-somethings are supported by their parents to a far greater extent than we were at that age?

(I do appreciate they have challenges e.g. in housing and university fees we never faced.)

Anazina said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Andy_Cooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

eek said:

mikedulcero said:

You do know we can have a voting system that incorporates both constituencies and final % right?

That sounds very um European so couldn't really work in the new Brexit world...

Would it be the Single Stochastic Vote (SSV) ?
Votes are cast as at present, but then at the "count" one vote is drawn at random from the votes cast. The MP is the person whom that vote is for.
Averaged over 600/650 seats, the results would be roughly proportional, while still maintaining the constituency link with the MP.

It would only be as proportional on average as fptp

That's not true at all. It would be highly proportional. If UKIP averaged 4%, there would be a 4% chance (on average) in each seat. They'd win one in 25 seats (on average).

See my subsequent post

I still don't think that's correct. If you like I can take the 2017 UK election results and run a Monte Carlo analysis on it.

On the face of it, I was sceptical, but you're quite correct. The average expected numbers of MPs from SSV for 2017 would appear to be:
Con - 268
Lab - 264
LD - 46
SNP - 22
UKIP - 12
Green - 10
DUP - 7
Sinn Fein - 5
Plaid Cymru - 4
SDLP - 2
Alliance - 2
UUP - 2
Spkr - 1
Independents and Minor Parties - 5

That's an amazingmy.bonkers voting system, which I love in so many ways.

The main problem that I see is one that on the face of it is so simple. How do you draw a vote at random?

In each constituency you hire a scantily-dressed young lady, preferably a well-endowed celebrity, to reach into a barrel of ballot papers and select one.

It would make the TV coverage much more interesting, you could get a result within a couple of hours, it would be cheap to implement, and you could include time for commercial breaks as well.

What's not to like?

Furthermore, abandon the concept of a secret ballot, let every voter put their name on their vote, and the one whose vote is drawn wins a cash prize - that would increase participation.

Would “Liberal Democrats” count as a Pointless Answer?

Less so than it does in most constituencies under our current FPTP system.

Benpointer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Former Brexit minister Steve Baker, who quit in July over Chequers, said the Conservatives would face a catastrophic split if May relied on Labour votes to push her proposals through parliament.

Good point, Steve.

And if the ERG rely on Labour votes to scupper her proposals....?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/10/johnson-trying-to-stop-may-chequers-brexit-plan

With every day that passes, the ERG are increasingly revealing themselves to be a bunch of clueless f*ckers.

Clueless is kind - they need putting back in their box and I believe TM will do just that or, irony of all ironies, they may see a second referendum down their unrealistic hopes for once and for all

For me it is TM deal and if not, a second referendum (peoples vote is a dishonest title)

OblitusSumMe said:

Andy_Cooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

eek said:

mikedulcero said:

You do know we can have a voting system that incorporates both constituencies and final % right?

That sounds very um European so couldn't really work in the new Brexit world...

Would it be the Single Stochastic Vote (SSV) ?
Votes are cast as at present, but then at the "count" one vote is drawn at random from the votes cast. The MP is the person whom that vote is for.
Averaged over 600/650 seats, the results would be roughly proportional, while still maintaining the constituency link with the MP.

It would only be as proportional on average as fptp

That's not true at all. It would be highly proportional. If UKIP averaged 4%, there would be a 4% chance (on average) in each seat. They'd win one in 25 seats (on average).

See my subsequent post

I still don't think that's correct. If you like I can take the 2017 UK election results and run a Monte Carlo analysis on it.

On the face of it, I was sceptical, but you're quite correct. The average expected numbers of MPs from SSV for 2017 would appear to be:
Con - 268
Lab - 264
LD - 46
SNP - 22
UKIP - 12
Green - 10
DUP - 7
Sinn Fein - 5
Plaid Cymru - 4
SDLP - 2
Alliance - 2
UUP - 2
Spkr - 1
Independents and Minor Parties - 5

That's an amazingmy.bonkers voting system, which I love in so many ways.

The main problem that I see is one that on the face of it is so simple. How do you draw a vote at random?

It would be quite tricky to have a political career. About 40% of the Cabinet would lose their seats at every election, including possibly the PM.

On the plus side, I might have won.

AnneJGP said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Andy_Cooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

eek said:

mikedulcero said:

You do know we can have a voting system that incorporates both constituencies and final % right?

Would it be the Single Stochastic Vote (SSV) ?
Votes are cast as at present, but then at the "count" one vote is drawn at random from the votes cast. The MP is the person whom that vote is for.
Averaged over 600/650 seats, the results would be roughly proportional, while still maintaining the constituency link with the MP.

It would only be as proportional on average as fptp

That's not true at all. It would be highly proportional. If UKIP averaged 4%, there would be a 4% chance (on average) in each seat. They'd win one in 25 seats (on average).

See my subsequent post

I still don't think that's correct. If you like I can take the 2017 UK election results and run a Monte Carlo analysis on it.

On the face of it, I was sceptical, but you're quite correct. The average expected numbers of MPs from SSV for 2017 would appear to be:
Con - 268
Lab - 264
LD - 46
SNP - 22
UKIP - 12
Green - 10
DUP - 7
Sinn Fein - 5
Plaid Cymru - 4
SDLP - 2
Alliance - 2
UUP - 2
Spkr - 1
Independents and Minor Parties - 5

That's an amazingmy.bonkers voting system, which I love in so many ways.

The main problem that I see is one that on the face of it is so simple. How do you draw a vote at random?

In each constituency you hire a scantily-dressed young lady, preferably a well-endowed celebrity, to reach into a barrel of ballot papers and select one.

It would make the TV coverage much more interesting, you could get a result within a couple of hours, it would be cheap to implement, and you could include time for commercial breaks as well.

What's not to like?

Furthermore, abandon the concept of a secret ballot, let every voter put their name on their vote, and the one whose vote is drawn wins a cash prize - that would increase participation.

Brilliant!

Indeed, why bother with the whole voting process? Just pick a voter & ask who s/he'd vote for.

ISTR somebody wrote a story about that voting method.

Isaac Asimov

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_(short_story)

Benpointer said:

Foxy said:

Cyclefree said:

Can I just say, completely off topic, families! Or rather children! As soon as you think they’re sort of settled and ok something kicks you/them in the arse.

Do you ever stop worrying about your children? And how can you help them when they’re young adults, have to make their own decisions but also need/ask for guidance?

It’s like bloody snakes and ladders!

Yeah, know the feeling, but I wouldn't be told at that age either.

Fox jr has a lovely girlfriend now, who has that most desirable feature, a forgiving nature. I wouldn't mind having them off the payroll though.

We've no children ourselves (just lots of nephews and nieces) - so I'm not really in a position to comment but... Am I imiagining that today's 20 and 30-somethings are supported by their parents to a far greater extent than we were at that age?

(I do appreciate they have challenges e.g. in housing and university fees we never faced.)

I think it probably true, at least for middle class children, and it is a major bar to social mobility. No one wants their children to be downwardly mobile though.

I am happy to help though, and while other things matter more, money is useful.

Cyclefree said:

Can I just say, completely off topic, families! Or rather children! As soon as you think they’re sort of settled and ok something kicks you/them in the arse.

Do you ever stop worrying about your children? And how can you help them when they’re young adults, have to make their own decisions but also need/ask for guidance?

It’s like bloody snakes and ladders!

Of course you don't stop worrying about your children, it is a part of caring. But once they are adults the distinction between need and ask for guidance is important. The second is fine, the first risks treading into dangerous waters.

Richard_Nabavi said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Andy_Cooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

eek said:

mikedulcero said:

You do know we can have a voting system that incorporates both constituencies and final % right?

That sounds very um European so couldn't really work in the new Brexit world...

Would it be the Single Stochastic Vote (SSV) ?
Votes are cast as at present, but then at the "count" one vote is drawn at random from the votes cast. The MP is the person whom that vote is for.
Averaged over 600/650 seats, the results would be roughly proportional, while still maintaining the constituency link with the MP.

It would only be as proportional on average as fptp

That's not true at all. It would be highly proportional. If UKIP averaged 4%, there would be a 4% chance (on average) in each seat. They'd win one in 25 seats (on average).

See my subsequent post

I still don't think that's correct. If you like I can take the 2017 UK election results and run a Monte Carlo analysis on it.

On the face of it, I was sceptical, but you're quite correct. The average expected numbers of MPs from SSV for 2017 would appear to be:
Con - 268
Lab - 264
LD - 46
SNP - 22
UKIP - 12
Green - 10
DUP - 7
Sinn Fein - 5
Plaid Cymru - 4
SDLP - 2
Alliance - 2
UUP - 2
Spkr - 1
Independents and Minor Parties - 5

That's an amazingmy.bonkers voting system, which I love in so many ways.

The main problem that I see is one that on the face of it is so simple. How do you draw a vote at random?

In each constituency you hire a scantily-dressed young lady, preferably a well-endowed celebrity, to reach into a barrel of ballot papers and select one.

It would make the TV coverage much more interesting, you could get a result within a couple of hours, it would be cheap to implement, and you could include time for commercial breaks as well.

What's not to like?

If only you were in government...

This sounds like a much more sensible electoral system than Italy’s. Perhaps they could adopt it and broadcast on Berlusconi’s network?

Richard_Nabavi said:

Tissue_Price said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Andy_Cooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

eek said:

mikedulcero said:

You do know we can have a voting system that incorporates both constituencies and final % right?

That sounds very um European so couldn't really work in the new Brexit world...

Would it be the Single Stochastic Vote (SSV) ?
Votes are cast as at present, but then at the "count" one vote is drawn at random from the votes cast. The MP is the person whom that vote is for.
Averaged over 600/650 seats, the results would be roughly proportional, while still maintaining the constituency link with the MP.

It would only be as proportional on average as fptp

That's not true at all. It would be highly proportional. If UKIP averaged 4%, there would be a 4% chance (on average) in each seat. They'd win one in 25 seats (on average).

See my subsequent post

I still don't think that's correct. If you like I can take the 2017 UK election results and run a Monte Carlo analysis on it.

On the face of it, I was sceptical, but you're quite correct. The average expected numbers of MPs from SSV for 2017 would appear to be:
Con - 268
Lab - 264
LD - 46
SNP - 22
UKIP - 12
Green - 10
DUP - 7
Sinn Fein - 5
Plaid Cymru - 4
SDLP - 2
Alliance - 2
UUP - 2
Spkr - 1
Independents and Minor Parties - 5

That's an amazingmy.bonkers voting system, which I love in so many ways.

The main problem that I see is one that on the face of it is so simple. How do you draw a vote at random?

It would be quite tricky to have a political career. About 40% of the Cabinet would lose their seats at every election, including possibly the PM.

On the plus side, I might have won.

So, two further advantages.

Surely that system only produces broadly proportional seat numbers if each party's votes are spread broadly the same in each constituency - especially for smaller parties. If, for example, UKIP's votes were all heavily concentrated in 3 or 4 seats and almost nothing anywhere else, they wont get 4% of seats overall?

RobinWiggs said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Tissue_Price said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Andy_Cooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

eek said:

mikedulcero said:

You do know we can have a voting system that incorporates both constituencies and final % right?

That sounds very um European so couldn't really work in the new Brexit world...

Would it be the Single Stochastic Vote (SSV) ?
Votes are cast as at present, but then at the "count" one vote is drawn at random from the votes cast. The MP is the person whom that vote is for.
Averaged over 600/650 seats, the results would be roughly proportional, while still maintaining the constituency link with the MP.

It would only be as proportional on average as fptp

That's not true at all. It would be highly proportional. If UKIP averaged 4%, there would be a 4% chance (on average) in each seat. They'd win one in 25 seats (on average).

See my subsequent post

I still don't think that's correct. If you like I can take the 2017 UK election results and run a Monte Carlo analysis on it.

On the face of it, I was sceptical, but you're quite correct. The average expected numbers of MPs from SSV for 2017 would appear to be:
Con - 268
Lab - 264
LD - 46
SNP - 22
UKIP - 12
Green - 10
DUP - 7
Sinn Fein - 5
Plaid Cymru - 4
SDLP - 2
Alliance - 2
UUP - 2
Spkr - 1
Independents and Minor Parties - 5

That's an amazingmy.bonkers voting system, which I love in so many ways.

The main problem that I see is one that on the face of it is so simple. How do you draw a vote at random?

It would be quite tricky to have a political career. About 40% of the Cabinet would lose their seats at every election, including possibly the PM.

On the plus side, I might have won.

So, two further advantages.

Surely that system only produces broadly proportional seat numbers if each party's votes are spread broadly the same in each constituency - especially for smaller parties. If, for example, UKIP's votes were all heavily concentrated in 3 or 4 seats and almost nothing anywhere else, they wont get 4% of seats overall?

True, but that can be considered an advantage.

Benpointer said:

AnneJGP said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Andy_Cooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

eek said:

mikedulcero said:

You do know we can have a voting system that incorporates both constituencies and final % right?

Would it be the Single Stochastic Vote (SSV) ?
Votes are cast as at present, but then at the "count" one vote is drawn at random from the votes cast. The MP is the person whom that vote is for.
Averaged over 600/650 seats, the results would be roughly proportional, while still maintaining the constituency link with the MP.

It would only be as proportional on average as fptp

That's not true at all. It would be highly proportional. If UKIP averaged 4%, there would be a 4% chance (on average) in each seat. They'd win one in 25 seats (on average).

See my subsequent post

I still don't think that's correct. If you like I can take the 2017 UK election results and run a Monte Carlo analysis on it.

On the face of it, I was sceptical, but you're quite correct. The average expected numbers of MPs from SSV for 2017 would appear to be:
Con - 268
Lab - 264
LD - 46
SNP - 22
UKIP - 12
Green - 10
DUP - 7
Sinn Fein - 5
Plaid Cymru - 4
SDLP - 2
Alliance - 2
UUP - 2
Spkr - 1
Independents and Minor Parties - 5

That's an amazingmy.bonkers voting system, which I love in so many ways.

The main problem that I see is one that on the face of it is so simple. How do you draw a vote at random?

In each constituency you hire a scantily-dressed young lady

Furthermore, abandon the concept of a secret ballot, let every voter put their name on their vote, and the one whose vote is drawn wins a cash prize - that would increase participation.

Brilliant!

Indeed, why bother with the whole voting process? Just pick a voter & ask who s/he'd vote for.

ISTR somebody wrote a story about that voting method.

Isaac Asimov

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_(short_story)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_(short_story)

Kurt Vonnegut wrote a story set in the future, with elected officials chosen at random, and not permitted to refuse the role. It guaranteed all parts of society represented.

glw said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1039231540796960768?s=21

Is it possible, even conceivable that the Americans could have done worse than Trump? You would have thought not but I give you Ted Cruz.

Donald Trump came damn close to starting a war via Twitter earlier this year. Cruz may be a waste of oxygen and morally bankrupt, but he's not likely to do the crazy stuff Trump is.

You think? He seems a complete arsehole to me. I would be delighted if he had the embarrassment of losing Texas.

RobinWiggs said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Tissue_Price said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Andy_Cooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

eek said:

mikedulcero said:

You do know we can have a voting system that incorporates both constituencies and final % right?

That sounds very um European so couldn't really work in the new Brexit world...

Would it be the Single Stochastic Vote (SSV) ?
Votes are cast as at present, but then at the "count" one vote is drawn at random from the votes cast. The MP is the person whom that vote is for.
Averaged over 600/650 seats, the results would be roughly proportional, while still maintaining the constituency link with the MP.

It would only be as proportional on average as fptp

That's not true at all. It would be highly proportional. If UKIP averaged 4%, there would be a 4% chance (on average) in each seat. They'd win one in 25 seats (on average).

See my subsequent post

I still don't think that's correct. If you like I can take the 2017 UK election results and run a Monte Carlo analysis on it.

On the face of it, I was sceptical, but you're quite correct. The average expected numbers of MPs from SSV for 2017 would appear to be:
Con - 268
Lab - 264
LD - 46
SNP - 22
UKIP - 12
Green - 10
DUP - 7
Sinn Fein - 5
Plaid Cymru - 4
SDLP - 2
Alliance - 2
UUP - 2
Spkr - 1
Independents and Minor Parties - 5

That's an amazingmy.bonkers voting system, which I love in so many ways.

The main problem that I see is one that on the face of it is so simple. How do you draw a vote at random?

It would be quite tricky to have a political career. About 40% of the Cabinet would lose their seats at every election, including possibly the PM.

On the plus side, I might have won.

So, two further advantages.

Surely that system only produces broadly proportional seat numbers if each party's votes are spread broadly the same in each constituency - especially for smaller parties. If, for example, UKIP's votes were all heavily concentrated in 3 or 4 seats and almost nothing anywhere else, they wont get 4% of seats overall?

Though they would stand a higher chance in those constituencies, so on a statistical basis it wouldn't make much difference.

RobinWiggs said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Tissue_Price said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Andy_Cooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

eek said:

mikedulcero said:

You do know we can have a voting system that incorporates both constituencies and final % right?

That sounds very um European so couldn't really work in the new Brexit world...

Would it be the Single Stochastic Vote (SSV) ?
Votes are cast as at present, but then at the "count" one vote is drawn at random from the votes cast. The MP is the person whom that vote is for.
Averaged over 600/650 seats, the results would be roughly proportional, while still maintaining the constituency link with the MP.

It would only be as proportional on average as fptp

That's not true at all. It would be highly proportional. If UKIP averaged 4%, there would be a 4% chance (on average) in each seat. They'd win one in 25 seats (on average).

See my subsequent post

I still don't think that's correct. If you like I can take the 2017 UK election results and run a Monte Carlo analysis on it.

On the face of it, I was sceptical, but you're quite correct. The average expected numbers of MPs from SSV for 2017 would appear to be:
Con - 268
Lab - 264
LD - 46
SNP - 22
UKIP - 12
Green - 10
DUP - 7
Sinn Fein - 5
Plaid Cymru - 4
SDLP - 2
Alliance - 2
UUP - 2
Spkr - 1
Independents and Minor Parties - 5

That's an amazingmy.bonkers voting system, which I love in so many ways.

The main problem that I see is one that on the face of it is so simple. How do you draw a vote at random?

It would be quite tricky to have a political career. About 40% of the Cabinet would lose their seats at every election, including possibly the PM.

On the plus side, I might have won.

So, two further advantages.

Surely that system only produces broadly proportional seat numbers if each party's votes are spread broadly the same in each constituency - especially for smaller parties. If, for example, UKIP's votes were all heavily concentrated in 3 or 4 seats and almost nothing anywhere else, they wont get 4% of seats overall?

Not sure you could heavily concentrate 4% of the national vote in just 3 or 4 of 650 seats.

DavidL said:

glw said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1039231540796960768?s=21

Is it possible, even conceivable that the Americans could have done worse than Trump? You would have thought not but I give you Ted Cruz.

Donald Trump came damn close to starting a war via Twitter earlier this year. Cruz may be a waste of oxygen and morally bankrupt, but he's not likely to do the crazy stuff Trump is.

You think? He seems a complete arsehole to me. I would be delighted if he had the embarrassment of losing Texas.

When we look at US politicians, suddenly our own don't look quite so awful.

DavidL said:

AnneJGP said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Andy_Cooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

eek said:

mikedulcero said:

It would only be as proportional on average as fptp

That's not true at all. It would be highly proportional. If UKIP averaged 4%, there would be a 4% chance (on average) in each seat. They'd win one in 25 seats (on average).

See my subsequent post

I still don't think that's correct. If you like I can take the 2017 UK election results and run a Monte Carlo analysis on it.

On the face of it, I was sceptical, but you're quite correct. The average expected numbers of MPs from SSV for 2017 would appear to be:
Con - 268
Lab - 264
LD - 46
SNP - 22
UKIP - 12
Green - 10
DUP - 7
Sinn Fein - 5
Plaid Cymru - 4
SDLP - 2
Alliance - 2
UUP - 2
Spkr - 1
Independents and Minor Parties - 5

That's an amazingmy.bonkers voting system, which I love in so many ways.

The main problem that I see is one that on the face of it is so simple. How do you draw a vote at random?

In each constituency you hire a scantily-dressed young lady, preferably a well-endowed celebrity, to reach into a barrel of ballot papers and select one.

It would make the TV coverage much more interesting, you could get a result within a couple of hours, it would be cheap to implement, and you could include time for commercial breaks as well.

What's not to like?

Furthermore, abandon the concept of a secret ballot, let every voter put their name on their vote, and the one whose vote is drawn wins a cash prize - that would increase participation.

Brilliant!

Indeed, why bother with the whole voting process? Just pick a voter & ask who s/he'd vote for.

ISTR somebody wrote a story about that voting method.

Asimov, I think. Computers were used to identify the "typical" voter in the US who best reflected the majority and his or her decision was then final.

That's the one I was thinking of, but actually it isn't at all the same. That's a way of identifying the majority opinion, whereas what's being proposed here is just the luck of the draw. Nobody's opinion counts.

rottenborough said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1039243979471114247

Senate alert numbers lol

Dems gain Ted Cruz's seat?

I remember seeing a poll where the Dems were ahead in Indiana, and possibly Tennessee ! I am like +£3 GOP/+£36 Dems on the Senate right now. Wherever the votes are, the numbers look dire for Trump right now.
Of course this doesn't mean he isn't getting back in in 2020 but I really think the Senate is definitely in play now.

I'm coming to that conclusion as well.

Glad I'm on Dems for Senate. Looked a bit of a bonkers bet for a while, but now...

Umnm check the terms of your bet Remember two Democrats are technically independents

AnneJGP said:

DavidL said:

AnneJGP said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Andy_Cooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

eek said:

mikedulcero said:

It would only be as proportional on average as fptp

That's not true at all. It would be highly proportional. If UKIP averaged 4%, there would be a 4% chance (on average) in each seat. They'd win one in 25 seats (on average).

See my subsequent post

I still don't think that's correct. If you like I can take the 2017 UK election results and run a Monte Carlo analysis on it.

On the face of it, I was sceptical, but you're quite correct. The average expected numbers of MPs from SSV for 2017 would appear to be:
Con - 268
Lab - 264
LD - 46
SNP - 22
UKIP - 12
Green - 10
DUP - 7
Sinn Fein - 5
Plaid Cymru - 4
SDLP - 2
Alliance - 2
UUP - 2
Spkr - 1
Independents and Minor Parties - 5

That's an amazingmy.bonkers voting system, which I love in so many ways.

The main problem that I see is one that on the face of it is so simple. How do you draw a vote at random?

In each constituency you hire a scantily-dressed young lady, preferably a well-endowed celebrity, to reach into a barrel of ballot papers and select one.

It would make the TV coverage much more interesting, you could get a result within a couple of hours, it would be cheap to implement, and you could include time for commercial breaks as well.

What's not to like?

Furthermore, abandon the concept of a secret ballot, let every voter put their name on their vote, and the one whose vote is drawn wins a cash prize - that would increase participation.

Brilliant!

Indeed, why bother with the whole voting process? Just pick a voter & ask who s/he'd vote for.

ISTR somebody wrote a story about that voting method.

Asimov, I think. Computers were used to identify the "typical" voter in the US who best reflected the majority and his or her decision was then final.

That's the one I was thinking of, but actually it isn't at all the same. That's a way of identifying the majority opinion, whereas what's being proposed here is just the luck of the draw. Nobody's opinion counts.

When combined with the Law of Large Numbers everyone's opinion counts *and* it's the luck of the draw at the same time.

Statistics is wonderful!

AnneJGP said:

DavidL said:

AnneJGP said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Benpointer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Andy_Cooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

rcs1000 said:

Stereotomy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

eek said:

mikedulcero said:

It would only be as proportional on average as fptp

That's not true at all. It would be highly proportional. If UKIP averaged 4%, there would be a 4% chance (on average) in each seat. They'd win one in 25 seats (on average).

See my subsequent post

I still don't think that's correct. If you like I can take the 2017 UK election results and run a Monte Carlo analysis on it.

On the face of it, I was sceptical, but you're quite correct. The average expected numbers of MPs from SSV for 2017 would appear to be:
Con - 268
Lab - 264
LD - 46
SNP - 22
UKIP - 12
Green - 10
DUP - 7
Sinn Fein - 5
Plaid Cymru - 4
SDLP - 2
Alliance - 2
UUP - 2
Spkr - 1
Independents and Minor Parties - 5

That's an amazingmy.bonkers voting system, which I love in so many ways.

The main problem that I see is one that on the face of it is so simple. How do you draw a vote at random?

In each constituency you hire a scantily-dressed young lady, preferably a well-endowed celebrity, to reach into a barrel of ballot papers and select one.

It would make the TV coverage much more interesting, you could get a result within a couple of hours, it would be cheap to implement, and you could include time for commercial breaks as well.

What's not to like?

Furthermore, abandon the concept of a secret ballot, let every voter put their name on their vote, and the one whose vote is drawn wins a cash prize - that would increase participation.

Brilliant!

Indeed, why bother with the whole voting process? Just pick a voter & ask who s/he'd vote for.

ISTR somebody wrote a story about that voting method.

Asimov, I think. Computers were used to identify the "typical" voter in the US who best reflected the majority and his or her decision was then final.

That's the one I was thinking of, but actually it isn't at all the same. That's a way of identifying the majority opinion, whereas what's being proposed here is just the luck of the draw. Nobody's opinion counts.

Yes, Asimov was playing with what you could do with computers. He was about 50 years ahead of algorithms.