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.
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 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...
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...
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.
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.....
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...
I cannot see much value at present in the BFX Senate markets.
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.....
I have a lot of sympathy with Andy Cooke's view. Yes, the previous system was far too loose, with some seats almost three times the size of others. But the new system seems to be too tight, and means that other boundaries - rivers, settlements, councils, etc. - are completely ignored.
I would have gone for 650 seats, with each one +/- 10% of the average. I would also ensure that boundaries are updated on a five year cycle using the electoral roll, which would hopefully mean they wouldn't need periodic big changes.
I don't agree with the reduction.
I doubt it will pass to be honest.
600 MPs for a nation of our size is perfectly adequate representation, it really is.
We could manage perfectly well with 500 or even 450.
It would require a reduction in the number of ministers to reduce the payroll vote. But we are over-represented at the moment.
Perhaps we could reduce the number of FPTP seats to 500 or so and then make up the numbers with seats allocated by PR, a bit like the system of leveling seats. That would allow more natural looking constituencies but still give parties with broad but shallow support a chance.
We rejected AV. There is no appetite for another attempt at a PR voting system - even a partial one.
We were told on here that AV is not proportional and could in fact be worse than FPTP.
That's because AV is not proportional and can indeed often lead to less proportional results.
If the Tory Party can elect their leader via a form of quasi-AV then it is good enough for the country.
We've been through this so many times - it's an Exhaustive Ballot, NOT AV! You don't rank the candidates in order of preference in a single round of voting!
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)
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.....
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.
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?
We've been through this so many times - it's an Exhaustive Ballot, NOT AV! You don't rank the candidates in order of preference in a single round of voting!
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.
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.
We've been through this so many times - it's an Exhaustive Ballot, NOT AV! You don't rank the candidates in order of preference in a single round of voting!
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?
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.
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?
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....?
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.
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.
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....?
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....?
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.
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....?
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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....?
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 Luddites were also 'successful wreckers'. How apt.
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.
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!
We are 75 and 79 and never stop worrying about our children (52, 47 and 43) their partners or indeed our grandchildren. It is a lifetime's work !!!!
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.
I’m not the EU’s biggest fan. Still, I have a sneaking regard for Barnier. I only wish we had someone as impressive as him on our side of the negotiating table.
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.
Not necessarily. They may loathe / despise / fear Labour more so choose the Tories, faute de mieux.
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....?
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"
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!
We are 75 and 79 and never stop worrying about our children (52, 47 and 43) their partners or indeed our grandchildren. It is a lifetime's work !!!!
My mum worried about my sister, myself and other family members until she died at 94.
I think children are just about independent by 35 to 40 these days, unless they have kids, then the dependence goes on another 20 years or so.
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.)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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....?
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)
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.
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....?
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)
I am not sure People's Vote is a dishonest title but it is a naff and patronising one.
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.
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!
We are 75 and 79 and never stop worrying about our children (52, 47 and 43) their partners or indeed our grandchildren. It is a lifetime's work !!!!
My mum worried about my sister, myself and other family members until she died at 94.
I think children are just about independent by 35 to 40 these days, unless they have kids, then the dependence goes on another 20 years or so.
They are always there but we are their safety blanket if all else fails
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, I wouldn't want to go down that route.
The Single Stochastic Vote: Every vote counts, but not every vote is counted!
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?
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....?
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)
I am not sure People's Vote is a dishonest title but it is a naff and patronising one.
It is just misleading and it should be called as it is
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?
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.
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?
He has a point though doesn't he? What Momentum are doing to the likes of Field, Hoey and Shuker is only what the PLP did to Corbyn really
The difference being that Momentum represent only themselves whereas the MPs were elected by voters, many of whom will not be Labour Party members. So maybe, just maybe, those MPs have a better sense of what voters want than party members. Possibly.
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.
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.
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.
He has a point though doesn't he? What Momentum are doing to the likes of Field, Hoey and Shuker is only what the PLP did to Corbyn really
The difference being that Momentum represent only themselves whereas the MPs were elected by voters, many of whom will not be Labour Party members. So maybe, just maybe, those MPs have a better sense of what voters want than party members. Possibly.
I was trying to formulate an answer along those lines earlier and the words just wouldn't come out.
Momentum is seeking to impose delegates rather than representatives. People they can control. They pretend to want local democracy but actually want a whole cadre of yes men and women who will do what the central leadership want - rather than actually representing their entire electorates. And that is not how democracy should work.
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.
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?
4% of the vote would be equal to 100% of the vote in 26 constituencies, so a highly concentrated vote is still likely to be rewarded, but I think that the more uneven the support for a party the greater the chance that randomness will move away from proportionality. Still, with 600-650 constituencies the potential for randomness to produce a less proportional result than FPTP is minimal.
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.
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.
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.
From Earth is room enough. A superb collection of short stories I have not read in decades. He was at the peak of his powers at that time. Must dig it out again.
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.
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.
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.
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.
snip 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.
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.
Billy Bragg has been proposing this for House of Lords for years.
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
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.
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.
snip 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.
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.
Billy Bragg has been proposing this for House of Lords for years.
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.
Comments
https://twitter.com/PreBrexitBoris/status/1039160843945029632
https://twitter.com/PreBrexitBoris/status/1039206142537355264
https://twitter.com/PreBrexitBoris/status/1039221242006523904
Whatever.
I once owned toilet rolls that resembled the French flag.
Because I have a joke to share.
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.
'Build it and they will come [sic]?'
Astonishing to see the COMBINED CDU/CSU/SPD number at 45%.
https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustive_ballot
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)
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.
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?
Look up 'quasi' in a dictionary.
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?
It'd be quite fun, I'd think.
Try using the correct terminology for the Tory election:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustive_ballot
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!
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
https://twitter.com/mshelicat/status/1039207182850502657?s=21
You would prevent fraud by following unbiased procedures.
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.
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.
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"
I think children are just about independent by 35 to 40 these days, unless they have kids, then the dependence goes on another 20 years or so.
(I do appreciate they have challenges e.g. in housing and university fees we never faced.)
ISTR somebody wrote a story about that voting method.
For me it is TM deal and if not, a second referendum (peoples vote is a dishonest title)
Now if the PLP will just get their act together and do something constructive to build a left of centre party, we will all be in a better place.
On the plus side, I might have won.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_(short_story)
I am happy to help though, and while other things matter more, money is useful.
The Single Stochastic Vote: Every vote counts, but not every vote is counted!
This sounds like a much more sensible electoral system than Italy’s. Perhaps they could adopt it and broadcast on Berlusconi’s network?
Par for the Cruz, I’d think.
Momentum is seeking to impose delegates rather than representatives. People they can control. They pretend to want local democracy but actually want a whole cadre of yes men and women who will do what the central leadership want - rather than actually representing their entire electorates. And that is not how democracy should work.
Statistics is wonderful!