Disparity between % of vote and seats won

[hhhhancock]

Several polls in the newspapers and on TV recently have highlighted this issue.
It seems that even if the Conservatives get a larger percentage of the poular vote than Labour they will probably end up with less seats and even more problematical would be if the Lib Dems get 30%+ of the vote they may still only have only about 100 seats.
If these projections are indeed true how does this apparent disparity come about? Is it some sort of mathematical aberration or is it do with the composition of existing constituencies?
An explanation for the not too mathematically inclined (me) would be gratefully received.

[Balthazar]

Several polls in the newspapers and on TV recently have highlighted this issue.
It seems that even if the Conservatives get a larger percentage of the poular vote than Labour they will probably end up with less seats and even more problematical would be if the Lib Dems get 30%+ of the vote they may still only have only about 100 seats.
If these projections are indeed true how does this apparent disparity come about? Is it some sort of mathematical aberration or is it do with the composition of existing constituencies?
An explanation for the not too mathematically inclined (me) would be gratefully received.

It's called 'gerrymandering.' The Tories did the same in the 1980s and 90s. Labour's now returning the favour. It works like this:

1. The Boundary Commission sets the constituencies - draws the lines on the map.

2. The Boundary Commission pretends to be fair, objective etc. But it isn't. The party in power packs it with their supporters. If they do the 'right thing' i.e. gerrymander the boundaries to favour the governing party, they get rewarded under the patronage system: seat in the House of Lords etc.

3. It's similar to the expenses scandal: a corrupt game which all the major politicians play. Everyone knows it's corrupt but no one complains because (a) each main party does it so can't complain without being exposed as a hypocrite (e.g. the Tories gerrymandering the boundaries in the 1980s and 90s to disenfranchise Labour voters) and (b) the party not in power keeps quiet because they want to have the corrupt system in place should they gain power so they can use it. Otherwise known as 'Buggin's turn.'

The amusing thing about this election is the 'Boundary Commission Game' is being blown wide open. People like you are asking questions about it. I think that's great. Top People at the Palace of Westminster hate this idea but it is our Parliament and our election.* Only the Tories now are standing against sweeping constitutional reform. They want to keep the old game going. A system of proportional representation would kill the gerrymandering dead. But it must be the right system - AV's no good.

The British Constitution - the relationship between citizen** and state - is like a musty old house, full of rats, cobwebs and skeletons in the cupboard. Time to call in the builders!


* Not strictly true. It's the Queen's Parliament, not the people's (which is part of the problem)
** Not strictly true. We're subjects not citizens (which is part of the problem)

[DougieG]

Balthazar's explanation is accurate as far as the socio-cultural-political factors apply. But there are mathematical problems with our system too:

If we simplify the system a bit, it becomes easy to understand why this should be the case.

Say we have an imaginary country with 10 constituencies. Each of these constituencies has 100 people in it, and in each there is a choice between the red party and the blue party.

In 4 of the constituencies, the blue party get 100% of the vote, and so get 4 seats in parliament.
In 6 of the constituencies, the red party get 51% of the vote and the blue party get 49% of the vote, so the red party get 6 seats in parliament.

In total, the votes are as such:

Blue party: 694 votes.
Red Party: 306 votes

But the Red party has 6 seats and the Blue party has 4 despite having less than half the share of the vote that the Blue party does.

This is essentially what happens. You can imagine how much worse it gets when a third party (the Lib Dems) are thrown into the mix.

[Balthazar]

You can imagine how much worse it gets when a third party (the Lib Dems) are thrown into the mix.

A point often made by constitutional experts is how the British system - winner take all or 'First Past the Post' - worked OK until about 1945. At that election only about 5% of voters cast their vote for a third party, i.e. 95% voted Labour or Tory. So the landscape was very like Dougie's model. But since 1945 the two party consensus has gradually collapsed so now, 65 years later, it looks like 30%+ may not vote Labour or Tory. That, as Dougie says, causes democratic mayhem. I see Cameron again supported the current system yesterday and this morning. He's arguing, effectively, for mass disenfranchisement.

Second, keep in mind that all other British elections, except council elections, have abandoned 'First Past the Post.' Each of the following use a form of proportional representation:

• European Parliament
• Northern Ireland Assembly
• Scottish Parliament
• Welsh Assembly
• Major of London
• London Assembly

Finally (lol sorry about this) remember Westminster makes our laws. People go to prison if they break them. It's therefore essential for law-makers to be there, passing those laws, on a legitimate basis.

I'd argue the current Houses of Parliament - gerrymandered Commons, unelected Lords - are getting perilously close to being illegitimate. Once that happens there's a good argument for refusing to obey the laws they produce. Some would go further and argue that patriotic citizens have a duty, as a function of their patriotism, to refuse to obey.

Which would mean Britain becomes ungovernable. We would cease to be a bona fide nation state. So voting systems are important. It's great the Brits, finally, are getting their heads round the problem. Except Cameron. He's still demanding to be elected Gerrymanderer-in-Chief.

[hhhhancock]

It's called 'gerrymandering.' The Tories did the same in the 1980s and 90s. Labour's now returning the favour. It works like this:

1. The Boundary Commission sets the constituencies - draws the lines on the map.

2. The Boundary Commission pretends to be fair, objective etc. But it isn't. The party in power packs it with their supporters. If they do the 'right thing' i.e. gerrymander the boundaries to favour the governing party, they get rewarded under the patronage system: seat in the House of Lords etc.

3. It's similar to the expenses scandal: a corrupt game which all the major politicians play. Everyone knows it's corrupt but no one complains because (a) each main party does it so can't complain without being exposed as a hypocrite (e.g. the Tories gerrymandering the boundaries in the 1980s and 90s to disenfranchise Labour voters) and (b) the party not in power keeps quiet because they want to have the corrupt system in place should they gain power so they can use it. Otherwise known as 'Buggin's turn.'

The amusing thing about this election is the 'Boundary Commission Game' is being blown wide open. People like you are asking questions about it. I think that's great. Top People at the Palace of Westminster hate this idea but it is our Parliament and our election.* Only the Tories now are standing against sweeping constitutional reform. They want to keep the old game going. A system of proportional representation would kill the gerrymandering dead. But it must be the right system - AV's no good.

The British Constitution - the relationship between citizen** and state - is like a musty old house, full of rats, cobwebs and skeletons in the cupboard. Time to call in the builders!


* Not strictly true. It's the Queen's Parliament, not the people's (which is part of the problem)
** Not strictly true. We're subjects not citizens (which is part of the problem)

Thank you Balthazar for taking the time to reply to my post.I can understand how gerrymandering would have a effect in any given constiuency between the 2 major parties but does it completely explain the remarkable shortfall in the expectations that the Lib dems may have?
I'm also interested in the different forms of Proportional Representation, if you have the time maybe you can help me with this.
I should also point out that I am a lifelong Socialist but ultimately a democrat and I believe that until we have a stable and relatively wealthy society that political system is not going to happen. Marx believed (put me right if I'm wrong here) that until nations met the preconditions of comparitive wealth a Socialist/Communist society would not be viable. Hence the nonsense that those on the right always use when quoting the failings of a Socialist society..

[Balthazar]

I can understand how gerrymandering would have a effect in any given constiuency between the 2 major parties but does it completely explain the remarkable shortfall in the expectations that the Lib dems may have?

I'm not sure. A typical Boundary Commission trick is to lop off the corner of a constituency which, say, has grown wealthier (more Tory voters) and add it to a neighbouring, poorer, constituency. That helps keep a Labour MP in the first constituency and doesn't cause too much damage to the Labour MP's majority in the neighbouring seat. The Tories, when in power, do exactly the same in reverse. Shirley Porter famously did it on behalf of the Tories in Westminster Council elections. She was caught and fined £42 million. Consequently, I don't see why the same trick can't be played in a Liberal area. You simply do your research - past election results, detailed opinion polling - and move potential voters around, via boundary changes, until you get the result you want.

I'm also interested in the different forms of Proportional Representation

People go 'Oh, it's so complicated, the voters aren't interested' (usually those with a vested interest in keeping the current system) but it's really simple:

(a) retain the constituency link (so the Widow Twankie has an MP to complain to about how the Fire Brigade failed to rescue her cat)

(b) add top up MPs so voting law-makers reflect national votes cast.


p.s. I'm also a democratic socialist. Welcome sir! There's a nice mix on this forum:

• Barking mad BNP racists
• UKIP conspiraloons with fussy moustaches
• Grumpy old Thatcherites
• One Nation 'look after the plebs as long as they doff their caps' Tories
• Lovely Old Labour types
• Fiery young Trots

Oh, and a couple of Yank right-wing anarchists with Timothy McVeigh T-shirts.

[hhhhancock]

People go 'Oh, it's so complicated, the voters aren't interested' (usually those with a vested interest in keeping the current system) but it's really simple:

(a) retain the constituency link (so the Widow Twankie has an MP to complain to about how the Fire Brigade failed to rescue her cat)

(b) add top up MPs so voting law-makers reflect national votes cast.


p.s. I'm also a democratic socialist. Welcome sir! There's a nice mix on this forum, from barking mad BNP racists to UKIP conspiraloons with fussy moustaches to grumpy old Thatcherites to One Nation 'look after the plebs' Tories to lovely Old Labour types and fiery young Trots. Oh, and a couple of Yank right-wing anarchists with Timothy McVeigh T-shirts.

Thanks again Balthazar! I'm in a constituency that has a New Labour (which is how I know recognise them) MP in post who is not only a friend but is truly a marvellous contituency MP. He will help anyonyone regardless of of their political persuasion and has been a great help to our community which I represent via a residents association.
Obviously scenario a. may therefore appeal but b. would seem to be a much fairer representation of the democratic process.
The problem with b. seems to be that there may be no local party representative, how do we get around that one?
Incidentally, I was a Labour party member for some 20 years and resigned when they scrapped clause 4 and became but an imitation of the Tories. While we have 3 parties who want to perpetuate a capatalist system we have little, or nowhere, to go.
I'm surprised that the moderators allow BNP supporters or similar to take part in a serious political forum, surely by doing so they lose all credibility?

[DougieG]

I'm surprised that the moderators allow BNP supporters or similar to take part in a serious political forum, surely by doing so they lose all credibility?

Many BNP supporters are not the raving racist madmen that we may expect from the party. Many are, and we remove any material that is directly offensive, but we feel that it is important to have a free and open forum rather than having a witch hunt to expel anybody with BNP sympathies! Hopefully, those who read the posts made here will realise why the BNP are not to be trusted. Drop me a message if you want to ask any other questions

[Robin Edward Putland]

.
I'm surprised that the moderators allow BNP supporters or similar to take part in a serious political forum, surely by doing so they lose all credibility?

Surely all parties should be allowed a platform in a free democratic society anything else would be a vetted half democracy?

I am a Social Democrat, student and therefore vote labour. I also have libral morals and environmental concerns.

p.s. Hi hhhhancock thanks for this interesting thread.

[Balthazar]

I'm in a constituency that has a New Labour (which is how I know recognise them) MP in post who is not only a friend but is truly a marvellous contituency MP. He will help anyonyone regardless of of their political persuasion and has been a great help to our community which I represent via a residents association.

I'm in pretty much the same situation. Plus I've a raving-red friend in Ann Widdecombe's constituency who says she's a brilliant MP. If any of her constituents are in trouble she clucks about like a mother hen, fiercely defending her chicks, working night and day. Yet she's a political disaster area!

The problem with b. seems to be that there may be no local party representative, how do we get around that one?

But (a) provides the local party rep. (b) are just necessary lobby fodder. I agree the party list system's a problem. But primaries and other techniques can be used to solve that.

I'm surprised that the moderators allow BNP supporters or similar to take part in a serious political forum, surely by doing so they lose all credibility?

I was taken aback when I first arrived on this forum and saw the idiot racists running about. But I now agree with Dougie's and Robin's position - better they're here, being argued with, than excluded and sent to skulk on Stormfront with really nasty Nazis (US, gun-toting, Christian-religious-maniac, right-wing terrorist nutters).

Plus they're easy to argue with. As a general rule, with exceptions, they get quickly upset (which is funny to watch) press the 'Report Post' button (which, sadly, causes the mods work but is also funny to watch) get outstandingly pompous and politically correct (again: hilarious) and start posting ill-spelt abuse. I had some today on another thread.

Like Nazis in the 1930s, who hid behind the "I don't mind Jews but hate Judeasm" racist lie, they hide behind the "I don't mind Muslims but hate Islam" formulation. Again, when you puncture that schoolboy fib they gobble like turkeys in an amusing manner. So, all in all, each time they gather in a jerk circle on a "Hate on Muslims" thread they can be challenged and made to look like prats. I'd argue it's a social good to make BNP/UKIP members/fellow travellers look foolish.

NB The funniest are the ones who complain about their whitey 'culture' being 'diluted' by a few Muslims with beards. The response: "Well that just proves your culture's crap" induces MASSIVE turkey gobbling! So they're pathetic little men: un-British, unpatriotic, full of snivelling self-pity, posting cowardly race-hate on the internet, throwing tantrums when challenged, and easily dealt with.

[hhhhancock]

Thank you again Balthazar, + DougieG and Robin. I appreciate that this forum must entertain the whole spectrum of political opinion but I'm always concerned about the BNP's presence in that they are not a democratic party, and despite recent rulings, still exclude many good and decent Brits from membership because of their racial background. Having said that I accept your point and will continue on this forum as long as the comments remain civilised.
I was thinking of posting a couple of threads such as: Do you need to pass an IQ (low) test to join the BNP or Is there a minimum number of tatoos needed to be a BNP member?
Perhaps the mods wouldn't appreciate those threads though???

[Balthazar]

I was thinking of posting a couple of threads such as: Do you need to pass an IQ (low) test to join the BNP or Is there a minimum number of tatoos needed to be a BNP member? Perhaps the mods wouldn't appreciate those threads though???

The only real difficulty is the BNP/UKIP Muslim-haters may scream like goosed schoolgirls and press the 'Report Post' button. A red light then flashes in the private mod forum and a volunteer mod, who may be cooking supper, or getting the kids to bed, or in a meeting at work, has to spend their precious time sorting it out.

If it's a false alarm, i.e. you've broken no forum rule but simply annoyed a racist, who's screamed for mummy mod, the mod still has to do some work and may, quite reasonably, become pissed off at both poster and reporter.

So it's best imo to annoy the racists on some substantive, non-trolling, point rather than just poke fun at their low IQs, ugly tattoos and suspect personal hygiene.

[Opinionated]

I'm in pretty much the same situation. Plus I've a raving-red friend in Ann Widdecombe's constituency who says she's a brilliant MP. If any of her constituents are in trouble she clucks about like a mother hen, fiercely defending her chicks, working night and day. Yet she's a political disaster area!

I totally agree with that, I can't stand the woman (she's my MP too ) and had a stand up row with her on one occasion over the first Gulf war (remember that), but she is not one to hold a grudge and she does work extremely hard for her constituents, shame she's retiring and the woman they've put up in her place allegedly once stood as a New Labour candidate in Croydon! How fabulous though that a constituency that has only been out of the hands of Tory control for under 12 years since 'we' elected the foppish Mills and Boon writing Disraeli in 1837 (got to love a man who can pull off a kiss curl), may finally look elsewhere!

I was taken aback when I first arrived on this forum and saw the idiot racists running about. But I now agree with Dougie's and Robin's position - better they're here, being argued with, than excluded and sent to skulk on Stormfront with really nasty Nazis (US, gun-toting, Christian-religious-maniac, right-wing terrorist nutters).

They are all here because of the no platform stance many other forums took, but we do still have quite a high turnover, even the more intelligent ones don't always last long. I'm afraid pressing the ignore button is the price you pay for freedom of speech, and freedom of posting cute pictures of spaniels too (that's not where I thought I'd end up using that smilie)!

[Balthazar]

posting cute pictures of spaniels

Who did that?

[DougieG]

I was thinking of posting a couple of threads such as: Do you need to pass an IQ (low) test to join the BNP or Is there a minimum number of tatoos needed to be a BNP member?
Perhaps the mods wouldn't appreciate those threads though???

There's an entire board called 'The Other Place' for threads like that, where the rules are somewhat relaxed. But be prepared to take some abuse back if you post abuse in it! It's all a bit of fun really, and we keep the rules stricter on the other boards.