interesting yougov piece on constituency boundaries

michaels

Generali wrote: »

The piece seems to disagree with you (unless I misread it) and I'd be loathe to argue psephology with Lord Ashcroft.

Pretty sure the piece is based on prior to the election understanding of the electorate. For example it talks about anyone but tory tactical voting which it seems melted away at the election. After all in the end tories required fewer voters per seat than labour in the end....

ukcarper

Isn't the article pre 2015 election and based on the LibDems holding on to it's share of vote which wasn't the case and doesn't that with the SNP vote change things. The blog says Tories need 11% lead for overall majority when they got a 12 seat majority with 6%

Moby

With a more left wing Lib Dem leader in place now there may be more scope for tactical voting in future between Lib Dem and Labour to reduce the advantage of the boundary changes for the Tories.

N1AK

Generali wrote: »

The piece seems to disagree with you (unless I misread it) and I'd be loathe to argue psephology with Lord Ashcroft.

I think it's a case of considering the piece in the context of its time. The election results alone imo make it clear that the numbers don't match in the current context.

One thing I'd be tempted to see in a FPTP system would be a system where an MPs vote in the house is 'worth' the number of votes he got at the election. That way redefining boundaries to pile all your opponents votes together (the current tactic) wouldn't achieve anything. To govern you'd need enough MPs to have the majority of the popular vote, but you'd still have local constituency MPs.

It's not the system I'd pick but it might be a refinement on the current FPTP system that only seems to be popular with whoever wins under it at the time.

Generali

N1AK wrote: »

I think it's a case of considering the piece in the context of its time. The election results alone imo make it clear that the numbers don't match in the current context.

One thing I'd be tempted to see in a FPTP system would be a system where an MPs vote in the house is 'worth' the number of votes he got at the election. That way redefining boundaries to pile all your opponents votes together (the current tactic) wouldn't achieve anything. To govern you'd need enough MPs to have the majority of the popular vote, but you'd still have local constituency MPs.

It's not the system I'd pick but it might be a refinement on the current FPTP system that only seems to be popular with whoever wins under it at the time.

Wouldn't that just effectively be PR?

westv

Thrugelmir wrote: »

PRP is the way to go. Then votes do count. Wherever one lives.

Wasn't PR rejected in the 2011 referendum?

michaels

Generali wrote: »

Wouldn't that just effectively be PR?

I had a plan whereby we halved the number of constituencies and then each constiteuncy sent back the two highest voted candidates with each rather than having 1 parliamentary vote has their proportion of the popular vote parliamentary votes - eg if Tory Gets 60%, Labour gets 30%, Others gets 10% then constiuency gets Tory MP with 67% of a parliamentary vote and Labour MP with 33% of a parliamentary vote so a fair bit of PR but still very much each constituency has a local MP. Obviously it might want tweaking to allow all candidates over 25% to get a parliamentary vote share for example.

No idea if it would work or what outcome it would give though!

Out,_Vile_Jelly

westv wrote: »

Wasn't PR rejected in the 2011 referendum?

That was the Alternative Vote system; not ideal but I voted Yes as a No result would see no further debate for another century or so.

cepheus

There are other types of Electoral bias which makes it particularity difficult for Labour to win, and indeed must have created the present Tory majority.

Governments, are mainly decided by the disproportionality or bias between the two major parties. That bias can be huge, but it fluctuates from election to election. The most commonly used measure is the difference between the numbers of MPs each party would have won with an identical share of the vote.

In Blair’s three victories in 1997, 2001 and 2005, with overall majorities of 178, 166 and 65 respectively there was pro-Labour biases of 82, 141, and 111. Now there is a 47-seat net bias to the Conservatives.

it gets worse for Labour

In July 2015, again rejecting the Electoral Commission’s advice, the government tabled a proposal to avoid jeopardising the accuracy of the registers for the Parliamentary Boundary Review by ending the IER transition period in December 2015 – 12 months earlier than specified in the ERA Act.

If this happens, it is the registers’ completeness that may be jeopardised. An unknowable number of “carried-forward” household-registered electors who have not yet re-registered individually are still on the registers and are set to be removed; by the Commission’s reckoning, there could be up to 1.9m of them.

https://theconversation.com/win-or-lose-corbyn-could-still-save-labour-from-electoral-wipeout-47328

Generali

cepheus wrote: »

There are other types of Electoral bias which makes it particularity difficult for Labour to win, and indeed must have created the present Tory majority.

Governments, are mainly decided by the disproportionality or bias between the two major parties. That bias can be huge, but it fluctuates from election to election. The most commonly used measure is the difference between the numbers of MPs each party would have won with an identical share of the vote.

In Blair’s three victories in 1997, 2001 and 2005, with overall majorities of 178, 166 and 65 respectively there was pro-Labour biases of 82, 141, and 111. Now there is a 47-seat net bias to the Conservatives.

it gets worse for Labour

In July 2015, again rejecting the Electoral Commission’s advice, the government tabled a proposal to avoid jeopardising the accuracy of the registers for the Parliamentary Boundary Review by ending the IER transition period in December 2015 – 12 months earlier than specified in the ERA Act.

If this happens, it is the registers’ completeness that may be jeopardised. An unknowable number of “carried-forward” household-registered electors who have not yet re-registered individually are still on the registers and are set to be removed; by the Commission’s reckoning, there could be up to 1.9m of them.

https://theconversation.com/win-or-lose-corbyn-could-still-save-labour-from-electoral-wipeout-47328

That's a bit of a nonsense though. The nunber of votes a party gets is partly based on the electoral system. For example, I could vote in the constituency that I left when I moved to Aus. I don't bother because it's a Tory certainty but if it was a marginal then I would.

I suspect that what happens is that election winners tend to have concentrated voting patterns.