Jump to content

If 66 percent of people wanted me off sheffield forum..

Recommended Posts

Only the terminally thick would link to it, then copy and paste it without any clear attribution.

 

Unless you were hoping that we'd all think that you'd written it, despite the clear improvement in spelling, punctuation and grammar.:rolleyes:

 

It would appear that only you had a problem with it. There again you seem to have a problem with everything since your boys lost 2 in a row.

 

So just to be clear. This is an article cut from the press. You can tell that because of the link...http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

 

This is the content of that link. It was compiled by the folks who have their name on it. It makes interesting reading. Even if some idiots don't like what it says, that doesn't alter the facts.

 

Stephen Bush over at the New Statesman has written an interesting article about the mountain that faces Labour at the next election. I’ve now had chance to sit down and play with the election results and the picture is as bleak for Labour as Stephen paints – for various reasons, the electoral system has now tilted against Labour in the same way it was tilted against the Conservatives at the last few elections.

 

Looking at how the vote was distributed at the general election the Conservatives should, on a uniform swing, be able to secure a majority on a lead of about 6%. Labour would need a lead of almost thirteen points. On an equal amount of votes – 34.5% a piece – the Conservatives would have almost fifty seats more than Labour, Labour would need to have a lead of about four points over the Conservatives just to get the most seats in a hung Parliament. The way the cards have fallen, the system is now even more skewed against Labour than it was against the Conservatives.

 

How did this happen? It’s probably a mixture of three factors. One is the decline of the Liberal Democrats and tactical voting – one of the reasons the electoral system had worked against the Tories in recent decades was that Labour and Lib Dem voters had been prepared to vote tactically against the Tories, and the Lib Dems have held lots of seats in areas that would otherwise be Tory. Those factors have vanished. At the same time the new dominance of the SNP in an area that was a Labour heartland has tilted the system against Labour. Labour had a lead over the Conservatives of 9% in Scotland, but Labour and Conservative got the same number of Scottish seats because the SNP took them all.

 

Finally there is how the swing was distributed at this election. Overall there was virtually no swing at all between Labour and Conservative across Great Britain, but underneath this there were variances. In the Conservative held target seats that Labour needed to gain there was a swing towards the Conservatives (presumably because most of these seats were being contested by first time Conservative incumbents). In the seats that Labour already held there was a swing towards Labour – in short, Labour won votes in places where they were of no use to them, piling up useless votes in seats they already held.

Edited by evil woman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is more tongue in cheek, but I want to run as leader for SF, 66 percent of people object by picking someone else, but 34 percent pick me, should I be allowed to run the forum...

This is how David Cameron is running the country with 66 percent not wanting the tories in.

 

You're looking at the whole thing way too simply and this is why you are confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a marginal seat your vote could well make a difference, but nearly all the seats in South Yorkshire have had solid Labour majorities for as long as I can remember.

 

I'd be interested to hear Dardandec's rationale as to how any vote other than Labour registered in any of those constituencies carries any weight at all under the FPTP system (you could argue that even voting Labour was a waste of time given that the Tories achieved an overall majority and therefore won't have to listen to or work with any other party whilst in government.)

 

FPTP is great for the winners because it makes government nice and easy, but fair, democratic and representative of all the votes cast? I don't think so!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given that no single party got more than 34% do you suggest we just go without a government?

 

The amazing irony of them saying that 40% of people are needed to support a strike when 40% of the country didn't vote for them is outstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In truth if my vote felt like it made a difference, I'd have voted more than I did before. I did vote Labour, but in Sheffield South East this was a guaranteed seat, so even if I didn't bother my MP would have still got in. I voted this time to stop the Tories, didn't work though. If you live in a stronghold, then a vote becomes worthless.

Something has to change, the system worked when there where two main parties, but now you six or seven parties increasing their vote share, but receiving no reward.

 

My true vote didnt count either.

 

---------- Post added 15-05-2015 at 09:09 ----------

 

In a marginal seat your vote could well make a difference, but nearly all the seats in South Yorkshire have had solid Labour majorities for as long as I can remember.

 

I'd be interested to hear Dardandec's rationale as to how any vote other than Labour registered in any of those constituencies carries any weight at all under the FPTP system (you could argue that even voting Labour was a waste of time given that the Tories achieved an overall majority and therefore won't have to listen to or work with any other party whilst in government.)

 

FPTP is great for the winners because it makes government nice and easy, but fair, democratic and representative of all the votes cast? I don't think so!

 

Mass swathes in sheff vote labour, millions down south too. Many just dont bother as it wouldnt count. Weve prob got a system, when almost 40% dont vote, where 85% of the electorate age, do not get representation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not technically true. If the other parties decide to vote against the Tories, including a small number of Tories, they will have to resign due to a vote of no confidence in the government.

 

Do you reckon the tories would vote against themselves in a vote of no confidence? They won't have to pack in just because they may lose the odd vote in parliament..

 

---------- Post added 15-05-2015 at 09:28 ----------

 

75% didnt want him in. Apparently its a fair system.

 

Even more didn't want Labour...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're looking at the whole thing way too simply and this is why you are confused.

 

Shouldn't voting be made more simple and fairer to everyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The amazing irony of them saying that 40% of people are needed to support a strike when 40% of the country didn't vote for them is outstanding.

 

Difference is I suppose that with a strike it's only "Yes" or "No" ..it's not as straightforward in a GE.

 

---------- Post added 15-05-2015 at 09:32 ----------

 

Shouldn't voting be made more simple and fairer to everyone

 

How can it be more simple..pick who you want to vote for and put a "X" in the box... fairer is a different matter... to be fairer it'd be more complicated..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shouldn't voting be made more simple and fairer to everyone

 

Well it is. Its how you receive it that causes confusion. You assume you are voting for a leader. You are not. You assume that a vote for one person means all other votes are a vote against, they are not. Its how you look at it that is causing you the confusion, but don't be disheartened, its something that has been happening for a while for the majority of the population.

 

In most forms of voting, the one with more votes wins. This is the most simple means of vote casting. What you are doing is adding on an assumption that all votes that are not cast for the winner are votes against. They are not, they are neither for or against and so are disregarded. Remove this assumption and you just have a person with more support than anyone else.

Edited by Berberis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would all those screaming unfair unfair be saying so if Labour had won.

 

Where you all screaming unfair unfair during the Labour wins of 1997, 2001, 2005 where more voted for some other party than Labour.

 

It's all coming across as Tories win and it's so unfair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would all those screaming unfair unfair be saying so if Labour had won.

 

Where you all screaming unfair unfair during the Labour wins of 1997, 2001, 2005 where more voted for some other party than Labour.

 

It's all coming across as Tories win and it's so unfair.

 

Yeah, just whining.

 

I also do not remember con supporters taking to the streets in 1997 and defacing war memorials.

 

Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shouldn't voting be made more simple and fairer to everyone

 

Why, do you think you put the cross in the wrong box?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.