Tories lose Chesham and Amersham

[Randy McNob]

Well I had this image in my head when I read it..

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Audax]

I'd argue that even in that, quite unusual situation, effectively ignoring just under half the votes cast isn't particularly democratic.

Yup, absolutely. Although getting at least 50% does happen - I live in a seat where the Tories typically win well over 50% and in the 2019 GE got over 60%.

With regards your point on just over half not being particularly democratic: that is why the whole Brexit debate has been such a charged one. Leave "won" the vote, but leave did not win by a big enough margin. Even more so when you consider that large chunks of the UK voted to Remain (Scotland, Northern Ireland - and apparently Wales if you only count Welsh votes in Wales rather than English-living-in-Wales votes). And even more so again when you look at the demographics of the vote - those who will have to live with it the longest, voted by a significant margin in favour of Remain.

Similar story for the Scots and independence: Staying in the UK won, but the margin was small enough that the debate was not silenced (and has since become an even closer debate given events since that vote where promises that were made to win the stay vote have been broken).

I know referendums are a little different. But that's why a lot of countries don't go for a basic 50% majority for referendums - they set the victory margin for forcing a change at a higher threshold, which takes into account that making a change with only a small margin is going to create problems.

I can't emphasise enough how much I hate systems where you vote for a party rather than a candidate, and they decide themselves who gets to go to parliament.

Which is what happens in most PR systems I'm aware of. Australia's PR system for the Senate is a bit of a hybrid: the default ("above the line") is to vote for the party (or parties), and the party will have chosen candidates in an order - but that order is pre-advertised, so voters know. If voters don't like the party order, they can instead vote "below the line" - in which case they vote for as many candidates as they like in whatever order they like. In normal circumstances, it doesn't change anything. But there *has* been cases where the choice of the party has been over-turned by a well organised "below the line" vote that has elevated a candidate from lower on the list to beat others from higher on the list.

It is also, to a large extent, what happens with constituency based elections as well. It's the party who chooses who to put forward, and then a large chunk of voters will vote on the basis of which party the candidate represents. Not always the case - but it takes a very special candidate to over-turn the party politics machine and win a vote on their own individual merits.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

So that genuinely was your mate's wife that you were stalking at 6am?

Pardon me, who is actually stalking who?

You have different types of people in life. Those that actually care about people and want to help and those that talk the talk and don't walk the walk.
I know which I prefer to be.
You also have a subtype that will try and use their perceived position of power to influence those around him and to continue by trying to put down individuals. Sad stuff, don't you think?
Don't worry GB, I had your number for yonks and I am not the only one.

I am happy to be genuine and upfront, I am not only an open book, I even come without a cover.
Come on peel off your cover, I need to see whether you possess a spine and it's not all glued up with me me me.

 

[Lever]

Back on topic. Some posters are just self obsessed....

https://www.markpack.org.uk/167628/...-he-lost-in-chesham-and-amersham-by-election/

 

[Is it PotG?]

Back on topic. Some posters are just self obsessed....

Tbf, NSC is the epitome of such.

 

[Baker lite]

Pardon me, who is actually stalking who?

You have different types of people in life. Those that actually care about people and want to help and those that talk the talk and don't walk the walk.
I know which I prefer to be.
You also have a subtype that will try and use their perceived position of power to influence those around him and to continue by trying to put down individuals. Sad stuff, don't you think?
Don't worry GB, I had your number for yonks and I am not the only one.

I am happy to be genuine and upfront, I am not only an open book, I even come without a cover.
Come on peel off your cover, I need to see whether you possess a spine and it's not all glued up with me me me.

You have poked a hornets nest now with NSCs very own Warden Hodges..

“Turn that light out”

 

[WATFORD zero]

You have poked a hornets nest now with NSCs very own Warden Someone..

“Turn that light out”

I'm sure NSC's very own Home guard of yourself, Ppf and mouldy boots, ably led by Captain cunning fergus can hold your own.

Don't tell him your name Baker lite

 

[Lever]

Tbf, NSC is the epitome of such.

Maybe... maybe not

Thankfully few posts are entirely self-referential.. but I don't want to debate that with you.

Why not look at the link posted about the Amersham newspaper's analysis? It's relevant to the thread!

 

[Is it PotG?]

Maybe... maybe not

Few posts are entirely self-referential.. but I don't want to debate that with you.

Why not look at the link posted about the Amersham newspaper's analysis? It's relevant to the thread!

Cheers, thanks for that.

 

[Lever]

Cheers, thanks for that.

You are entirely welcome. I am keen to know what your reaction is to the Amersham article....

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

And they've lost this tosser to Labour
https://youtu.be/cFWMDhtkCPk
Regards
DF

 

[Lever]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVjhrF_JXrA

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

Yup, absolutely. Although getting at least 50% does happen - I live in a seat where the Tories typically win well over 50% and in the 2019 GE got over 60%.

With regards your point on just over half not being particularly democratic: that is why the whole Brexit debate has been such a charged one. Leave "won" the vote, but leave did not win by a big enough margin. Even more so when you consider that large chunks of the UK voted to Remain (Scotland, Northern Ireland - and apparently Wales if you only count Welsh votes in Wales rather than English-living-in-Wales votes). And even more so again when you look at the demographics of the vote - those who will have to live with it the longest, voted by a significant margin in favour of Remain.

Similar story for the Scots and independence: Staying in the UK won, but the margin was small enough that the debate was not silenced (and has since become an even closer debate given events since that vote where promises that were made to win the stay vote have been broken).

I know referendums are a little different. But that's why a lot of countries don't go for a basic 50% majority for referendums - they set the victory margin for forcing a change at a higher threshold, which takes into account that making a change with only a small margin is going to create problems.




Which is what happens in most PR systems I'm aware of. Australia's PR system for the Senate is a bit of a hybrid: the default ("above the line") is to vote for the party (or parties), and the party will have chosen candidates in an order - but that order is pre-advertised, so voters know. If voters don't like the party order, they can instead vote "below the line" - in which case they vote for as many candidates as they like in whatever order they like. In normal circumstances, it doesn't change anything. But there *has* been cases where the choice of the party has been over-turned by a well organised "below the line" vote that has elevated a candidate from lower on the list to beat others from higher on the list.

It is also, to a large extent, what happens with constituency based elections as well. It's the party who chooses who to put forward, and then a large chunk of voters will vote on the basis of which party the candidate represents. Not always the case - but it takes a very special candidate to over-turn the party politics machine and win a vote on their own individual merits.

Being replied to on this thread in it's current state puts me in mind of that bit in Taxi Driver where de Niro's character takes his girlfriend to see a porn film for their first date.

Anyway, since you've replied in such detail I'll not worry about it.

My preference (and that of the Electoral Reform Society or whatever they're called) is for the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system. In which you vote by ranking as few or as many of the candidates in a multi seat constituency as you like. In constituencies with more than 6 seats, this results in an approximately proportional result while retaining a reasonably high barrier to entry for the nuttier candidates and a direct link between voter and candidate. The main disadvantage is that the system by which votes are redistributed for the 2nd/3rd/etc. preferences is a bit opaque and lengthy to explain. If you're really interested feel free to read the Wikipedia article next time you're struggling to sleep: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

I've no desire to try and have a sensible conversation in the Bear Pit, and I think if we succeeded the world might fall off its axis into another ice age, but feel free to reply to this in some reasonably relevant thread on the main board. I daresay one will be along shortly.

 

[Lever]

Being replied to on this thread in it's current state puts me in mind of that bit in Taxi Driver where de Niro's character takes his girlfriend to see a porn film for their first date.

Anyway, since you've replied in such detail I'll not worry about it.

My preference (and that of the Electoral Reform Society or whatever they're called) is for the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system. In which you vote by ranking as few or as many of the candidates in a multi seat constituency as you like. In constituencies with more than 6 seats, this results in an approximately proportional result while retaining a reasonably high barrier to entry for the nuttier candidates and a direct link between voter and candidate. The main disadvantage is that the system by which votes are redistributed for the 2nd/3rd/etc. preferences is a bit opaque and lengthy to explain. If you're really interested feel free to read the Wikipedia article next time you're struggling to sleep: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

I've no desire to try and have a sensible conversation in the Bear Pit, and I think if we succeeded the world might fall off its axis into another ice age, but feel free to reply to this in some reasonably relevant thread on the main board. I daresay one will be along shortly.

Just to say thanks for an intelligent contribution to a political topic that preoccupies me. Our electoral system is archaic and divisive and I agree that a Single Transferable Vote would be preferable. Many people, like me, who live in 'safe' constituencies and who always vote for mainstream parties, have never enjoyed a successful outcome even when the winner has had substantially less than majority support. There has to be a fairer way.....

 

[Audax]

I've no desire to try and have a sensible conversation in the Bear Pit, and I think if we succeeded the world might fall off its axis into another ice age, but feel free to reply to this in some reasonably relevant thread on the main board. I daresay one will be along shortly.

Yeah, I didn't notice it had been moved into the Bear Pit until after I replied - I came in via a notification. This will be literally my first ever (and almost certainly last ever!) deliberate post in this section.