tubechallenge.com

hopeful traveller wrote:Put it at 25% each and see what happens!

Here's what it came up with:

Con: 206 seats
Lab: 315 seats
LD: 100 seats
Other: 29 seats

However, that alone does not indicate a bias towards Labour. If you read the text underneath, it says this:

Party seat totals are calculated by applying a uniform national swing. This assumes that for every seat in the country, each party's vote share changes by the same amount. So this is a crude model - in reality every seat is unique.

The key thing to note is that applying a 25% share to each party does not mean that they each have 25% uniformly in every constituency (otherwise there would be a tie everywhere, and I'm pretty sure the calculator doesn't extend to drawing lots). It is based on a swing from the current situation. The reason "Other" have so few seats is because their vote would be spread out evenly across the whole country, pretty much as it is now, while at the other end of the scale, Labour have the most seats because a swing to 25% would still be enough to give them a plurality in many seats.

As they admit, it is a crude model. You still haven't proven any bias. If you want to blame something, blame FPTP and the way votes are unevenly distributed across the country - if you do that, I'll finally have something to agree with you on.

Thing is Root he supports FPTP, but then doesn't like it when the Tories loose out on it

FPTP has always favoured Labour and to a smaller extent the Tories and penalised the Lib Dems.

And the BBC is not biased towards Labour at all. Just the Tories being paranoid (hey you've still got ITV News for all your Tory propaganda eh!)

I bet David Cameron's had a three day hard-on at the thought of his own Falklands War.

(Also, has our pet mini-Tory disappeared?)

David Cameron was elected using AV!

David Davis was the rightful winner but he said during the election:

I would have resigned before the election.

hopeful traveller wrote:

David Cameron was elected using AV!

David Davis was the rightful winner but he said during the election:

I would have resigned before the election.

Read the election results here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservati ... tion,_2005, and explain to me how David Davis was the rightful winner, when he polled 32.4% of the vote to Cameron's 67.6% in the final round of voting.

tubeguru wrote:

hopeful traveller wrote:

David Cameron was elected using AV!

David Davis was the rightful winner but he said during the election:

I would have resigned before the election.

Read the election results here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservati ... tion,_2005, and explain to me how David Davis was the rightful winner, when he polled 32.4% of the vote to Cameron's 67.6% in the final round of voting.

I am looking at FPTP and whoever wins in FPTP would yield better election results (as is shown somewhere on the BBC Election website).

hopeful traveller wrote:

tubeguru wrote:

hopeful traveller wrote:
David Davis was the rightful winner but he said during the election:

I would have resigned before the election.

Read the election results here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservati ... tion,_2005, and explain to me how David Davis was the rightful winner, when he polled 32.4% of the vote to Cameron's 67.6% in the final round of voting.

I am looking at FPTP and whoever wins in FPTP would yield better election results (as is shown somewhere on the BBC Election website).

You've lost me.

Although by using the term "rightful winner", it implies that you think it should have been done using FPTP? But it wasn't, so why do you still care seven years later?

hopeful traveller wrote:I am looking at FPTP and whoever wins in FPTP would yield better election results (as is shown somewhere on the BBC Election website).

Why are you trusting the BBC, I thought you accused them of being biased?

The Raven wrote:

hopeful traveller wrote:I am looking at FPTP and whoever wins in FPTP would yield better election results (as is shown somewhere on the BBC Election website).

Why are you trusting the BBC, I thought you accused them of being biased?

The unbiased bits are excellent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ ... 644480.stm

There you go.

I can't find the phrase "whoever wins in FPTP would yield better election results" on that BBC page. And I don't really understand it. Do you mean that David Davis would have won the Conservatives a majority at the last general election? Or what?

And how is anyone meant to know which bits of the BBC are biased and which are unbiased? The only way to tell seems to be a subjective judgement which is just as likely, no, much more likely, to be biased.

Root wrote:I can't find the phrase "whoever wins in FPTP would yield better election results" on that BBC page. And I don't really understand it. Do you mean that David Davis would have won the Conservatives a majority at the last general election? Or what?

And how is anyone meant to know which bits of the BBC are biased and which are unbiased? The only way to tell seems to be a subjective judgement which is just as likely, no, much more likely, to be biased.

The Gillingham bit is biased. it says we lost our last two games.

Root wrote:I can't find the phrase "whoever wins in FPTP would yield better election results" on that BBC page. And I don't really understand it. Do you mean that David Davis would have won the Conservatives a majority at the last general election? Or what?

The diagram with the voting systems has FPTP as the one that is closest to giving a party a majority.

hopeful traveller wrote:

Root wrote:I can't find the phrase "whoever wins in FPTP would yield better election results" on that BBC page. And I don't really understand it. Do you mean that David Davis would have won the Conservatives a majority at the last general election? Or what?

The diagram with the voting systems has FPTP as the one that is closest to giving a party a majority.

Based on the last election, surely? What does it say for previous ones?

hopeful traveller wrote:

Root wrote:I can't find the phrase "whoever wins in FPTP would yield better election results" on that BBC page. And I don't really understand it. Do you mean that David Davis would have won the Conservatives a majority at the last general election? Or what?

The diagram with the voting systems has FPTP as the one that is closest to giving a party a majority.

A majority does not equate to a "better" election result. Reductio ad absurdum: if there were one hundred parties and each of them got 1% of the vote each, would you still want one of them to have over 50% of the seats in parliament? Personally, I'd rather see the seats accurately reflect the share of the vote. Politicians should be grown up enough to work together if they have to.