What if the voting age was still 21?

[Deleted]

What if the Representation of the People Act 1969 hadn't been passed?

[mondialito]

It may have been passed along with other constitutional reforms after 1997.

[carlton43]

It would have been a very good thing. Even better if raised to 35.

i was against it at the time.

[Deleted]

I'm guessing May would've likely won a majority without it.

Maybe Heath in February 1974.

[swanarcadian]

I expect it will have been lowered later anyway, perhaps in the late Seventies.  I suppose it could have made a crucial difference to the outcome of the February 1974 election.

[jigger]

Did the Conservative Party support the passage of the bill? If so, then it would surely have been enacted under the post 1970 Conservative Government.

[Deleted]

Oct 17, 2017 18:33:45 GMT swanarcadian said:

I expect it will have been lowered later anyway, perhaps in the late Seventies.  I suppose it could have made a crucial difference to the outcome of the February 1974 election.

It's possible that without the Conservatives would've won the following elections:

February 1974
2010
2017

But I'm guessing about Feb 1974 and 2010.

[jigger]

Oct 17, 2017 18:37:42 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

Oct 17, 2017 18:33:45 GMT swanarcadian said:

I expect it will have been lowered later anyway, perhaps in the late Seventies.  I suppose it could have made a crucial difference to the outcome of the February 1974 election.

It's possible that without the Conservatives would've won the following elections:

February 1974
2010
2017

But I'm guessing about Feb 1974 and 2010.

The Conservatives did win in 2010 and 2017, and arguably won in February 1974 as well.

[Deleted]

Oct 17, 2017 18:43:15 GMT jigger said:

Oct 17, 2017 18:37:42 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

It's possible that without the Conservatives would've won the following elections:

February 1974
2010
2017

But I'm guessing about Feb 1974 and 2010.

The Conservatives did win in 2010 and 2017, and arguably won in February 1974 as well.

Defining "win" that way, the Conservatives won the 2005 General Election in England.

[Deleted]

losing your majority way is a funny way to win elections

[Deleted]

Oct 17, 2017 19:10:47 GMT @priceofdawn said:

losing your majority way is a funny way to win elections

Indeed.

[jigger]

Oct 17, 2017 19:10:47 GMT @priceofdawn said:

losing your majority way is a funny way to win elections

It makes no difference as to who wins an election whether a party gets a majority of seats or not. If a party wins more votes and seats than any other party, then it wins the election. The only possible area of confusion is when Party A wins the most votes but Party B wins the most seats. Personally, I go on most votes but a good case can be made for most seats.

[jigger]

Oct 17, 2017 19:06:15 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

Oct 17, 2017 18:43:15 GMT jigger said:

The Conservatives did win in 2010 and 2017, and arguably won in February 1974 as well.

Defining "win" that way, the Conservatives won the 2005 General Election in England.

Personally I would say the Conservatives won the election in England in 2005. But as I implied in reply to @priceofdawn , it is possible to make a good argument that Labour won the election in 2005 in England. What I believe is not open to (credible) dispute is the fact that the Conservatives won the 2017 election in both England and the UK.

[Deleted]

Oct 17, 2017 19:16:13 GMT jigger said:

Oct 17, 2017 19:06:15 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

Defining "win" that way, the Conservatives won the 2005 General Election in England.

Personally I would say the Conservatives won the election in England in 2005. But as I implied in reply to @priceofdawn , it is possible to make a good argument that Labour won the election in 2005 in England. What I believe is not open to (credible) dispute is the fact that the Conservatives won the 2017 election in both England and the UK.

Amazing how close the Conservatives came to winning 327 seats (fewer than 500 votes in 10) and only making a net loss of 3 seats.

[Lord Twaddleford]

Oct 17, 2017 19:14:22 GMT jigger said:

Oct 17, 2017 19:10:47 GMT @priceofdawn said:

losing your majority way is a funny way to win elections

It makes no difference as to who wins an election whether a party gets a majority of seats or not. If a party wins more votes and seats than any other party, then it wins the election. The only possible area of confusion is when Party A wins the most votes but Party B wins the most seats. Personally, I go on most votes but a good case can be made for most seats.

Perhaps a better criterion to use would be "who forms the government?"; in 2017 the Conservatives unambiguously remained on the government benches despite their shortfall of seats, though 2010 is less clear-cut due to the Coalition arrangements- but even then the Tories emerged as the Senior Partner in that agreement. It is entirely possible for a party to obtain the largest share of seats and/or votes, but if they get relegated to the opposition benches then it is safe to say that they clearly did not win.

[swanarcadian]

I feel a forum poll coming on.

[jigger]

Oct 17, 2017 19:24:16 GMT Lord Twaddleford said:

Oct 17, 2017 19:14:22 GMT jigger said:

It makes no difference as to who wins an election whether a party gets a majority of seats or not. If a party wins more votes and seats than any other party, then it wins the election. The only possible area of confusion is when Party A wins the most votes but Party B wins the most seats. Personally, I go on most votes but a good case can be made for most seats.

Perhaps a better criterion to use would be "who forms the government?"; in 2017 the Conservatives unambiguously remained on the government benches despite their shortfall of seats, though 2010 is less clear-cut due to the Coalition arrangements- but even then the Tories emerged as the Senior Partner in that agreement. It is entirely possible for a party to obtain the largest share of seats and/or votes, but if they get relegated to the opposition benches then it is safe to say that they clearly did not win.

Possibly, but then the formation of the government and the winning of an election are different things. As an example, it is possible for the party political complexion of a government to change without an election. Who would have won the preceding election if that scenario occurs and you use who forms the government as the criteria for who wins elections?

[finsobruce]

Oct 17, 2017 19:32:19 GMT swanarcadian said:

I feel a forum poll coming on.

but one only open to those aged 21 and over?

[swanarcadian]

Oct 17, 2017 19:34:03 GMT finsobruce said:

Oct 17, 2017 19:32:19 GMT swanarcadian said:

I feel a forum poll coming on.

but one only open to those aged 21 and over?

Open to any life form let loose on a keyboard, I'm afraid.

[Lord Twaddleford]

Oct 17, 2017 19:32:30 GMT jigger said:

Oct 17, 2017 19:24:16 GMT Lord Twaddleford said:

Perhaps a better criterion to use would be "who forms the government?"; in 2017 the Conservatives unambiguously remained on the government benches despite their shortfall of seats, though 2010 is less clear-cut due to the Coalition arrangements- but even then the Tories emerged as the Senior Partner in that agreement. It is entirely possible for a party to obtain the largest share of seats and/or votes, but if they get relegated to the opposition benches then it is safe to say that they clearly did not win.

Possibly, but then the formation of the government and the winning of an election are different things. As an example, it is possible for the party political complexion of a government to change without an election. Who would have won the preceding election if that scenario occurs and you use who forms the government as the criteria for who wins elections?

Mid-term shifts don't really have any bearing on the previous general election, and certainly in the psephological annals of the UK any by-election shifts are ignored in favour of noting changes in relation to the previous general.  Even if a party does get toppled from power part-way through a parliamentary term, it still doesn't erase their previous sucesses from the record.

Regardless, at the end of the day, unless a party gets an outright majority of seats (50% + a seat), I would caution against saying things like "party X won the election in the year whatever", but if it is absolutely necessary to make such statements (it isn't) then I think that "who forms the government" is the least-worst possible criterion.