Definition of "winning" a general election

[swanarcadian]

In response to the debate currently going in the Alternative History section, here's my latest forum poll - and the thread is an opportunity to discuss what actually constitutes "winning" a general election.

[mboy]

This really hinges on the question of whether elections have to have exactly 1 winner. I.e. can everyone in an election "lose", could more than one party "win"; or is the only winner always the one who enters #10 Downing St the following day?

[jigger]

In my view, the only circumstance where an election can have no winner is where there is a tie for first place on both votes and seats between two or more parties (and it has to be the same parties tied on both votes and seats). In all other circumstances of an election, there is a winner of an election.

I would say there can only be one actual winner of an election, though it is possible for the moral victor of an election and the actual winner of an election to be different parties/people. In June, the Conservatives were the actual winners of our election, but I would say that Labour were the moral victors of the election, as they almost turned around a 20 point deficit in the polls in less than 6 weeks. 

[Lord Twaddleford]

Oct 17, 2017 20:01:00 GMT mboy said:

This really hinges on the question of whether elections have to have exactly 1 winner. I.e. can everyone in an election "lose", could more than one party "win"; or is the only winner always the one who enters #10 Downing St the following day?

When a party wins an outright majority of seats, it's usually clear-cut who's going to form the government, but in a hung parliament it's still technically possible for the largest party to get shunted into the opposition benches _{(a phenomenon currently unseen in Westminster, but I personally have seen happen in local government, such as with my own local authority in the past)}; at this point, who won?

In 2010, whilst it's safe to say that Labour definitely lost, it could be also said that the Conservatives won because they got to lead the government, but at the same time the Lib Dems too managed to get into government as part of the coaltion, even though they came 3^rd in terms of votes and seats. Under that definition, does it mean that the Lib Dems won the 2010 GE too?

[mboy]

If 2010 is what winning looks like then Lord give me defeat, and plenty of it!

[jigger]

Oct 17, 2017 20:08:04 GMT Lord Twaddleford said:

Oct 17, 2017 20:01:00 GMT mboy said:

This really hinges on the question of whether elections have to have exactly 1 winner. I.e. can everyone in an election "lose", could more than one party "win"; or is the only winner always the one who enters #10 Downing St the following day?

When a party wins an outright majority of seats, it's usually clear-cut who's going to form the government, but in a hung parliament it's still technically possible for the largest party to get shunted into the opposition benches _{(a phenomenon currently unseen in Westminster, but I personally have seen happen in local government, such as with my own local authority in the past)}; at this point, who won?

In 2010, whilst it's safe to say that Labour definitely lost, it could be also said that the Conservatives won because they got to lead the government, but at the same time the Lib Dems too managed to get into government as part of the coaltion, even though they came 3^rd in terms of votes and seats. Under that definition, does it mean that the Lib Dems won the 2010 GE too?

That's the problem with your "forming the government" definition of winning an election. It is not clear-cut in many circumstances - especially in mainland Europe where coalitions are common.  My definition benefits from the fact that there is literally only one situation where who has won an election is in any doubt.

[Arthur Figgis]

Oct 17, 2017 20:09:58 GMT mboy said:

If 2010 is what winning looks like then Lord give me defeat, and plenty of it!

Did 2015 and 2017 satiate you?

[Adam in Stroud]

Oct 17, 2017 20:08:04 GMT Lord Twaddleford said:

Oct 17, 2017 20:01:00 GMT mboy said:

This really hinges on the question of whether elections have to have exactly 1 winner. I.e. can everyone in an election "lose", could more than one party "win"; or is the only winner always the one who enters #10 Downing St the following day?

When a party wins an outright majority of seats, it's usually clear-cut who's going to form the government, but in a hung parliament it's still technically possible for the largest party to get shunted into the opposition benches _{(a phenomenon currently unseen in Westminster, but I personally have seen happen in local government, such as with my own local authority in the past)}; at this point, who won?

In 2010, whilst it's safe to say that Labour definitely lost, it could be also said that the Conservatives won because they got to lead the government, but at the same time the Lib Dems too managed to get into government as part of the coaltion, even though they came 3^rd in terms of votes and seats. Under that definition, does it mean that the Lib Dems won the 2010 GE too?

No. We actually lost seats.

It was our equivalent of Labour 2017 - we were predicted (before the campaign started) to be rolled over by Cameron's new look Conservatives but after a fine campaign we had a modest increase in vote share that looked like a triumph but wasn't (and that's even before you get onto the coalition.)

1906.  We won that one.

[thetop]

Oct 17, 2017 20:18:46 GMT Adam in Stroud said:

It was our equivalent of Labour 2017 - we were predicted (before the campaign started) to be rolled over by Cameron's new look Conservatives but after a fine campaign we had a modest increase in vote share that looked like a triumph but wasn't (and that's even before you get onto the coalition.)

Nothing about the increase in Labour's vote share in June was modest.

[mboy]

Oct 17, 2017 20:17:10 GMT Arthur Figgis said:

Oct 17, 2017 20:09:58 GMT mboy said:

If 2010 is what winning looks like then Lord give me defeat, and plenty of it!

Did 2015 and 2017 satiate you?

Fair point.

[Deleted]

Not sure it's as easy as saying Labour lost in 2010 and the Conservatives won. Losing 90 seats is humiliating but every pundit coming into the new year said Cameron would get a maj. It probably would have happened to if it weren't for cleggmania and labour pulling back up in the polls.

Its like the defeats labour faced in 92 and 15 were so much worse because every expectation were that Labour would form the next gov

[Adam in Stroud]

Oct 17, 2017 20:31:20 GMT thetop said:

Oct 17, 2017 20:18:46 GMT Adam in Stroud said:

It was our equivalent of Labour 2017 - we were predicted (before the campaign started) to be rolled over by Cameron's new look Conservatives but after a fine campaign we had a modest increase in vote share that looked like a triumph but wasn't (and that's even before you get onto the coalition.)

Nothing about the increase in Labour's vote share in June was modest.

The adjective was referring to the LD performance in 2010.

But Labour's vote share in 2017 its nothing to write home about. The target for the opposition is to overtake the government. If you like you can substitute "inadequate" for "modest".

Nor is the Conservative vote share; the government's target is to have a majority. Anyone in either party who kids themselves that everything is great because they squeezed the other parties is kidding themselves; that approach has been taken about as far as it mathematically can go and still not produced a majority.

[thetop]

Oct 17, 2017 21:32:58 GMT Adam in Stroud said:

Oct 17, 2017 20:31:20 GMT thetop said:

Nothing about the increase in Labour's vote share in June was modest.

The adjective was referring to the LD performance in 2010.

Which consequently makes it very little like the Liberal surge that failed to appear.

Oct 17, 2017 21:32:58 GMT Adam in Stroud said:

But Labour's vote share in 2017 its nothing to write home about. The target for the opposition is to overtake the government. If you like you can substitute "inadequate" for "modest".

Nor is the Conservative vote share; the government's target is to have a majority. Anyone in either party who kids themselves that everything is great because they squeezed the other parties is kidding themselves; that approach has been taken about as far as it mathematically can go and still not produced a majority.

I find these reductionist arguments absurd. Yes, the aim for any party is to overtake the governing party, but downplaying Labour and Conservative vote shares because they didn't deliver the seats they normally would (effectively cancelling one another out) makes it seem like it is you that is kidding yourself. A return to >40% of the vote, and the number of millions needed to deliver such a vote share is certainly an achievement. If the Liberals had put on millions of votes and got an extra 10% of the vote share in 2010 I'd guarantee there'd be no Liberals sniffing at how little it meant.

[greenchristian]

I think we have to say that the only way to say that one particular party (or, in some contexts, coalition of parties) has "won" an election is if they have a Parliamentary majority at the end of it. Anything else is open to interpretation, and anybody who insists otherwise has clearly decided that elections must have a winner. Which, to my mind, seems a somewhat silly position to take.

For example, a party that goes into a General Election with a majority, and which everybody expects to win a significantly larger majority, can not really claim to have won if it comes out of the election without a majority. I do not feel the need to declare a winner for any given election, so this does not bother me. It does appear to bother some of the rest of you, and I'd be interested if any of those who feel this way can explain why it bothers them.

[carlton43]

The normal conventional answer by an informed and engaged member of the public would surely be to say that it is the party that gains half the seats plus one or more extra. That is a win in any terms. For me it is all about seats and a majority and not about number of votes.

In a case where no party can achieve half the seats plus one or more, then the winner is the party closest to forming a government. So in 2010 it was the Conservatives because they had the most seats and because they were not far off an outright majority and because Labour had lost many seats and could not realistically be considered to be able to gain a workable majority by any form of coalition.

In 2017 it was a Conservative win because they had the most seats and were very close to an outright majority and where Labour in coalition with every other non-Conservative would hardly have been able to sustain a workable majority even under perfect circumstances and unbelievable goodwill.

EDIT
I am unable to vote because of the poor wording of option two. Or the lack of other options.

[jigger]

Oct 17, 2017 22:51:53 GMT greenchristian said:

I think we have to say that the only way to say that one particular party (or, in some contexts, coalition of parties) has "won" an election is if they have a Parliamentary majority at the end of it. Anything else is open to interpretation, and anybody who insists otherwise has clearly decided that elections must have a winner. Which, to my mind, seems a somewhat silly position to take.

For example, a party that goes into a General Election with a majority, and which everybody expects to win a significantly larger majority, can not really claim to have won if it comes out of the election without a majority. I do not feel the need to declare a winner for any given election, so this does not bother me. It does appear to bother some of the rest of you, and I'd be interested if any of those who feel this way can explain why it bothers them.

It doesn't bother me in the sense that I lose sleep over the issue of who wins elections . Even though I wanted Labour to win in June, I've always thought it stupid to get too upset about losing elections as the result is the democratic will of the people and the people can never be wrong.  But I honestly don't believe that it is possible (with one exception) to have an election where nobody/no party wins.

[johnloony]

My short answer would be that the winner of a general election is the party/ies which win enough seats to be able to be in a position to form a government. I am reading "Red Ellen" (about Ellen Wilkinson) at the moment, and I am reminded that Labour "won" the 1923 general election in the sense that it was able to form a government, with Liberal support, which lasted 10 months. It was the Conservative Party which "lost" the election, in the sense that it lost its majority and had to give way to Labour in January 1924. The fact that Conservatives still had far more seats than Labour was not, on that occasion, enough to count as "winning".

My longer answer would say that "winning" can be defined in various ways (involving absolute and/or relative majorities and/or pluralities of votes and/or seats, for one party or combinations of parties), just as the word "swing" can be defined in different ways, as long as it is clear which definition is being used in what context and for what purpose.

[Foggy]

Oct 17, 2017 22:30:50 GMT thetop said:

Oct 17, 2017 21:32:58 GMT Adam in Stroud said:

The adjective was referring to the LD performance in 2010.

Which consequently makes it very little like the Liberal surge that failed to appear.

Oct 17, 2017 21:32:58 GMT Adam in Stroud said:

But Labour's vote share in 2017 its nothing to write home about. The target for the opposition is to overtake the government. If you like you can substitute "inadequate" for "modest".

Nor is the Conservative vote share; the government's target is to have a majority. Anyone in either party who kids themselves that everything is great because they squeezed the other parties is kidding themselves; that approach has been taken about as far as it mathematically can go and still not produced a majority.

I find these reductionist arguments absurd. Yes, the aim for any party is to overtake the governing party, but downplaying Labour and Conservative vote shares because they didn't deliver the seats they normally would (effectively cancelling one another out) makes it seem like it is you that is kidding yourself. A return to >40% of the vote, and the number of millions needed to deliver such a vote share is certainly an achievement. If the Liberals had put on millions of votes and got an extra 10% of the vote share in 2010 I'd guarantee there'd be no Liberals sniffing at how little it meant.

I don't think Steve Radford was ever in with a shout of becoming Prime Minister, in 2010 or at any other time.

[Adam in Stroud]

Oct 17, 2017 22:30:50 GMT thetop said:

Oct 17, 2017 21:32:58 GMT Adam in Stroud said:

The adjective was referring to the LD performance in 2010.

Which consequently makes it very little like the Liberal surge that failed to appear.

Oct 17, 2017 21:32:58 GMT Adam in Stroud said:

But Labour's vote share in 2017 its nothing to write home about. The target for the opposition is to overtake the government. If you like you can substitute "inadequate" for "modest".

Nor is the Conservative vote share; the government's target is to have a majority. Anyone in either party who kids themselves that everything is great because they squeezed the other parties is kidding themselves; that approach has been taken about as far as it mathematically can go and still not produced a majority.

I find these reductionist arguments absurd. Yes, the aim for any party is to overtake the governing party, but downplaying Labour and Conservative vote shares because they didn't deliver the seats they normally would (effectively cancelling one another out) makes it seem like it is you that is kidding yourself. A return to >40% of the vote, and the number of millions needed to deliver such a vote share is certainly an achievement. If the Liberals had put on millions of votes and got an extra 10% of the vote share in 2010 I'd guarantee there'd be no Liberals sniffing at how little it meant.

It's not a reductionist argument.  I've not said that either the Clegg surge of 2010 or Labour's 2017 campaigns weren't achievements - they were both considerable achievements in the circumstances - but they weren't wins. This is a thread about the definition of winning. I'm pointing out that high vote shares don't automatically equate to winning. 

Labour has not won a majority since 2005. The Conservatives in the same period have once had a majority of 6 for a period of two years. That's the big picture.

Before 2005 Blair delivered three successive GE wins and before 2005 the Tories delivered four GE wins in a row, both on lower vote shares than Corbyn. Those were achievements if you like. You are confusing outputs with outcomes. Of course the output is significant and has implications for the likely result of the next GE but it still isn't a win. Feed your current poll figures into UNS calculators and you still aren't looking at a win - you either need good targeting (Scotland's your best bet) or you need to push your vote share north of 46%.

And of course no LDs would have sniffed about a 10% increase in vote share in 2010 since it would have put us on 33% and if taken equally from Con and Lab they would have been on 31% and 24% respectively. FPTP would probably still have been a fix leaving us in third place for seats (and I daresay Jigger would  have said the result showed the deep affection of the British people for the Labour and Conservative parties) so I daresay we'd have had to go into coalition but we'd have had an unanswerable case for PR.

But as usual the standard response from Red or Blue to anyone questioning their right to rule forever is to sit back on the massive financial advantages they have, the structural media bias in favour of those two parties, and the benefits of FPTP and say "nerr nerr ne nerr, we got more votes than the Liberals."

PS I don't know what your first sentence is supposed to mean. In 2010 the LD vote share went up by 1%. I said we had a modest increase in vote share. I'm not sure what exactly your problem is with that.

[John Chanin]

In a FPTP election you can only win by getting a majority of seats. PR elections are rather different.  We have frequently had the ludicrous sight of British newspapers reporting that party A has won the election, when they have not only lost seats but been thrown out of power.

Still as we know ignorance is bliss (and definitely without numbers) for the average journalist.