bias in the electoral system since 1945

[nodealbrexiteer]

6.9% swing now needd for LAb to be largest party and 11.8% to get majority

[nodealbrexiteer]

Dec 24, 2019 9:00:12 GMT nodealbrexiteer said:

6.9% swing now needd for LAb to be largest party and 11.8% to get majority

Assuming you count the 2019 Tory lead in Great Britain as 11.7% that implies about a 11.9% Lab lead for a bare majority using these uniform swing calculations again and about 2.1% Lab lead just to be the largest party. I haven't yet seen a full table on the relationship between seats and votes but the author in the article below puts the Con lead in seats as 23 when the 2 main parties are on equal votes:

blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/ge2019-bias/

[nodealbrexiteer]

The above tweet from Lewis Baston has a chart showing the Tory and Labour leads needed for a bare majority and the seats won on an even split of the vote-not sure how accurate the calculations are and am still waiting to See what Professor Rallings/Thrasher and Curtice come up with

[nodealbrexiteer]

Sorry this:

[nodealbrexiteer]

[nodealbrexiteer]

It won't copy for some reason-google lewis baston electoral system and the first and second searches will have the information in them

[nodealbrexiteer]

Oct 8, 2019 6:39:34 GMT nodealbrexiteer said:

2001:Lab lead for bare majority actually a deficit of 3.7% or 3.9%(3.1% on notional 2001),Con lead needed for bare majority 11.5%(about 11.1% on notional).8.3% Con lead to draw level on seats.(plus Lab lead of 129 on equal votes on notionals)

2005:Lab lead for bare majority actually a deficit of 0.8%(possibly 1.0%),Con lead for bare majority 11.8% and Con lead of 6.4 % to draw level with Lab on seats.(notionals to follow when I can find them)

2010:Con lead for bare majority 11.2% and 4.1% just to be largest party.Lab lead for bare majority 2.7%.

2015:Con lead for bare majority 5.8%,Lab lead for bare majority 12.5% and 3.7% Lab lead needed to draw level on seats.

2017:Con lead for bare majority 3.1%,Lab lead for bare majority 7.3% and 0.7% Lab lead needed to draw level on seats




NOTE:For 1992 the notionals had a Lab lead of 33 seats (322 to 289) on equal votes.

Found another 1979:Con lead for bare majority 4.3%, Lab lead for bare majority 0.9%,26 seat Lab lead at equal votes

[nodealbrexiteer]

A massive thanks to Hullenedge for a heads up that allows me to give the figures for 1983-Con lead for bare majority-4.2%, Lab lead for bare majority 6.4%.The equal vote figures weren't in the table but I think I read elsewhere they were a 5 seat Con lead(but no more than 10 to 20). The table does show at a 0.8% Lab ldead they would have 300 seats, Con 297

[nodealbrexiteer]

adrianblau.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/blau-es-23-3-2004.pdf

[nodealbrexiteer]

Jul 14, 2020 13:01:29 GMT nodealbrexiteer said:

A massive thanks to Hullenedge for a heads up that allows me to give the figures for 1983-Con lead for bare majority-4.2%, Lab lead for bare majority 6.4%.The equal vote figures weren't in the table but I think I read elsewhere they were a 5 seat Con lead(but no more than 10 to 20). The table does show at a 0.8% Lab ldead they would have 300 seats, Con 297

In a few days time we'll have the 2019 figures!

[Defenestrated Fipplebox]

I do understand why people look at this, but if you believe in first past the post that the independent boundary commission has recommended, it can be argued that there is no bias in the system because each constituency has been won fair and square based on the rules and seat boundaries for that particular elections.

[greenchristian]

Sept 6, 2020 20:24:20 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

I do understand why people look at this, but if you believe in first past the post that the independent boundary commission has recommended, it can be argued that there is no bias in the system because each constituency has been won fair and square based on the rules and seat boundaries for that particular elections.

That would be the fallacy of composition. Even if you believe that every individual constituency is fair that doesn't necessarily mean that the system as a whole is unbiased, in the same way that the fact that every single brick in a wall is small does not mean that the wall as a whole is small.

[carlton43]

Sept 6, 2020 20:39:45 GMT greenchristian said:

Sept 6, 2020 20:24:20 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

I do understand why people look at this, but if you believe in first past the post that the independent boundary commission has recommended, it can be argued that there is no bias in the system because each constituency has been won fair and square based on the rules and seat boundaries for that particular elections.

That would be the fallacy of composition. Even if you believe that every individual constituency is fair that doesn't necessarily mean that the system as a whole is unbiased, in the same way that the fact that every single brick in a wall is small does not mean that the wall as a whole is small.

You are a considerable loss to modern philosophy.

[greenchristian]

Sept 6, 2020 20:43:12 GMT carlton43 said:

Sept 6, 2020 20:39:45 GMT greenchristian said:

That would be the fallacy of composition. Even if you believe that every individual constituency is fair that doesn't necessarily mean that the system as a whole is unbiased, in the same way that the fact that every single brick in a wall is small does not mean that the wall as a whole is small.

You are a considerable loss to modern philosophy.

That's the second time in the space of a week you've offered me a compliment. Are you feeling OK?

[carlton43]

Sept 6, 2020 20:46:01 GMT greenchristian said:

Sept 6, 2020 20:43:12 GMT carlton43 said:

You are a considerable loss to modern philosophy.

That's the second time in the space of a week you've offered me a compliment. Are you feeling OK?

The weakness and debility of age sometimes masks a deeper intent!

[nodealbrexiteer]

Sept 6, 2020 20:24:20 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

I do understand why people look at this, but if you believe in first past the post that the independent boundary commission has recommended, it can be argued that there is no bias in the system because each constituency has been won fair and square based on the rules and seat boundaries for that particular elections.

But then turnout levels, size of third party votes,size of majorities do skew things and I say that as very strong first past the post supporter

[therealriga]

The number of votes (in thousands) needed to elect an MP for the two major parties.

Year: Con  / Lab
1945: 44.2 / 30.5
1950: 41.9 / 42.0
1951: 42.7 / 47.3
1955: 38.6 / 44.8
1959: 37.6 / 47.3
1964: 39.5 / 38.5
1966: 45.1 / 35.9
1970: 39.8 / 42.3
1974: 40.0 / 38.7
1974: 37.8 / 35.9
1979: 40.4 / 42.9
1983: 32.7 / 40.5
1987: 36.6 / 43.8
1992: 41.9 / 42.7
1997: 58.1 / 32.3
2001: 50.3 / 25.9
2005: 44.3 / 26.9
2010: 35.0 / 33.4
2015: 34.2 / 40.3
2017: 43.0 / 49.2
2019: 38.3 / 50.8

Looking at that, it's hard to see bias towards a specific party, let alone Labour. In twelve of the 21 post-war elections, more votes were required to elect a Labour MP than a Conservative MP.

What does become obvious from that is that there is a bias towards the largest party, irrespective of who they are. In only two of the post-war elections did the party which won the most seats have a larger number of votes per MP than the main opposition: 1950 and 2010.

The Conservative belief in the bias against them clearly seems to have come from the Blair era. 1997 saw the largest discrepancy between the two parties on this metric in Labour's favour, but it narrowed at every election after that and since 2010 the gap has widened in the Conservatives' favour.

[timrollpickering]

I've never liked the way the word "needed" is used in this context. It tends to imply the system is rigged with different targets for different parties. In practice the votes "needed" for an MP is simply at least one more than the next most popular candidate in each given constituency.

[Pete Whitehead]

Sept 7, 2020 17:39:05 GMT therealriga said:

The number of votes (in thousands) needed to elect an MP for the two major parties.

Year: Con  / Lab
1945: 44.2 / 30.5
1950: 41.9 / 42.0
1951: 42.7 / 47.3
1955: 38.6 / 44.8
1959: 37.6 / 47.3
1964: 39.5 / 38.5
1966: 45.1 / 35.9
1970: 39.8 / 42.3
1974: 40.0 / 38.7
1974: 37.8 / 35.9
1979: 40.4 / 42.9
1983: 32.7 / 40.5
1987: 36.6 / 43.8
1992: 41.9 / 42.7
1997: 58.1 / 32.3
2001: 50.3 / 25.9
2005: 44.3 / 26.9
2010: 35.0 / 33.4
2015: 34.2 / 40.3
2017: 43.0 / 49.2
2019: 38.3 / 50.8

Looking at that, it's hard to see bias towards a specific party, let alone Labour. In twelve of the 21 post-war elections, more votes were required to elect a Labour MP than a Conservative MP.

What does become obvious from that is that there is a bias towards the largest party, irrespective of who they are. In only two of the post-war elections did the party which won the most seats have a larger number of votes per MP than the main opposition: 1950 and 2010.

The Conservative belief in the bias against them clearly seems to have come from the Blair era. 1997 saw the largest discrepancy between the two parties on this metric in Labour's favour, but it narrowed at every election after that and since 2010 the gap has widened in the Conservatives' favour.

2001 was proportionately worse than 1997. The actual number dropped for both parties because turnout fell so heavily that year. But 1997 and 2001 were of course landslides in votes as well as seats. 2005 was the notably egregious case which was what probably influenced Cameron more, given that it was actually pretty close in the popular vote (and with the Conservatives ahead in votes in England but miles behind in seats). The problem in 2010 was the inability of the Conservatives then to evict the Lib Dems from most of the seats they had gained from them in 1997/2001.
Clearly the situation has been much better since 2010. The boundaries that came in ahead of the 1997 election were particularly bad for the Conservatives, partly because they were inept in the boundary review where Labour played it much better, but even there there wasn't that much of an inherent bias - the Conservatives would have won a clear majority on those boundaries in 1992 for example.

[timrollpickering]

I think 2001 was more influential - during the IDS years there were groups starting on the fringes taking an interest in the bias in the system and calling for improvements. 2005 saw a small step back from the extremes but a lot of the talk seemed to still assume the problems of 201 applied.