Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2021 19:15:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Jul 9, 2021 21:41:41 GMT
All this time and you still don’t understand elections, graphs or boundaries. I can’t tell from a quick glance who won in 2019, nor whether Labour’s vote share rose in the 2021 by-election compared to 2019. Nor plenty more things which are the fundamental point of having such a graph beyond having some garish wallpaper. As ever, the wrong type of chart.
Welcome back. I’m sure Hayfield has missed you keeping him off the bottom of the logic standings.
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,534
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 10, 2021 0:47:42 GMT
All this time and you still don’t understand elections, graphs or boundaries. I can’t tell from a quick glance who won in 2019, nor whether Labour’s vote share rose in the 2021 by-election compared to 2019. Nor plenty more things which are the fundamental point of having such a graph beyond having some garish wallpaper. As ever, the wrong type of chart. Also, as I have said before, if you do want to do one of those silly cryptic bar-charts, you should put the parties in political order instead of having the big two at one end. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jul 10, 2021 19:32:00 GMT
All this time and you still don’t understand elections, graphs or boundaries. I can’t tell from a quick glance who won in 2019, nor whether Labour’s vote share rose in the 2021 by-election compared to 2019. Nor plenty more things which are the fundamental point of having such a graph beyond having some garish wallpaper. As ever, the wrong type of chart. Welcome back. I’m sure Hayfield has missed you keeping him off the bottom of the logic standings. I rather like them. Rise and fall of vote shares. Just because it serves a different purpose from the one you expect does not make it valueless. Wikipedia has the vote shares and winners every year in table form, so no diagram is required for the questions you ask |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Jul 10, 2021 19:56:54 GMT
All this time and you still don’t understand elections, graphs or boundaries. I can’t tell from a quick glance who won in 2019, nor whether Labour’s vote share rose in the 2021 by-election compared to 2019. Nor plenty more things which are the fundamental point of having such a graph beyond having some garish wallpaper. As ever, the wrong type of chart. Welcome back. I’m sure Hayfield has missed you keeping him off the bottom of the logic standings. I rather like them. Rise and fall of vote shares. Just because it serves a different purpose from the one you expect does not make it valueless. Wikipedia has the vote shares and winners every year in table form, so no diagram is required for the questions you ask Rise and fall of the Conservative share. Rise and fall of the Conservative + Labour total share. Beyond that, it’s sometimes hard to tell if the Labour share grew or shrank, and the same for the others. If the Conservative share was at one end, the Labour at the other end, and the others in the middle, that might work in a seat where the top two were always the same. Or in a seat where there was a maximum of 3 parties standing. It does tell me that the total shares add up to 100%, so I suppose it is slightly useful. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jul 10, 2021 20:06:22 GMT
I rather like them. Rise and fall of vote shares. Just because it serves a different purpose from the one you expect does not make it valueless. Wikipedia has the vote shares and winners every year in table form, so no diagram is required for the questions you ask Rise and fall of the Conservative share. Rise and fall of the Conservative + Labour total share. Beyond that, it’s sometimes hard to tell if the Labour share grew or shrank, and the same for the others. If the Conservative share was at one end, the Labour at the other end, and the others in the middle, that might work in a seat where the top two were always the same. Or in a seat where there was a maximum of 3 parties standing. It does tell me that the total shares add up to 100%, so I suppose it is slightly useful. One of the much commented on themes in recent years was the "return to two Party politics" in 2017. This presentation is good for illustrating the extent of that on a seat by seat basis. Personally I can tell the relative size of the Labour vote share quite easily, but I know this is not entirely normal. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 10, 2021 20:55:01 GMT
The fact of not being able to tell which of two similar sized blocks is slightly larger than the other may be a feature not a bug. This is one of Philip Cowley's observations about recent byelections:
And he has a point. Sometimes looking at it in a way which obscures this issue can help.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Jul 11, 2021 14:54:14 GMT
Rise and fall of the Conservative share. Rise and fall of the Conservative + Labour total share. Beyond that, it’s sometimes hard to tell if the Labour share grew or shrank, and the same for the others. If the Conservative share was at one end, the Labour at the other end, and the others in the middle, that might work in a seat where the top two were always the same. Or in a seat where there was a maximum of 3 parties standing. It does tell me that the total shares add up to 100%, so I suppose it is slightly useful. One of the much commented on themes in recent years was the "return to two Party politics" in 2017. This presentation is good for illustrating the extent of that on a seat by seat basis. Personally I can tell the relative size of the Labour vote share quite easily, but I know this is not entirely normal. I wonder why people say it's 2017, when it was clearly 2015 (at least in England, it was one party politics in Scotland). |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jul 11, 2021 16:44:54 GMT
One of the much commented on themes in recent years was the "return to two Party politics" in 2017. This presentation is good for illustrating the extent of that on a seat by seat basis. Personally I can tell the relative size of the Labour vote share quite easily, but I know this is not entirely normal. I wonder why people say it's 2017, when it was clearly 2015 (at least in England, it was one party politics in Scotland). Because in 2015 UKIP got 12.6% and neither Tory nor Labour got over 40%. In 2017 they both got 40.0% or more. [edited to be factually accurate to 3 significant figures] |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2021 18:20:40 GMT
I do understand the criticism of the bar-charts though if you remember the original versions were "area maps" which looked like shattered stained-glass windows. I'm certain that the Batley and Spen graph in "area" form would look like abstract art.
They've always been my little interpretation of results and I include them for the same reasons Pete or Andrew posts maps, or George posts statistical tables. They all have their reasons to be here, I'm sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jul 11, 2021 18:33:23 GMT
I wonder why people say it's 2017, when it was clearly 2015 (at least in England, it was one party politics in Scotland). Because in 2015 UKIP got 12.6% and neither Tory nor Labour got over 40%. In 2017 they both did 2015 also saw the best Green performance (to date) in any Westminster election, and was a more obvious example of FPTP being non-proportional than 1983. |
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,534
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 12, 2021 16:05:56 GMT
I wonder why people say it's 2017, when it was clearly 2015 (at least in England, it was one party politics in Scotland). Because in 2015 UKIP got 12.6% and neither Tory nor Labour got over 40%. In 2017 they both did Do you mean nationally, or in Hartlepool? Nationally, Labour in 2017 only got 39.98% |
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,892
|
Post by Tony Otim on Jul 12, 2021 17:20:03 GMT
Because in 2015 UKIP got 12.6% and neither Tory nor Labour got over 40%. In 2017 they both did 2017 also saw the best Green performance (to date) in any Westminster election, and was a more obvious example of FPTP being non-proportional than 1983. I think you mean 2015, not 2017. Excluding Scotland, 2015 represented a return to 2 parties in terms of seats, 2017 in terms of votes. Of course, the 2 may be linked to some extent. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jul 12, 2021 19:02:38 GMT
2017 also saw the best Green performance (to date) in any Westminster election, and was a more obvious example of FPTP being non-proportional than 1983. I think you mean 2015, not 2017. Excluding Scotland, 2015 represented a return to 2 parties in terms of seats, 2017 in terms of votes. Of course, the 2 may be linked to some extent. We have never had anything other than 2 party politics in terms of seats, so I don't look at that.. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jul 12, 2021 19:11:32 GMT
Because in 2015 UKIP got 12.6% and neither Tory nor Labour got over 40%. In 2017 they both did Do you mean nationally, or in Hartlepool? Nationally, Labour in 2017 only got 39.98% Oh, I was a little loose in my wording, so I will fix the post. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 13, 2021 10:47:13 GMT
Your wording was arguably fine, given that GB-wide shares are normally used these days in this context (as with most opinion polling) and johnloony was quoting the UK-wide figure which includes Northern Ireland which operates under different political "rules". Labour's share in 2017 for GB was around 41%. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jul 13, 2021 15:08:38 GMT
Your wording was arguably fine, given that GB-wide shares are normally used these days in this context (as with most opinion polling) and johnloony was quoting the UK-wide figure which includes Northern Ireland which operates under different political "rules". Labour's share in 2017 for GB was around 41%. I was just going by Wikipedia tbh! |
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,534
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 13, 2021 18:50:49 GMT
Your wording was arguably fine, given that GB-wide shares are normally used these days in this context (as with most opinion polling) and johnloony was quoting the UK-wide figure which includes Northern Ireland which operates under different political "rules". Labour's share in 2017 for GB was around 41%. You wrote "normally"; you meant "incorrectly". Elections to the House of Commons in Northern Ireland do not operate under different rules; they are done under the same rules as the rest of the UK. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Jul 14, 2021 0:02:35 GMT
Your wording was arguably fine, given that GB-wide shares are normally used these days in this context (as with most opinion polling) and johnloony was quoting the UK-wide figure which includes Northern Ireland which operates under different political "rules". Labour's share in 2017 for GB was around 41%. You wrote "normally"; you meant "incorrectly". Elections to the House of Commons in Northern Ireland do not operate under different rules; they are done under the same rules as the rest of the UK. is broadly correct: elections in Northern Ireland operate under different political 'rules.' |
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,534
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 14, 2021 7:08:43 GMT
You wrote "normally"; you meant "incorrectly". Elections to the House of Commons in Northern Ireland do not operate under different rules; they are done under the same rules as the rest of the UK. is broadly correct: elections in Northern Ireland operate under different political 'rules.' Parliamentary elections don’t. |
|
