dizz
Labour
Posts: 1,088
Member is Online
|
Post by dizz on Oct 15, 2021 13:01:53 GMT
Good to see stage 3.
Lol as regards the value of stage 4. There is some value from a purely psephological pov, in Stage 4. In this case it shows us there were 452 Tories prepared to transfer to SNP - presumably to keep out Labour in that case. So for those anti-socialism trumped the union? Plenty of them must have preferenced Labour ahead surely? |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 15, 2021 13:04:06 GMT
It may be that the regulations say a candidate can't be deemed elected without quota unless there are no more votes to transfer, in which case stage 4 is needed even though it's obvious who will win.
|
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Oct 15, 2021 13:12:29 GMT
I know these figures are also accessible in Middleenglander's table above, but just as we're waiting for Pinner.. Frimley Green (Surrey Heath) by-election result: CON: 48.5% (+19.6) LDEM: 47.4% (-1.6) LAB: 4.1% (+4.1) Conservative GAIN from Liberal Democrat. No UKIP (-12.9) and Pirate (-9.1) as prev. Chgs. w/ 2019 Am I the only one to find it more than strange that Mark Pack thinks the Liberal Democrat loss in Frimley Green was because UKIP did not stand? |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,732
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Oct 15, 2021 13:18:51 GMT
I know these figures are also accessible in Middleenglander's table above, but just as we're waiting for Pinner.. Frimley Green (Surrey Heath) by-election result: CON: 48.5% (+19.6) LDEM: 47.4% (-1.6) LAB: 4.1% (+4.1) Conservative GAIN from Liberal Democrat. No UKIP (-12.9) and Pirate (-9.1) as prev. Chgs. w/ 2019 Am I the only one to find it more than strange that Mark Pack thinks the Liberal Democrat loss in Frimley Green was because UKIP did not stand? It's a reasonable assumption that many (though not all) UKIP votes will have transferred to the Tories. Or do you disagree? |
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Oct 15, 2021 13:25:24 GMT
Am I the only one to find it more than strange that Mark Pack thinks the Liberal Democrat loss in Frimley Green was because UKIP did not stand? It's a reasonable assumption that many (though not all) UKIP votes will have transferred to the Tories. Or do you disagree? I don't disagree that generally UKIP took more votes from Conservatives than from elsewhere. But UKIP barely / no longer exists, neither it nor an offshoot contested the seat and it was actually a contest between the 3 main parties. If the loss is due to a non-existent "fringe" candidate then I hate to think what any gain is due apart from the superior candidate / efforts / local organisation / national party standing / national leader / whatever else the party considers it is superior at. |
|
|
|
Post by michaelarden on Oct 15, 2021 13:27:55 GMT
Am I the only one to find it more than strange that Mark Pack thinks the Liberal Democrat loss in Frimley Green was because UKIP did not stand? It's a reasonable assumption that many (though not all) UKIP votes will have transferred to the Tories. Or do you disagree? The issue would be that if 100% of the UKIP vote transferred to the Tories they still would have lost. |
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Oct 15, 2021 13:34:13 GMT
Good to see stage 3. Lol as regards the value of stage 4. Stage 4 is hilarious - a mathematical nonsense. The result would have been the same if the winning candidate had received precisely nil transfers. It would be interesting to know - a bit anyway - if a "4" was transferred, as opposed to a blank. I would love to have a discussion with whoever designed the software. |
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,901
|
Post by Tony Otim on Oct 15, 2021 13:57:25 GMT
I’m not a connoisseur of Scottish politics, but it was interesting that c50% of the Labour vote didn’t transfer, and of the half that did it split pretty evenly between the SNP and the Conservatives. Is this normal? It looks a bit strange to an outsider. Fairly normal - I was expecting something like a third non-transferring, a bit over a third going Con and a bit under SNP, so the non-transfers were a bit higher, but that's not totally shocking. |
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,901
|
Post by Tony Otim on Oct 15, 2021 13:59:22 GMT
It's a reasonable assumption that many (though not all) UKIP votes will have transferred to the Tories. Or do you disagree? The issue would be that if 100% of the UKIP vote transferred to the Tories they still would have lost. Also, UKIP only fielded 1 candidate in 2019, so it's a reasonable guess that some of those voters also voted for one of the Conservatives then as well and so the Conservative figures already included some of that vote. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Oct 15, 2021 14:42:04 GMT
I know these figures are also accessible in Middleenglander's table above, but just as we're waiting for Pinner.. Frimley Green (Surrey Heath) by-election result: CON: 48.5% (+19.6) LDEM: 47.4% (-1.6) LAB: 4.1% (+4.1) Conservative GAIN from Liberal Democrat. No UKIP (-12.9) and Pirate (-9.1) as prev. Chgs. w/ 2019 Am I the only one to find it more than strange that Mark Pack thinks the Liberal Democrat loss in Frimley Green was because UKIP did not stand? If any Party to the right of the Tories had stood, the Lib Dems would probably have won, just as we would probably have won if Labour had not stood. Neither is much of an excuse though, and in any election won by a handful of votes you can say this |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Oct 15, 2021 14:44:11 GMT
It's a reasonable assumption that many (though not all) UKIP votes will have transferred to the Tories. Or do you disagree? The issue would be that if 100% of the UKIP vote transferred to the Tories they still would have lost. In 2019, yes, but we are in 2021 now last I looked |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Oct 15, 2021 14:45:05 GMT
I know these figures are also accessible in Middleenglander's table above, but just as we're waiting for Pinner.. Frimley Green (Surrey Heath) by-election result: CON: 48.5% (+19.6) LDEM: 47.4% (-1.6) LAB: 4.1% (+4.1) Conservative GAIN from Liberal Democrat. No UKIP (-12.9) and Pirate (-9.1) as prev. Chgs. w/ 2019 Am I the only one to find it more than strange that Mark Pack thinks the Liberal Democrat loss in Frimley Green was because UKIP did not stand? I think it was (uncharacteristically?) poorly expressed, certainly. If the point was that the Tory candidate in somewhere like Frimley Green was able to mop up votes that formerly went to UKIP, that is surely unexceptional. He did however express it as though there was something unpredictable that there was no UKIP candidate standing, which would be a very odd remark indeeed. Of course in an area like that the votes that had gone to UKIP previously would mostly have come from the Conservatives in the first place- it's not like it was some red wall area where they would have come from Labour. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Oct 15, 2021 15:19:57 GMT
Stage 4 is hilarious - a mathematical nonsense. The result would have been the same if the winning candidate had received precisely nil transfers. It would be interesting to know - a bit anyway - if a "4" was transferred, as opposed to a blank. I would love to have a discussion with whoever designed the software. Do the count sheets ever show the quota reducing as votes exhaust? There are STV/AV rules out there that keep the quota up - I remember having to do a similar nonsensical round of transfers way back in my days at Kent and when I pointed out the pointlessness of it I was shouted down and told I didn't know what I was talking about - but also I suspect the software has been written as simple as possible. It doesn't help that so many talking about the system seem to assume everyone uses every preference available to them. |
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Oct 15, 2021 15:28:12 GMT
It may be that the regulations say a candidate can't be deemed elected without quota unless there are no more votes to transfer, in which case stage 4 is needed even though it's obvious who will win. Scottish STV Regulations 2007: "Filling of last vacancies 52.—(1) Where the number of continuing candidates is equal to the number of vacancies remaining unfilled, the continuing candidates are deemed to be elected. (2) Where the last vacancies can be filled under this rule, no further transfer shall be made." I've just looked the above up. I feel nerdishness coming upon me! |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Oct 16, 2021 7:02:13 GMT
Fun with the preference profile from the Falkirk S by-election.
Matchups:
SNP beats C 2019-1903
SNP beats Grn 1973-732
SNP beats Lab 1952-1419
C beats Grn 1991-1457
C beats Lab 1841-1433
Lab beats Grn 1597-1308
If these votes were cast in a three-seat election, the SNP and Conservatives have one seat each with a three-way fight for the final seat.
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Oct 16, 2021 7:17:50 GMT
Fun with the preference profile from the Falkirk S by-election. Matchups: SNP beats C 2019-1903 SNP beats Grn 1973-732 SNP beats Lab 1952-1419 C beats Grn 1991-1457 C beats Lab 1841-1433 Lab beats Grn 1597-1308 If these votes were cast in a three-seat election, the SNP and Conservatives have one seat each with a three-way fight for the final seat. a three-way fight between the two remaining candidates? If these votes were cast in a three-seat election, the SNP and Conservatives would have been idiots for undernominating. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 16, 2021 9:03:28 GMT
Fun with the preference profile from the Falkirk S by-election. Matchups: SNP beats C 2019-1903 SNP beats Grn 1973-732 SNP beats Lab 1952-1419 C beats Grn 1991-1457 C beats Lab 1841-1433 Lab beats Grn 1597-1308 If these votes were cast in a three-seat election, the SNP and Conservatives have one seat each with a three-way fight for the final seat. a three-way fight between the two remaining candidates? If these votes were cast in a three-seat election, the SNP and Conservatives would have been idiots for undernominating. What the numbers clearly show, and what andrewteale presumably means, is that the competition for the 3rd seat in a 3-seat STV election would be a close contest between SNP, Conservative and Labour. Nobody mentioned undernomination. Obviously in a 3-vacancy election there would be more than 4 candidates. |
|
|
|
Post by jimboo2017 on Oct 16, 2021 9:04:37 GMT
Labour likes rabbits
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Oct 16, 2021 9:09:02 GMT
a three-way fight between the two remaining candidates? If these votes were cast in a three-seat election, the SNP and Conservatives would have been idiots for undernominating. What the numbers clearly show, and what andrewteale presumably means, is that the competition for the 3rd seat in a 3-seat STV election would be a close contest between SNP, Conservative and Labour. Nobody mentioned undernomination. Obviously in a 3-vacancy election there would be more than 4 candidates. I know what he meant but there's an inherent contradiction in using these votes (exactly) and assuming more candidates per party! And it's sadly not as if undernomination is all that unrealistic... |
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,901
|
Post by Tony Otim on Oct 16, 2021 11:29:04 GMT
a three-way fight between the two remaining candidates? If these votes were cast in a three-seat election, the SNP and Conservatives would have been idiots for undernominating. What the numbers clearly show, and what andrewteale presumably means, is that the competition for the 3rd seat in a 3-seat STV election would be a close contest between SNP, Conservative and Labour. Nobody mentioned undernomination. Obviously in a 3-vacancy election there would be more than 4 candidates. Although there were only 4 candidates for 3 seats here last time. |
|
