andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,580 
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Nov 26, 2021 16:28:07 GMT
If my maths is right there is a Tory lead of 16,291 and 33,324 ballot papers to count? Not everyone obviously will have used a second preference but of the Indy, LibDem and WEP voters you would imagine these would be more likely to be Labour leaning than Conservative.... Your maths are right. I would be amazed if that’s not a Conservative win. As has been discussed before, in this system more people just generally choose their 2nd preference party rather than predict who will be in the 2nd round. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Nov 26, 2021 16:28:48 GMT
"real Communism has never been tried"  I know that you were making an ironic point but one might suggest that the Monastic System had a good touch of communist principles about it. It could certainly be habit forming. |
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,580
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Nov 26, 2021 16:35:30 GMT
In Selby district. There were 3257 ballot papers for the second round and the valid 2nd preferences are Lab 833, Con 803
|
|
|
|
Post by samdwebber on Nov 26, 2021 16:54:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bungle on Nov 26, 2021 17:10:58 GMT
Second preferences
Con +7375
Lab +8801
Spoilt at 2nd preference stage +3127
Overall result
Con 41760
Lab 26895
|
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Nov 26, 2021 18:07:10 GMT
| May 2021 | November 2021 | Difference | | Total first stage ballot papers | 160,850 | 86,973
| -73,877 | | Total rejected | 4,279 | 1,165 | -3,114 | | Total first stage valid votes | 156,571 | 85,803 | 70,768 | | %age ballot papers rejected | 2.67% | 1.34% | -1.33% | | First stage % votes |
|
|
| | - Conservative | 47.0% | 40.1% | -6.9% | | - Labour | 26.1% | 21.1% | -5.0% | | - Independent | 14.3% | 17.5% | +3.2% | | - Liberal Democrat | 12.6% | 11.1% | -1.5% | | - Women's Equality |
| 10.3% | from nowhere | | Second stage additional votes |
|
|
| | - Conservative | 11,080 | 7,375 | -3,705 | | - Labour | 12,639 | 8,801 | -3,838 | | - not used | 18,392 | 17,148 | -1,244 | | - Conservative % | 26.3% | 22.1% | -4.2% | - Labour %
| 30.0% | 26.4% | -3.6% | | - not used % | 43.7% | 51.5% | +7.8% | | Final result - % of second votes |
|
|
| | - Conservative | 61.3% | 60.8% | -0.5% | | - Labour | 38.7% | 39.2% | +0.5% | | Final result - % of total valid votes |
|
|
| | - Conservative | 54.1% | 48.7% | -5.4% | | - Labour | 34.1% | 31.3% | -2.8% |
The valid number of votes was 54.8% of those cast in May
- but the proportion rejected at the first stage was half that in May
All 3 main parties lost share at the first stage
The proportion of votes not used at the stage increased from nearly 44% in May to 51½% in November
- Labour had more second count vote share than Conservative in both May and November but only marginally so.
Overall assessment is apart from much lower turnout an the addition Women's Equality candidate, the final result was little changed compared to May.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Nov 26, 2021 18:46:11 GMT
Second preferences Con +7375 Lab +8801 Spoilt at 2nd preference stage +3127 Overall result Con 41760 Lab 26895 I am trying to understand what "spoilt at 2nd preference stage" means - I guess it is at least primarily electors who left the 2nd preference blank, as against those whose second preference was for a candidate who had already been eliminated? I assume the numbers of the latter should be of the order of 13k in total? Looking at the figures, in the final vote there were some 68+k votes that were counted, approaching 5k votes that were regarded as spoiled at either stage1 or stage2, so getting us back to the 86k who bothered to return their ballot papers on way or another. And of course all these numbers are minute compared with the hundreds of thousands who didn't use their ballot papers at all. What a farce, it goes without saying. PS I was penning these ruminations before seeing the very thorough analysis provided by middleenglander. for which many thanks- though I must say I wonder whether this deserves that much care and precision devoted to it. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 26, 2021 18:52:25 GMT
Second preferences Con +7375 Lab +8801 Spoilt at 2nd preference stage +3127 Overall result Con 41760 Lab 26895 I am trying to understand what "spoilt at 2nd preference stage" means - I guess it is at least primarily electors who left the 2nd preference blank, as against those whose second preference was for a candidate who had already been eliminated? I assume the numbers of the latter should be of the order of 13k in total? The other possibility would be voting for more than one candidate in the second preference column but not the first preference one. Though I'd expect that the vast majority would be voters leaving the second preference blank. |
|
|
|
Post by bungle on Nov 26, 2021 20:50:09 GMT
Second preferences Con +7375 Lab +8801 Spoilt at 2nd preference stage +3127 Overall result Con 41760 Lab 26895 I am trying to understand what "spoilt at 2nd preference stage" means - I guess it is at least primarily electors who left the 2nd preference blank, as against those whose second preference was for a candidate who had already been eliminated? I assume the numbers of the latter should be of the order of 13k in total? Correct voting for more than one candidate as to the second preference vote - 155 writing or mark by which voter could be identified - 1 unmarked as to the second preference vote - 2963 void for uncertainty - 8 I'm intrigued as to the single ballot that was rejected for writing or mark by which the voter could be identified only at the second stage. It makes you wonder how specific that writing or mark actually was to avoid being rejected originally. |
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,468
|
Post by peterl on Nov 26, 2021 20:59:00 GMT
I am trying to understand what "spoilt at 2nd preference stage" means - I guess it is at least primarily electors who left the 2nd preference blank, as against those whose second preference was for a candidate who had already been eliminated? I assume the numbers of the latter should be of the order of 13k in total? Correct voting for more than one candidate as to the second preference vote - 155 writing or mark by which voter could be identified - 1 unmarked as to the second preference vote - 2963 void for uncertainty - 8 I'm intrigued as to the single ballot that was rejected for writing or mark by which the voter could be identified only at the second stage. It makes you wonder how specific that writing or mark actually was to avoid being rejected originally. Perhaps a write-in vote for themselves as a second preference? |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 26, 2021 22:17:05 GMT
In Selby district. There were 3257 ballot papers for the second round and the valid 2nd preferences are Lab 833, Con 803 That is an acceptable split under present circumstances. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Nov 26, 2021 22:49:36 GMT
Correct voting for more than one candidate as to the second preference vote - 155 writing or mark by which voter could be identified - 1 unmarked as to the second preference vote - 2963 void for uncertainty - 8 I'm intrigued as to the single ballot that was rejected for writing or mark by which the voter could be identified only at the second stage. It makes you wonder how specific that writing or mark actually was to avoid being rejected originally. I guess the ballot paper wasn't spotted or challenged on the first preference count. Had there been a full recount for whatever reason it would probably have been rejected at that stage. |
|
