|
Post by Richard Gadsden on Oct 9, 2015 20:02:34 GMT
As a quick rule of thumb from Irish and Scottish elections, the maximum you can expect from transfers (other than intraparty, which isn't relevant to AV) is for them to net out at about half the vote that the party transferring has. And that's for very good transfers, like DUP>UUP or SF>SDLP, or Workers>Labour in Ireland (and then only when Labour are in opposition).
So if you're 2,000 votes behind, then the bundle being split really needs to be at least 4,000 for you to have a chance.
In the UK, I suspect UKIP>Conservative in the south of England would work that well (further north, the WWC UKIP vote would have a lot of Labour transfers in) and Conservative>UKIP in the north similarly, perhaps some of the unionist-unionist transfers in Scotland (particularly when involving the LDs; I can't see Tory-Labour transfers in either direction working that well), and probably Green>Labour.
Remember that at least some of those transfers, though, are people who would have tactically voted under FPTP.
Don't count on AV changing that many seats in the circumstances of 2015. In 1997 or 2001, sure: the Tories would lose even more seats than they actually did. But in 2015, the votes would scatter too widely in most cases.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Oct 9, 2015 20:36:22 GMT
As a quick rule of thumb from Irish and Scottish elections, the maximum you can expect from transfers (other than intraparty, which isn't relevant to AV) is for them to net out at about half the vote that the party transferring has. And that's for very good transfers, like DUP>UUP or SF>SDLP, or Workers>Labour in Ireland (and then only when Labour are in opposition). So if you're 2,000 votes behind, then the bundle being split really needs to be at least 4,000 for you to have a chance. In the UK, I suspect UKIP>Conservative in the south of England would work that well (further north, the WWC UKIP vote would have a lot of Labour transfers in) and Conservative>UKIP in the north similarly, perhaps some of the unionist-unionist transfers in Scotland (particularly when involving the LDs; I can't see Tory-Labour transfers in either direction working that well), and probably Green>Labour. Remember that at least some of those transfers, though, are people who would have tactically voted under FPTP. Don't count on AV changing that many seats in the circumstances of 2015. In 1997 or 2001, sure: the Tories would lose even more seats than they actually did. But in 2015, the votes would scatter too widely in most cases. You think that under AV, the Conservatives would lost seats compared to 1997 or that they would have stayed level with a much lower figure from 1997?
|
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,187
Member is Online
|
Post by Tony Otim on Oct 13, 2015 12:51:34 GMT
As a quick rule of thumb from Irish and Scottish elections, the maximum you can expect from transfers (other than intraparty, which isn't relevant to AV) is for them to net out at about half the vote that the party transferring has. And that's for very good transfers, like DUP>UUP or SF>SDLP, or Workers>Labour in Ireland (and then only when Labour are in opposition). So if you're 2,000 votes behind, then the bundle being split really needs to be at least 4,000 for you to have a chance. In the UK, I suspect UKIP>Conservative in the south of England would work that well (further north, the WWC UKIP vote would have a lot of Labour transfers in) and Conservative>UKIP in the north similarly, perhaps some of the unionist-unionist transfers in Scotland (particularly when involving the LDs; I can't see Tory-Labour transfers in either direction working that well), and probably Green>Labour. Remember that at least some of those transfers, though, are people who would have tactically voted under FPTP. Don't count on AV changing that many seats in the circumstances of 2015. In 1997 or 2001, sure: the Tories would lose even more seats than they actually did. But in 2015, the votes would scatter too widely in most cases. You think that under AV, the Conservatives would lost seats compared to 1997 or that they would have stayed level with a much lower figure from 1997? Most AV projections I've seen or heard about agree that Labour would have had an even larger majority in 1997 due to strong anti-tory transfers.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Oct 13, 2015 13:21:19 GMT
I was specifically thinking about the comments regarding 2001, though. I've long thought that the Conservatives would have done terribly under AV in 1997.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,318
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 14, 2015 11:04:55 GMT
Probably in 2001, too. 2005 might have been broadly neutral between Labour and Tory - though very good for the LibDems.
|
|