|
|
Post by therealriga on May 24, 2016 17:35:28 GMT
I've been doing this on and off for months during slack periods at work. Calculating hypothetical results at general elections from 1983 to 2015 under a single transferable vote system. 1983 was the starting point because I had all the results and maps from then on (don't know where to find constituency maps for 1979 and earlier?) Of course, the probability of Thatcher introducing STV in her first term is probably the same as George Galloway, Dennis Skinner and Corbyn all announcing their joint defection to the Conservatives.
District magnitude was 3 to 5 members (with Western Isles, Orkney&Shetland and Isle of Wight as exceptional single member constituencies under AV.) Respecting local authority boundaries by not crossing county boundaries and keeping cities together as much as possible was the next rule. The bias, unless other geographic factors dictated it, was for smaller constituencies. One of these exceptions was in Hampshire where the 1983 boundaries meant that three 5-seaters was the best option. The thinking behind smaller district magnitudes was that it would arise as part of a compromise, with the larger party insisting on smaller district magnitude, this giving them a seat bonus at the expense of proportionality.
On the first drawing, having constituencies of a similar magnitude was the aim. For 1997 and 2010, continuity of existing constituencies was the aim unless changes warranted it. For example, Liverpool had two 3-seaters 1983-1997 and a 5-seater thereafter. Bedfordshire went the other way, a single constituency 1983-1997 and then split.
In terms of boundaries, I simply chained Westminster constituencies together. While it's possible that that could be done as a rush job for the first elections, subsequent elections would have had different boundaries to mine.
A number of other caveats apply. People would vote differently under a different voting system. Incumbency would play a role which it didn't in these set of results. Governments would be different and voting would be affected that way. The party system itself might end up differently as STV would make smaller parties more viable. A continuing SDP? 2 Conservative parties in the 1990s? So these are more a set of self-contained results.
Speaking of the SDP, I assumed they'd have entered a transfer pact with the liberals in the 80s. The number of candidates chosen by either party in the Lib-SDP alliance skewed some local results in 1983 and 1987 in 3 and 5-seaters. For example in the 3-seater of Waltham Forest the lib-sdp vote was around 25% in 1983 and 1987, Enough for a seat. In 1983, with candidates in 2 constituencies there, the SDP won it. In 1987, they only had one candidate, resulting in a loss to the liberals which almost certainly wouldn't have happened in real life.
With all that said, these were the results:
1983 Con 287 Lab 172 Lib 96 SDP 71 Other: SNP 5, PC 2, UUP 6, DUP 4, SDLP 4, UPUP 1, Alliance NI 1, SF 1
Enough there for a Lab-Lib-SDP government, but would the SDP back Labour? Con-SDP is another possibility.
_____________________ 1987
Con 290 (+3)
Lab 198 (+26)
Lib 90 (-6)
SDP 47 (-24) Other: SNP 6, PC 2, UUP 7, SDLP 4, DUP 3, Alliance NI 2, SF 1
As before, would depend on the attitude of SDP towards Labour, with Lab-Lib-SDP and Con-SDP coalitions having majorities of around 20.
______________________ 1992
Con 291 (+1)
Lab 233 (+35)
LD 92 (*-34)
SDP 1 (*)
Other: SNP 16, PC 2, UUP 6, SDLP 4, DUP 3, Alliance NI 2, SF 1
Rosie Barnes or Cartwright holds a single SDP seat, the Conservatives win a seat in Northern Ireland and the SNP have a big increase. Since a Lab-LD coalition would have the barest of majorities, Con-LD looks the likeliest option, unless Lab-LD can do a deal with the SNP.
_______________________ 1997
Lab 336 (+103) Con 195 (-96) LD 88 (-4)
Other: SNP 17, PC 3, UUP 9, SDLP 5, DUP 2, SF 2, Speaker 1, Martin Bell 1
The only election when a party wins an overall majority.
________________________ 2001
Lab 320 (-16)
Con 200 (+5)
LD 98 (+10)
Other: SNP 15, PC 7, DUP 6, UUP 5, SDLP 4, SF 3, Health concern 1
No majority, but easily enough for a Labour minority with nationalist support.
_________________________ 2005
Lab 253 (-67)
Con 210 (+10)
LD 151 (+53)
Other: SNP 9, PC 3, DUP 6, UUP 5, SF 4, SDLP 3, Respect 1, Independent (Blaenau Gwent) 1
Down to the Lib Dems....
________________________ 2010
Con 245 (+35) Lab 202 (-51) LD 172 (+21)
Other: SNP 10, PC 2, DUP 5, UUP 4, SF 4, SDLP 3, Ind Unionist 2, Independent (Bob Spink) 1
Spink's win was tight, with UKIP backing I had him edging out Labour and the third Conservative, in the 4-seater South-East Essex.
Again, down to the Lib Dems, who did even better than in 1983 in this election.
_________________________ 2015
Con 281 (+36) Lab 231 (+29) UKIP 52 (+51 since Spink rejoins in 2014.) SNP 36 (+26) LD 25 (-147)
Other: PC 2, Green 2, DUP 7, SF 4, UUP 3, SDLP 2, Ind Unionist 1, Alliance NI 1
As in real life, the LibDem get massacred. Con-UKIP is the only coalition possible there, but if Farage played hard ball, another election could result.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 24, 2016 18:14:17 GMT
But ... People wouldn't have voted the same way had the electoral system been proportional.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on May 24, 2016 18:22:22 GMT
But ... People wouldn't have voted the same way had the electoral system been proportional. I've seen people elsewhere trying to apply past FPTP election results to non-FPTP systems in order to craft up hypothetical election results, but as you implied, different voting systems breed different voting habits; I know that I certainly would've voted differently in a couple of past elections had they been conducted via a different method. |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on May 24, 2016 18:34:57 GMT
But ... People wouldn't have voted the same way had the electoral system been proportional.
That's exactly what I said above in the caveats section (paragraph 5 of original post.) Also the party system would probably have been different, but this does give a rough idea for individual elections of how things would have gone.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on May 27, 2016 0:06:54 GMT
As far as the parties go (especially the Liberal-SDP alliance), the way I think about it is that: (a) if we had AV instead of FPTP, there would have been no need for a Lib-SDP alliance (because the voters would do their own transfers); (b) if we had STV instead of AV, there would have been no SDP (because different views would have been available within the Labour Party). I did a version of STV results for the general elections of 1997 and 2001 (I don't think I got as far as 2005). I think I also did an STV version of the European Parliament election, as if it were a general election. I'll see if I can find the maps to scan them. I combined the existing FPTP constituencies to creat mostly 3- or 4- or 5-member constituencies, but with a few 2-member and 6-member constituencies where they seemed more appropriate. P.S. I have found the 1997 map but I have a feeling I didn't do a 2001 map. The 2001 results had Labour on 308 seats.  |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on May 30, 2016 11:49:43 GMT
As far as the parties go (especially the Liberal-SDP alliance), the way I think about it is that: (a) if we had AV instead of FPTP, there would have been no need for a Lib-SDP alliance (because the voters would do their own transfers); (b) if we had STV instead of AV, there would have been no SDP (because different views would have been available within the Labour Party). I did a version of STV results for the general elections of 1997 and 2001 (I don't think I got as far as 2005). I think I also did an STV version of the European Parliament election, as if it were a general election. I'll see if I can find the maps to scan them. I combined the existing FPTP constituencies to creat mostly 3- or 4- or 5-member constituencies, but with a few 2-member and 6-member constituencies where they seemed more appropriate. That's great. A few things. On the existence of the SDP, it would very much depend on the candidate selection method used by constituency labour parties. If they were intransigent, as many were, and insisted on selecting left wingers for all the seats, the SDP would have come about. Smaller parties fare much better under proportional systems. In Ireland around the same time, policy differences and perceived intransigence in the main parties spawned the Progressive Democrats. If they SDP had come about, I think there still would have been an SDP-Liberal Alliance. The main difference is it would have been looser, with a transfer pact, encouraging each other's voters to transfer to the other party rather than joint candidates. I think 2 member constituencies in any proportional system aren't feasible. Even 3 is pushing the limits. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 30, 2016 15:54:18 GMT
But ... People wouldn't have voted the same way had the electoral system been proportional. I've seen people elsewhere trying to apply past FPTP election results to non-FPTP systems in order to craft up hypothetical election results, but as you implied, different voting systems breed different voting habits; I know that I certainly would've voted differently in a couple of past elections had they been conducted via a different method. Lewis Baston's book on the AV referendum found from studies that tactical voting is in the realm of about 10-15% suggesting the problem is rather less than assumed - perhaps the commentators are stuck in a bubble. But certainly when people consider election systems they want a real idea about how it would make a difference, not some airy hand waving "oh people will vote differently so we can't tell you". And this is particularly critical for STV where smaller parties can be badly disadvantaged - e.g. Lewis Baston's projections for 2015 give the Greens just 2 seats rather than the c24 that Natalies Bennett claims they would have had with "PR". |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 30, 2016 16:00:35 GMT
As far as the parties go (especially the Liberal-SDP alliance), the way I think about it is that: (a) if we had AV instead of FPTP, there would have been no need for a Lib-SDP alliance (because the voters would do their own transfers); (b) if we had STV instead of AV, there would have been no SDP (because different views would have been available within the Labour Party). I disagree with both of these. The debate in the Labour Party was very much an internal matter that wasn't going to be solved nominating representatives of all the various factions and asking the electorate to pick between them - as we've seen with Irish and Scottish cases, parties generally don't supply a wide range of candidates to allow these sorts of debates to be fought out or for that matter devote resources to highlighting the ideological differences. Such was the state of the Labour Party that many moderates would have faced deselection come what may. And parties can and do ally under STV - again Ireland has seen Fine Gael and Labour (and some other parties) fight some elections in alliance urging transfers between each other and being pretty clear that these parties will seek to form a coalition. Some of the smaller left parties have either merged or formed umbrella alliances, even though the votes could do their own transfers. Slightly larger parties are more attractive to voters as they have a better chance of achieving things beyond fill potholes. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 30, 2016 16:06:41 GMT
I think 2 member constituencies in any proportional system aren't feasible. Even 3 is pushing the limits. Well those were the numbers for the multi-member university seats... The problem in the other direction is both the physical and electoral size of a constituency. Most places that use STV do so with small, close and personal electorates with the quotas usually no more than about 15,000 if even that. And rural seats can get ridiculously large (hello Everything North Of Ben Nevis). |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on May 30, 2016 19:02:03 GMT
I've seen people elsewhere trying to apply past FPTP election results to non-FPTP systems in order to craft up hypothetical election results, but as you implied, different voting systems breed different voting habits; I know that I certainly would've voted differently in a couple of past elections had they been conducted via a different method. Lewis Baston's book on the AV referendum found from studies that tactical voting is in the realm of about 10-15% suggesting the problem is rather less than assumed - perhaps the commentators are stuck in a bubble. But certainly when people consider election systems they want a real idea about how it would make a difference, not some airy hand waving "oh people will vote differently so we can't tell you". And this is particularly critical for STV where smaller parties can be badly disadvantaged - e.g. Lewis Baston's projections for 2015 give the Greens just 2 seats rather than the c24 that Natalies Bennett claims they would have had with "PR". I think STV, especially with smaller constituency magnitude, is best seen as a semi-proportional system, a type of halfway house between FPTP and pure PR. That's why I'd always see it as a more likely system to be adopted in the UK, as 3-5 member STV gives smaller parties seats, but gives larger ones a seat bonus and that's more the type of compromise that would be appealing to a larger party. On the greens, I had the same: 2 seats: Brighton and Bristol. They were not far off in Hackney&Islington, Southwark&Lambeth and a 5-seater South Norfolk. It's also possible to see them being competitive in Liverpool and Manchester, but they're way off 24 seats. On constituency sizes, virtually every developed country adopted their electoral systems before the telecommunications revolution, which for me has weakened such arguments. So lack of communications will have been much more of an issue then than it is now. I've never understood why 3 to 5 seaters in the UK would be an issue, when most countries manage just fine with larger multi-member constituencies and the USA does so with larger single member districts. If north of Ben Nevis is an issue, just have exceptions to the usual rules there, same as the boundary commission has. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,759 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on May 30, 2016 19:24:07 GMT
I think STV, especially with smaller constituency magnitude, is best seen as a semi-proportional system, a type of halfway house between FPTP and pure PR. That's why I'd always see it as a more likely system to be adopted in the UK, as 3-5 member STV gives smaller parties seats, but gives larger ones a seat bonus and that's more the type of compromise that would be appealing to a larger party. One of the things I like about STV is that even if it is only slightly more proportional than FPTP, the elected representation gets spread about instead of building up into solid blocs. In 25 years of modelling STV for Sheffield Council it shows that the scatterings of Labour support in Tory Country and LibDem Land would get representaion, and scatterings of non-Labour support in the Red Heartlands would also get support ( example), even if the aggregate total is almost the same as FPTP. It would mean that parties couldn't ignore huge chunks of the city because "they don't vote for us" or conversely ignore the areas with the solid reliable vote "'cos they always vote for us". |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 30, 2016 20:01:20 GMT
I think STV, especially with smaller constituency magnitude, is best seen as a semi-proportional system, a type of halfway house between FPTP and pure PR. It may be best seen as such, but in general it isn't. In so far as it's seen at all, most people see it as "proportional representation" (indeed for a long time in the UK it seemed to be about the only form of PR - the "nothing but STV" ERS was originally the "Proportional Representation Society"). It's not very good for the very small and scattered parties and for that matter Ukip also suffer as a party that in many constituencies would probably be the runner up - your figure just gives a Conservative-Ukip combination a majority but I've seen other figures flying around where this would fall short. Indeed in the last years I've seen some Lib Dems and other electoral changers now advocating adding a top-up list to STV precisely because of this problem and I suspect those newly interested in PR may not be too happy with the STV lock that persists in the PR movement establishment. Yeah - 24 is more like a national list or AMS result. On a similar subject, what result did you get for the Newham seats? Lewis's projection had "Newham & Docklands" (West Ham, East Ham, Poplar & Limehouse) as a Labour clean sweep. A lot of other countries either have many more elected politicians with more tiers of government or don't have as much of the tradition of the local champion. Telecommunications allow some contact but the trend for the MP half-living in the constituency has grown rather than shrunk across the same period (even in the 1990s you still had some MPs for whom going there was an event not a routine) and especially in vast rural and island seats the summer tour is much valued. One of the things I like about STV is that even if it is only slightly more proportional than FPTP, the elected representation gets spread about instead of building up into solid blocs. In 25 years of modelling STV for Sheffield Council it shows that the scatterings of Labour support in Tory Country and LibDem Land would get representaion, and scatterings of non-Labour support in the Red Heartlands would also get support ( example), even if the aggregate total is almost the same as FPTP. It would mean that parties couldn't ignore huge chunks of the city because "they don't vote for us" or conversely ignore the areas with the solid reliable vote "'cos they always vote for us". I did some STV projections for Newham after the 2010 elections and found that Labour would have got 56/60 seats with just 2 Conservatives, 1 Respect and 1 Christian People's Alliance - and given the comment about areas, three of the four opposition councillors would be in wards entirely or mostly south of the A13 (Canning Town South, Beckton, Royal Docks) with the other in Green Street West. It's hard to see many benefits of STV in such a lopsided result but whenever I've put it to STVists outside the borough I've been given stock spiels about being able to chose between Labour candidates (and the large number of spoilt ballot papers in the borough is something that should give pause for though but they generally aren't seen by the STVists). |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on May 30, 2016 20:38:32 GMT
I think STV, especially with smaller constituency magnitude, is best seen as a semi-proportional system, a type of halfway house between FPTP and pure PR. It may be best seen as such, but in general it isn't. In so far as it's seen at all, most people see it as "proportional representation" (indeed for a long time in the UK it seemed to be about the only form of PR - the "nothing but STV" ERS was originally the "Proportional Representation Society"). It's not very good for the very small and scattered parties and for that matter Ukip also suffer as a party that in many constituencies would probably be the runner up - your figure just gives a Conservative-Ukip combination a majority but I've seen other figures flying around where this would fall short. Indeed in the last years I've seen some Lib Dems and other electoral changers now advocating adding a top-up list to STV precisely because of this problem and I suspect those newly interested in PR may not be too happy with the STV lock that persists in the PR movement establishment. Yeah - 24 is more like a national list or AMS result. On a similar subject, what result did you get for the Newham seats? Lewis's projection had "Newham & Docklands" (West Ham, East Ham, Poplar & Limehouse) as a Labour clean sweep. A lot of other countries either have many more elected politicians with more tiers of government or don't have as much of the tradition of the local champion. Telecommunications allow some contact but the trend for the MP half-living in the constituency has grown rather than shrunk across the same period (even in the 1990s you still had some MPs for whom going there was an event not a routine) and especially in vast rural and island seats the summer tour is much valued. One of the things I like about STV is that even if it is only slightly more proportional than FPTP, the elected representation gets spread about instead of building up into solid blocs. In 25 years of modelling STV for Sheffield Council it shows that the scatterings of Labour support in Tory Country and LibDem Land would get representaion, and scatterings of non-Labour support in the Red Heartlands would also get support ( example), even if the aggregate total is almost the same as FPTP. It would mean that parties couldn't ignore huge chunks of the city because "they don't vote for us" or conversely ignore the areas with the solid reliable vote "'cos they always vote for us". I did some STV projections for Newham after the 2010 elections and found that Labour would have got 56/60 seats with just 2 Conservatives, 1 Respect and 1 Christian People's Alliance - and given the comment about areas, three of the four opposition councillors would be in wards entirely or mostly south of the A13 (Canning Town South, Beckton, Royal Docks) with the other in Green Street West. It's hard to see many benefits of STV in such a lopsided result but whenever I've put it to STVists outside the borough I've been given stock spiels about being able to chose between Labour candidates (and the large number of spoilt ballot papers in the borough is something that should give pause for though but they generally aren't seen by the STVists). Lewis' figures are always interesting, but his boundaries are often suspect. I've no idea why Tower Hamlets would be split, even using FPTP constituencies as building blocks, you can draw 3-5 seater constituencies for the whole of London without splitting any borough. For a "London East End" 4-seater, I had Lab 67% Con 17% UKIP 6% Grn 5% LD 3% Labour despite a big increase, fall short of the 4th seat, while transfers easily take the Conservative over the winning line, gaining the LibDem seat. Clean sweeps were very rare, Labour a couple of times in South Wales in 1987 and 1992, Labour in 3 seaters of Wigan, Sunderland, Hull and Rotherham in 1997 and 2 of those in 2001. The tories this year in a 3 seater South Bucks and I also had Labour doing it in a 5-seater Liverpool, with 4.4 quotas, due to the opposition being divided between Conservatives, Greens, UKIP, LibDems and Liberals. In council terms, hasn't Newham always been a bit of an exceptional case? Wasn't it a clean sweep in the 1990s after the sole LibDem defected to Labour after Blair's election? |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 30, 2016 21:58:08 GMT
Lewis' figures are always interesting, but his boundaries are often suspect. I've no idea why Tower Hamlets would be split, even using FPTP constituencies as building blocks, you can draw 3-5 seater constituencies for the whole of London without splitting any borough. From recollection he went for 3-4 member seats based on amalgamating existing constituencies - one of the lesser factors for this may be to demonstrate just how easily the country could be switched to STV in a single election rather than a glacial pace Boundary Commission. How much of a factor are you giving to party organisation and the ability to direct voters? I can see Labour being very good at balancing their candidates even with the problem of Stephen Timms's high local profile (to the point that some voters in West Ham think he's their MP, not Lyn Brown) and this would give them an even stronger edge for a fourth seat. Also I'd expect Green to Labour transfers to be stronger than Ukip to Conservative - remember how much of the Ukip vote is a "Reject them all, they're all the Lib-Lab-Con!" whereas the Green vote here is more middle class lefty that would likely go Labour on transfers. In summary, Labour have had four clean sweep elections (1986, 1998, 2010 & 2014), though their unanimity was broken by a by-election in 1987, plus another 3 years 11 months of holding all councillors when the sole opposition councillor (who had previously won that by-election) defected in June 1994. With one exception they've always had at least 50/60 councillors. Newham has past election results available online and here are the details. - In 1964 Labour took 50 seats to 10 indies. Labour also took all 10 Aldermen.
- 1968 was the year Labour came closest to losing, taking 30 councillors to 21 Ratepayers & Residents (who might have got a crucial one more with a full slate in Plaistow), 6 Conservatives and 3 Liberals. However the Mayoral casting vote was used to secure all 10 Aldermen for Labour, supplying a majority.
- 1971 saw Labour take all but 7 seats which went Ratepayers & Residents.
- The R&R edged up to 9 in 1974...
- ...but were knocked back to 3 in 1978 and seem to have given up the ghost after this, with one of their sitting councillors restanding in 1982 for the SDP.
- 1982 saw the SDP and Liberals each take 3 seats apiece though in 1984 a double by-election saw the Liberals lose one seat to Labour's Stephen Timms.
- Labour had a clean sweep in 1986 but the following year lost a by-election in South ward to the SDP's Alec Kellaway. Political memory from a then-Newham Liberal claims Kellaway went with the anti-merger Continuing SDP (perhaps not coincidentally his ward bordered Woolwich) but was a Lib Dem by 1990.
- 1990 saw Kellaway cling on as a Lib Dem and 2 Conservatives elected. The Conservatives gained a further seat in a 1991 by-election (and retained another in 1992).
- 1994 saw the Conservatives wiped out and only the Lib Dems' Kellaway survived. The following month he joined Labour, the day before the Newham North East parliamentary by-election in which he was the Liberal Democrat candidate!
- 1998 saw a clean sweep for Labour.
- 2002 saw the Christian People's Alliance take 1 seat, Labour took the rest plus the new elected Mayoralty which they've held ever since.
- 2006 saw the CPA take 3 and Respect another 3.
- 2010 and 2014 saw Labour clean sweeps.
So Labour have had 50/60, 30/60, 53/60, 51/60, 57/60, 54/60, 60/60, 57/60, 59/60, 60/60, 59/60, 54/60, 60/60 & 60/60. |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on May 30, 2016 22:28:42 GMT
Lewis' figures are always interesting, but his boundaries are often suspect. I've no idea why Tower Hamlets would be split, even using FPTP constituencies as building blocks, you can draw 3-5 seater constituencies for the whole of London without splitting any borough. From recollection he went for 3-4 member seats based on amalgamating existing constituencies - one of the lesser factors for this may be to demonstrate just how easily the country could be switched to STV in a single election rather than a glacial pace Boundary Commission. How much of a factor are you giving to party organisation and the ability to direct voters? I can see Labour being very good at balancing their candidates even with the problem of Stephen Timms's high local profile (to the point that some voters in West Ham think he's their MP, not Lyn Brown) and this would give them an even stronger edge for a fourth seat. Also I'd expect Green to Labour transfers to be stronger than Ukip to Conservative - remember how much of the Ukip vote is a "Reject them all, they're all the Lib-Lab-Con!" whereas the Green vote here is more middle class lefty that would likely go Labour on transfers. Well, the quota is effectively 20% so the Conservative would only need 3% more to pass the quota, doable from the 9% LibDem-UKIP vote. Labour would need almost perfect balancing, more transfers and for those transfers to balance between their candidates. Very tricky to achieve, so I think a Conservative win would be far more likely, unless they did something daft like running 2 or more candidates. For local elections with STV, I'd expect them to simply merge adjacent wards into 6-seaters, local elections under STV tend to use larger constituencies. When I get my usual laptop back on Friday, I wouldn't mind having a go at that. I've no MS Excel on this one. The 70s results might get a bit "interesting" since the NF had strength around there, so it's how to manage their transfers. I remember reading a study on the NF which suggested that, in the lack of an NF candidate, their voters would have gone 36% Con, 31% Lab, 5% Lib, 3% Communist or other far left. The residents and independents would be a pain. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jun 4, 2016 14:24:36 GMT
If you're up for this, go for it. My calculations were based on the existing three member wards, and dividing party votes by the number of votes a voter had available - this potentially underrepresents parties with less than full slates in a ward but it also reflects the actual voting power available, allows every single valid vote to figure in the party % and also avoids messes when two parties stand in alliance or have a large joint vote for their single candidates, to say nothing of multiple independents.
Newham has a long history of other parties, including many versions of the hard left. Anyone care to estimate how many voters for the various parties would transfer - or would they all follow a purist party line?
|
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Sept 16, 2018 14:21:01 GMT
2017:
Con 292 (+11)
Lab 292 (+61)
SNP 23 (-13)
LD 22 (-3)
DUP 9 (+2)
SF 4 (=)
UUP 2 (-1)
SDLP 2 (=)
PC 1 (-4)
APNI 1 (=)
GP 1 (-1)
IND 1 (+1)
IU 0 (-1)
UKIP 0 (-52)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2018 19:20:56 GMT
If we had STV of course more MPs would likely have defected to the SDP in 1981.
And of course more people would've voted Lib Dem in 2010 and UKIP in 2015 knowing it wasn't useless.
|
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Sept 17, 2018 10:41:22 GMT
If we had STV of course more MPs would likely have defected to the SDP in 1981. And of course more people would've voted Lib Dem in 2010 and UKIP in 2015 knowing it wasn't useless. Of course. That and the other caveats that I put in the original post apply: people would vote differently, different coalitions would have ruled and been rewarded/punished appropriately etc etc. UKIP would obviously have done better but had STV or any proportional system been in place there's the possibility of a Conservative split in the Maastricht era into separate parties. Liberal - SDP merger would also have been less likely. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2018 18:33:49 GMT
If we had STV of course more MPs would likely have defected to the SDP in 1981. And of course more people would've voted Lib Dem in 2010 and UKIP in 2015 knowing it wasn't useless. Of course. That and the other caveats that I put in the original post apply: people would vote differently, different coalitions would have ruled and been rewarded/punished appropriately etc etc. UKIP would obviously have done better but had STV or any proportional system been in place there's the possibility of a Conservative split in the Maastricht era into separate parties. Liberal - SDP merger would also have been less likely. Not sure MPs would’ve joined the Referendum Party in the same way as many joined the SDP. Thiugh an interesting fact is that precisely 1 Conservative MP defected to each: Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler (MP for Norfolk NW) joined the SDP and George Gardiner joined the Referendum Party. |
|
