|
|
Post by johnloony on Aug 25, 2018 2:11:24 GMT
Talking of maps, one thing that I don't like is multi-member wards which are represented by more than one party, because they are more difficult to colour in on maps. It is one reason why I would prefer universal single member wards in the London boroughs.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Aug 25, 2018 8:27:03 GMT
I have always been fascinated by numbers, since childhood. I was early obsessed with population data and demographics, and with cricket statistics- both of those from at least early teens. As I have said elsewhere I was also actively into politics from the 1945 general election onwards. I studied political geography for my first degree at Exeter in the fifties. I was doomed to be a psephologist from the very beginning.
However I was always interested in politics for what difference it made to people's lives . I have always differentiated, I hope, between the fun I get from playing with numbers, simple pleasures, and the business of making a difference to how we live, in the real world.
|
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Aug 25, 2018 10:10:00 GMT
Talking of maps, one thing that I don't like is multi-member wards which are represented by more than one party, because they are more difficult to colour in on maps. It is one reason why I would prefer universal single member wards in the London boroughs. Colour them in with the colour of the "winning" party, and add different coloured dots within the ward's boundaries to indicate the individual representation. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,771 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 25, 2018 10:53:04 GMT
Talking of maps, one thing that I don't like is multi-member wards which are represented by more than one party, because they are more difficult to colour in on maps. It is one reason why I would prefer universal single member wards in the London boroughs. Colour them in with the colour of the "winning" party, and add different coloured dots within the ward's boundaries to indicate the individual representation. In 2004 in Walkley we had 41.0% Labour, 41.0% LibDem with two LibDem and one Labour. How would I colour that? It was 5382 LibDem, 5381 Labour, so it would be coloured yellow with three dots, but colouring that way seems so at odds with the voting numbers. One extra non-spoilt ballot going to Labour and it would be 5382/5382 with the same councillor result. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Aug 25, 2018 11:12:04 GMT
Colour them in with the colour of the "winning" party, and add different coloured dots within the ward's boundaries to indicate the individual representation. In 2004 in Walkley we had 41.0% Labour, 41.0% LibDem with two LibDem and one Labour. How would I colour that? It was 5382 LibDem, 5381 Labour, so it would be coloured yellow with three dots, but colouring that way seems so at odds with the voting numbers. One extra non-spoilt ballot going to Labour and it would be 5382/5382 with the same councillor result. It would still be coloured yellow whether they won by 1 vote or 1000 votes. The point of such maps is to show the largest party in each ward, not to show the relative strengths. I wonder if any party has ever received the most total votes in a ward, but not won any seats? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2018 12:07:05 GMT
In 2004 in Walkley we had 41.0% Labour, 41.0% LibDem with two LibDem and one Labour. How would I colour that? It was 5382 LibDem, 5381 Labour, so it would be coloured yellow with three dots, but colouring that way seems so at odds with the voting numbers. One extra non-spoilt ballot going to Labour and it would be 5382/5382 with the same councillor result. It would still be coloured yellow whether they won by 1 vote or 1000 votes. The point of such maps is to show the largest party in each ward, not to show the relative strengths. I wonder if any party has ever received the most total votes in a ward, but not won any seats? I'm not sure if it's ever happened under the bloc voting system, but it happened in North, West and Central Sutherland on Highland Council for the Conservatives last year. Although thinking about it, it's bound to have happened in a few instances where multiple independents have topped the poll - including where those independents are actually independent of each other. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 25, 2018 12:15:52 GMT
In the 1987 general election, Labour topped the poll in the London Borough of Greenwich - and won none of the three seats.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2018 12:16:37 GMT
In the 1987 general election, Labour topped the poll in the London Borough of Greenwich - and won none of the three seats. how? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2018 12:27:57 GMT
In the 1987 general election, Labour topped the poll in the London Borough of Greenwich - and won none of the three seats. how? They came second to the SDP in Greenwich and in Woolwich, and second to the Conservatives in Eltham. They were not far behind the SDP in the former two whilst the Alliance was way behind in Eltham, so overall Labour had a higher vote share. |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,435
Member is Online
|
Post by iain on Aug 25, 2018 14:01:06 GMT
In the 1987 general election, Labour topped the poll in the London Borough of Greenwich - and won none of the three seats. Also the case for Brighton & Hove in 2010. |
|
