UK General Election 2010 Polls Thread

[Iannis]

Liberal Democratic surge.

Wow! Who would have ever guessed that!

Problem is that the ridiculous electoral system, coming right from the Middle Age, in UK, will distribute seats in a irrational way giving more seats to the labour even if it will be third.

[KuntaKinte]

Problem is that the ridiculous electoral system, coming right from the Middle Age, in UK, will distribute seats in a irrational way giving more seats to the labour even if it will be third.

You can make arguments against FPTP, but it is not irrational.

[Iannis]

Problem is that the ridiculous electoral system, coming right from the Middle Age, in UK, will distribute seats in a irrational way giving more seats to the labour even if it will be third.

You can make arguments against FPTP, but it is not irrational.

I think that when a voter votes, he has in mind a certain majority and a certain PM, and not barely ther representant of the costituency, so according to me it's not democratic (so irrational if we all agree with democracy) that a majority in votes doesn't correspond to a majority in seats.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If the point of FPTP was to make sure that there was a close relationship between votes casts and candidates elected then, yeah, it would be an astonishingly irrational system. But that isn't the point of FPTP. The point of FPTP (as far as it has one) is the same as other single-seat-constituency systems (ie; it being easy to form majority governments and also the supposed link between the constituent and the delegate) with the additional point of simplicity and ease of administration - the latter matters a lot in Britain because of the seriously low-tech way in which elections are run here.

Though I don't support FPTP, fwiw.

[Franzl]

Problem is that the ridiculous electoral system, coming right from the Middle Age, in UK, will distribute seats in a irrational way giving more seats to the labour even if it will be third.

You can make arguments against FPTP, but it is not irrational.

I think that when a voter votes, he has in mind a certain majority and a certain PM, and not barely ther representant of the costituency, so according to me it's not democratic (so irrational if we all agree with democracy) that a majority in votes doesn't correspond to a majority in seats.

First of all, that's somewhat speculative, but more importantly, no party stands any chance of winning a majority of votes anyway.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

YouGov: Con 34, Labour 29, LDem 28

[DL]

I'm hoping that the Conservative get like 1 or 2 seats more than Labour but are wayyyyy below a majority and that Labour forms a government with LibDem support - it would set a good example for what will likely happen in Canada after our next election. Anything that adds legitimacy to the the idea of the second biggest and third biggest parties ganging up on the biggest party is a good thing!

[ag]

Problem is that the ridiculous electoral system, coming right from the Middle Age, in UK, will distribute seats in a irrational way giving more seats to the labour even if it will be third.

You can make arguments against FPTP, but it is not irrational.

I think that when a voter votes, he has in mind a certain majority and a certain PM, and not barely ther representant of the costituency, so according to me it's not democratic (so irrational if we all agree with democracy) that a majority in votes doesn't correspond to a majority in seats.

First of all, that's somewhat speculative, but more importantly, no party stands any chance of winning a majority of votes anyway.

It's true this time, but the system has been fairly successful in ensuring majority governments for a long time, hasn't it? A major effect of FPTP is to reduce the number of parties: if it becomes clear that a party is third, it gets annihilated by the strategic voting. Yes, this only operates at a district level: regional parties are possible in a parliamentary system under FPTP (though not in a presidential one).  And yes, the system becomes very unstable if it is not clear, which party is the third. However, that's the beauty: the unstable situation can't last long. Identities of the major parties might change, but, long-term, their number is likely to be stable: 2.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So says the theory. And yet Britain has not had a genuine two-party system for almost forty years.

[afleitch]

Not sure if this has been posted but Angus Reid did a seat projection based on their polls. It's dated 20th April so is out of date.

Con 270
Lib 186
Labour 160

Ye caveat;

This seat projection used the national, regional and marginal results of the Angus Reid Public Opinion poll conducted from April 19 to 20 of voting intention in Great Britain. The projection puts a higher weight on regional swings and the results in a group of 150 marginal constituencies that will decide the election. Using these numbers gives more accuracy to the data and shows that the swing is not uniform across Great Britain. We believe that overall national numbers can obscure important regional trends.

[Хahar 🤔]

So says the theory. And yet Britain has not had a genuine two-party system for almost forty years.

Yeah, America's the only place I can think of off the top of my head where a two-party system has always existed, and many parts of the country have not always had two-party systems, despite FPTP.

[The Age Wave]

So says the theory. And yet Britain has not had a genuine two-party system for almost forty years.

Yeah, America's the only place I can think of off the top of my head where a two-party system has always existed, and many parts of the country have not always had two-party systems, despite FPTP.

Independents have done increasingly well in New England in recent years. Not really a party, but definitely representing something the two major parties aren't, as these independents usually sit somewhere in the middle. Examples include Weicker, Lieberman, Chafee, Cahill, and Sanders.

[Хahar 🤔]

So says the theory. And yet Britain has not had a genuine two-party system for almost forty years.

Yeah, America's the only place I can think of off the top of my head where a two-party system has always existed, and many parts of the country have not always had two-party systems, despite FPTP.

Independents have done increasingly well in New England in recent years. Not really a party, but definitely representing something the two major parties aren't, as these independents usually sit somewhere in the middle. Examples include Weicker, Lieberman, Chafee, Cahill, and Sanders.

Scattered independents have always existed, though.

[The Age Wave]

So says the theory. And yet Britain has not had a genuine two-party system for almost forty years.

Yeah, America's the only place I can think of off the top of my head where a two-party system has always existed, and many parts of the country have not always had two-party systems, despite FPTP.

Independents have done increasingly well in New England in recent years. Not really a party, but definitely representing something the two major parties aren't, as these independents usually sit somewhere in the middle. Examples include Weicker, Lieberman, Chafee, Cahill, and Sanders.

Scattered independents have always existed, though.

This isn't scattered though, it's all recent. Don't forget Angus King, too. I guess we can also throw the Vermont Progressive Party in the mix. The point is that New England currently gives us our only two Independent Senators, could possibly have two or three (three is extremely unrealistic, two is plausible) Independent Governors, and has recently supported Independents for Governor and other positions too. You don't see this in any other region in the country. Minnesota has a strong third party and so does Alaska, yes, but no other entire region is this accepting of candidates without Ds and Rs.

[Verily]

So says the theory. And yet Britain has not had a genuine two-party system for almost forty years.

Yeah, America's the only place I can think of off the top of my head where a two-party system has always existed, and many parts of the country have not always had two-party systems, despite FPTP.

Independents have done increasingly well in New England in recent years. Not really a party, but definitely representing something the two major parties aren't, as these independents usually sit somewhere in the middle. Examples include Weicker, Lieberman, Chafee, Cahill, and Sanders.

Scattered independents have always existed, though.

In fact, there was an independent or minor party governor somewhere in the country continuously from 1991 until 2003 (Lowell Weicker, Angus King, Jesse Ventura), but not since.

There was also a spate of minor party governors in the 1890s, again in the 1930s, and once more in the 1960s-70s, plus a few scattered ones elsewhere. Not really indicative of anything; politics in the Plains and Deep South weren't upended by the minor parties and independents in the 1890s, and politics in the Upper Midwest didn't diverge wildly due to the minor parties in the 1930s.

I suppose it might be a sign of the complete and utter collapse of the Republican Party in New England, except that the independents began to appear before the Republican Party collapsed in New England rather than after.

[The Age Wave]

I suppose it might be a sign of the complete and utter collapse of the Republican Party in New England, except that the independents began to appear before the Republican Party collapsed in New England rather than after.

Except, also, that Republicans have done well for the same positions in New England that Independents are likely to win. Governorships, Senate seats, and various statewide races. It's the local, machine politics aspects that the Republican Party sucks at. Jim Douglas, William Weld, Mitt Romney, Jim Jeffords (elected as Republican), Lincoln Chafee (elected as a Republican), Jodi Rell, Don Carcieri, Scott Brown, various New Hampshire politicians such as the Sununus and Judd Gregg, and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. With Dubie likely to win in VT, Baker a good shot in MA, Mills leading in ME, etc. I'd argue that the Independents elected in New England have little to do with the ineptitude of a single party and everything to do with an increasing desire to try new things.

[Hash]

Didn't know this thread was also for discussion of American politics. I suppose the rest of the forum wasn't just enough.

[ag]

So says the theory. And yet Britain has not had a genuine two-party system for almost forty years.

Note: the Duverger's Law, which says that FPTP leads to a two-party system, operates on a district level. That is, it does not say that there should be two parties nationwide: just that there should be two clear front-runners in a district. And, there is a slight qualification: if it is not clear, who are the front-runners, there may be very even three-way splits, but this situation is unstable: as soon as one of the parties gets a bit behind, it gets annihilated. In a sense, what the DL implies is that there should be lots of districts where the third candidate is far behind, sometimes several districts where the third candidate is very close to the second and first, and very few, if any, districts, where the third guy is neither negligible nor very close up there. Empirically, this is exactly what is observed, except in some transitional elections, where things get completly screwy.

Duverger's law only aggregates from the district to the national level if the population is distributed evenly. Presence of regional parties is possible - it is just that in any given region there tend to be two major parties, but their identities might vary.

The difference between the US and UK is that US has presidency. In a sense, this means that the entire country is a single district. A combination of the exclusive FPTP in legislative elections at all levels and the independently elected executive (also at all levels) is very rare - I can't think of examples other than Pakistan (not a stable democracy) and the US. That's why the two-party system is so well-established in the US, and that's why the UK is not as pure in this respect.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

YouGov/Sun: Con 34, Labour 29, LDem 29, Others 8

Sample size of 1,381, 22nd to 23rd April.

[Verily]

ICM (post-debate):

Con: 35 (+2)
LD: 31 (+1)
Lab: 25 26 (-3 -2)

(Not 100% confirmed yet.) Now confirmed, Lab on 26 rather than 25, otherwise the same as originally reported.


Also, OnePoll, for what it's worth:

Con: 32 (+5)
LD: 32 (-1)
Lab: 23 (-2)

[afleitch]

ICM (post-debate):

Con: 35 (+2)
LD: 31 (+1)
Lab: 25 (-3)

(Not 100% confirmed yet.)


Also, OnePoll, for what it's worth:

Con: 32 (+5)
LD: 32 (-1)
Lab: 23 (-2)

Ouch.

[Verily]

Correction to ICM: Labour on 26, not 25. Con/LD the same.

ComRes:

Con: 34 (-1)
LD: 29 (+2)
Lab: 28 (+3)

ComRes moves back towards everyone else.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

ICM appears to be Con 35 (+2), LDem 31 (+1), Labour 26 (-2)

And we have another ComRes... Con 34 (-1), LDem 29 (+2), Labour 28 (+3)

Both are potentially just MoE changes.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Mori... Con 36, Labour 30, LDem 23

Mori are apparently very surprised at these figures and think it might be a rogue.

[Torie]

What would a parliament look like elected with these numbers I wonder?:

Con: 32 (+5)
LD: 32 (-1)
Lab: 23 (-2)