Re: David Owen

In article <dr17gs$1lq$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Adam Gray <adam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote, in part:
> There's only one reason why seats are safe, and I happen to think
> it's quite important: it's because a majority - often a big
> majority - of voterss in that area want to be represented by the
> party who wins.

This is correct. If, as has been suggested in this thread, a party
is popular in an area but the sitting MP isn't, then the effect of
this has always been (in my experiemce) a significant reduction in
that MP's majority -- it drops at every election.

This is definitely noticed by the constituency party, and if the
situation doesn't improve the next time, then -- for fear of losing
a safe seat -- the party will make it clear that they be looking for
a different candidate. If the following election results are even
worse, the sitting MP is unlikely to be re-selected.

None of this should be surprising. After all, it isn't as if we are
just starting a new system -- we've been working this way for
decades, and know how it all works and why.

I hate to have to say this, but it does look very much as though the
PR advocates here are trying all manner of spurious arguments in an
attempt to make their case look valid. The words look good, and in
certain situations might even have a benefit (though always a
trade-off), but overall it would be dangerous *for this country* to
change to anything that has as yet been proposed as an alternative.

It is perhaps sad in a way that there clearly isn't (yet) a valid
case for change after all, especially as I had hoped that a workable
new system might come out of all this brainstorming that would make
everyone at least reasonably happy, would be completely transparent,
and still ensure that people's votes stayed where the voters had
wanted them (i.e. no "transfers").

For those who don't like our present system, I was reminded of the
way it operates while watching the snooker last night. In that
match -- as in all snooker matches it is the number of frames won
that counts, not the number of points overall or the total number of
balls potted.

In any one frame, a full clearance is, in the context of the match,
no more valuable than a one-point win over one's opponent.
Therefore the higher point-scorer isn't necessarily the winner of
the match, but all the participants and the audience know the rules,
so no-one ever challenges the result on the basis of points scored.

We can clearly see the analogy with seats and votes, with each
political constituency being the equivalent of a snooker frame: it
is self-contained as far as its own score is concerned, and the one
factor of that score -- who won -- is counted towards the overall
match (election) score as to who wins the contest as a whole.

Not exactly rocket science, as they say these days...

Although conventionally there are only two participants in a snooker
match (or, sometimes, teams of doubles) there is no technical reason
why there couldn't be more, and it would work in the same way. I
mention this in case some bright spark claims that this factor
invalidates the analogy -- it doesn't.

Indeed, with that particular boot on the other foot, even if there
were only two political parties in contention in Britain, the winner
of fewer votes could still end up with more seats.

Therefore, any attempt to cloud the way elections are held is to be
rejevted. No amount of snooth-talking verbiage from politicians
with their own interests at heart (as they would always be perceived
by the public at large to have, which was my "devil's advocate"
reason for stating this factor to Matthew Huntbach recently) will
give the voting public confidence in any new system that is not
completely straightforward and obvious.

Fiddle formulae, transferring votes and other (to the person in the
street) odd practices will not wash -- they will surely reject such
a system and I'd expect turnout to plummet -- at least after the
first time, when any novelty factor would have worn off. I believe
that experience in other countries has already shown this to happen,
though I leave it to those here with more comprehensive records than
I to quote facts and figures if they so choose.

Hopefully this will finally put this whole issue to bed, unless and
until sometime finds a way that is better than both what we
currently do for general elections (and other FPTP elections) and
the deficient alternative(s) propounded by some here to date.

--
John M Ward - see http://www.horsted.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Conservative Councillor for Rochester South & Horsted ward, Medway
* Oppose electoral fraud, especially through postal votes
* Scrap the ODPM, SEERA, and the Standards Board for England
* Return all local decisions to local people
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Well B****r Me
    ... Interesting you chose seats rather then votes because we all know ... that, thanks to those dodgy boundaries, Labour enjoyed a 6% advantage ... in the last election before a single vote had been cast. ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Re: Conservatives take control of South Ayrshire
    ... >> At the 2003 election, the Conservatives got 3280 votes more than ... >> Labour (for the same number of seats). ... >> clear majority of the votes cast, which party do you say should ... > Can I sign you us to the Electoral Reform Society now then? ...
    (uk.politics.electoral)
  • Re: Well B****r Me
    ... million votes - if the Tories had moved just a little bit ... interesting to see their manifesto for the next election. ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Re: OT The US 2nd Amendment
    ... and next week there was an election there is no reason why his rels couldn't ... those overseas at election time. ... I can confidently state that none of my votes ever changed anything, ... I've always lived in a "safe seat" for one or other party. ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: Well B****r Me
    ... When you look at actual votes, Cameron would have had a majority ... The Tory and Labour vote dropped by 6 and 1/4 million since 1979. ... interesting to see their manifesto for the next election. ...
    (uk.railway)