How Many MPs? Have a bit of fun.

[Silverbullet767]

How do you call it??

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Election/HowManyMPs

[Jasandjules]

I hope that is right. Good news if so. Though I must confess I'd like to see a few more labour seats taken by independants and lib dems, just to dilute their power.

[Silverbullet767]

You can move the sliders and create your own parliament...

For instance...

Edited by Silverbullet767 on Thursday 6th May 20:01

[tuglet]

Why is it that if cons have 36% and lab have 28% we get a hung parliament, but if your reverse those percentages we get a lab majority of 82?

[Mattt]

tuglet said:

Why is it that if cons have 36% and lab have 28% we get a hung parliament, but if your reverse those percentages we get a lab majority of 82?

Because they rigged the system in the boundary changes.

[Saddle bum]

tuglet said:

Why is it that if cons have 36% and lab have 28% we get a hung parliament, but if your reverse those percentages we get a lab majority of 82?

Because over the years ZanuLiebour have gerrymandered the bondaries.

[Crafty_]

tuglet said:

Why is it that if cons have 36% and lab have 28% we get a hung parliament, but if your reverse those percentages we get a lab majority of 82?

Because labour have spent 13 years moving the boundaries of constituencies to favour themselves...

[Jasandjules]

A number of replies to the question, all correct....... It's the lying, cheating scum doing more lying and cheating to try and stay in power.

[tuglet]

If that's true, and it's the result of boundary changes, then how the hell have they been able to get away with!!!

[Mattt]

tuglet said:

If that's true, and it's the result of boundary changes, then how the hell have they been able to get away with!!!

They've got away with a lot worse.

[Parrot of Doom]

Mattt said:

tuglet said:

Why is it that if cons have 36% and lab have 28% we get a hung parliament, but if your reverse those percentages we get a lab majority of 82?

Because they rigged the system in the boundary changes.

I've asked this a few times now but nobody has replied. Can you prove this?

[ninja-lewis]

Because the kinds of people who tend to support Labour have fairly low turnouts whereas the kinds of people who vote Tory have higher turnout. Assuming uniform equal distribution, the Tories would probably win every seat. Of course they aren't uniformly distributed - instead we have areas with more of the former (e.g. inner city constituencies) and others with more of the latter (e.g. rural constituencies). Labour will probably win the former as they have more supporters but it will be on a reduced turnout as fewer supporters of all parties bother to turn out (i.e. so they need fewer supporters to win). Meanwhile the Tories will probably win the other set of seats but because more people turnout, they need more of their supporters to win.

Basically the Tories have to work harder to win the areas they do well in compared to the effort Labour have to put in to win their seats. Go back and look at the national popular vote again, voila Tories may have higher percentage of seats than posts.

Obviously a simplification but that's generally what causes the disparity.

[tuglet]

ninja-lewis said:

Because the kinds of people who tend to support Labour have fairly low turnouts whereas the kinds of people who vote Tory have higher turnout. Assuming uniform equal distribution, the Tories would probably win every seat. Of course they aren't uniformly distributed - instead we have areas with more of the former (e.g. inner city constituencies) and others with more of the latter (e.g. rural constituencies). Labour will probably win the former as they have more supporters but it will be on a reduced turnout as fewer supporters of all parties bother to turn out (i.e. so they need fewer supporters to win). Meanwhile the Tories will probably win the other set of seats but because more people turnout, they need more of their supporters to win.

Basically the Tories have to work harder to win the areas they do well in compared to the effort Labour have to put in to win their seats. Go back and look at the national popular vote again, voila Tories may have higher percentage of seats than posts.

Obviously a simplification but that's generally what causes the disparity.

That makes sense. Would PR deliver a system where 36% of the vote gets you 36% of the seats in parliament?

[MX7]

ninja-lewis said:

Because the kinds of people who tend to support Labour have fairly low turnouts whereas the kinds of people who vote Tory have higher turnout.

I think that's a fairly antiquated view of voters from any persuasion.

[ninja-lewis]

MX7 said:

ninja-lewis said:

Because the kinds of people who tend to support Labour have fairly low turnouts whereas the kinds of people who vote Tory have higher turnout.

I think that's a fairly antiquated view of voters from any persuasion.

Like I said it's a simplification. The central fact is that Labour tend to need fewer voters to win their seats than the Tories need.