The United Kingdom Elections 2010

**a completely inoffensive name** · 05-07-2010, 06:10

Originally Posted by JAG

Wow I am tired, spelling and grammar are out of the window.

My analysis is sound though.

I don't know who you are JAG, but I really hope your analysis is right. I may be an American, but the UK election is critical not just toward future policy of my countries biggest ally but also a judgment on the future of PR in England. One more country that switches away from first past the post (which the US uses as well) to PR or a single transferable vote is more ammo for Americans here to make the push against the traditionalists in favor of the Electoral College.

**Crazed Rabbit** · 05-07-2010, 07:00

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I don't know who you are JAG, but I really hope your analysis is right. I may be an American, but the UK election is critical not just toward future policy of my countries biggest ally but also a judgment on the future of PR in England. One more country that switches away from first past the post (which the US uses as well) to PR or a single transferable vote is more ammo for Americans here to make the push against the traditionalists in favor of the Electoral College.

You are aware that the Electoral College is only used for Presidential elections? And you can't proportionally represent a president.

Whatever happens, Labour's corrupt and irregular Constitutional arrangement is what needs to be changed.

For a non-UK resident, what does this mean?

CR

**Beskar** · 05-07-2010, 07:18

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

For a non-UK resident, what does this mean?

CR

He is effectively saying that Labour have a corrupt arrangment, because where they do the best (The North), they all vote Labour/Libdem/etc and not Conservative. Is it equal to complaining that the Bible Belt always vote Republican.

**CountArach** · 05-07-2010, 07:18

The Greens gaining an MP is astounding, truly astounding.

**Beskar** · 05-07-2010, 07:24

Originally Posted by CountArach

The Greens gaining an MP is astounding, truly astounding.

They are most likely going to get another, Gina Dowding, Fleetwood & Lancaster constituency. Posters by them everywhere.

**CountArach** · 05-07-2010, 07:29

Originally Posted by Beskar

They are most likely going to get another, Gina Dowding, Fleetwood & Lancaster constituency. Posters by them everywhere.

I doubt it - the Tories have far too high a vote share there to overcome. The Greens need a 25/25/25/25 situation in order to stand a chance, such as happened in the seat they won. They don't have enough voters to be able to win anything beyond that.

**a completely inoffensive name** · 05-07-2010, 07:21

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

You are aware that the Electoral College is only used for Presidential elections? And you can't proportionally represent a president.

Sigh. Yes, I'm not an idiot. The Electoral College still uses the First Past the Post system, in that who ever gets the most votes in the state, whether it be 45, 40 or even 30 percent gets the entire state. It's a broken system that has allowed people who have not won the popular vote to win the presidency, most recently in 2000. My point is that if Britain gets rid of the First Past the Post it will be easier to push for removing the Electoral College since it implements the same thing on the state level (with the exception of...Nebraska and Maine I think). It doesn't even matter if it is replaced with PR or anything else, I just want to see that system gone. PR is just my favorite voting setup so I always prefer to talk about that, although yes I guess it would be not applicable for the presidency, a simple majority vote with maybe a single transferable vote would do for that.

Do you really think im that dumb CR? Or do you just get a kick out of asking people a question as if they have no clue about what they are talking about?

**Crazed Rabbit** · 05-07-2010, 07:38

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Sigh. Yes, I'm not an idiot. The Electoral College still uses the First Past the Post system, in that who ever gets the most votes in the state, whether it be 45, 40 or even 30 percent gets the entire state. It's a broken system that has allowed people who have not won the popular vote to win the presidency, most recently in 2000. My point is that if Britain gets rid of the First Past the Post it will be easier to push for removing the Electoral College since it implements the same thing on the state level (with the exception of...Nebraska and Maine I think). It doesn't even matter if it is replaced with PR or anything else, I just want to see that system gone. PR is just my favorite voting setup so I always prefer to talk about that, although yes I guess it would be not applicable for the presidency, a simple majority vote with maybe a single transferable vote would do for that.

Do you really think im that dumb CR? Or do you just get a kick out of asking people a question as if they have no clue about what they are talking about?

Calm down. I figured you knew about it, I was wondering why you thought that way, and trying to explain the situation to all the British reading this thread.

And the electoral college system is working as designed; so that candidates have to pay attention to all the states and can't just pander to large groupings of people.

Anyway, it seems that the Tories won't get a majority, but from the numbers on the BBC, it'll be very hard for Labor and the Lib-Dems to get a majority together.

CR

**a completely inoffensive name** · 05-07-2010, 07:45

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Calm down. I figured you knew about it, I was wondering why you thought that way, and trying to explain the situation to all the British reading this thread.

And the electoral college system is working as designed; so that candidates have to pay attention to all the states and can't just pander to large groupings of people.

Anyway, it seems that the Tories won't get a majority, but from the numbers on the BBC, it'll be very hard for Labor and the Lib-Dems to get a majority together.

CR

Yeah, that last post seemed a bit harsh. Sorry, CR. Hmmm, I would have to disagree with you about the electoral college working as designed. I was planning on making a thread about the electoral college, I'll do that tomorrow.

I'll check the final results tomorrow. It's obvious I need to relax and get some sleep. Sorry again CR.

**drone** · 05-07-2010, 08:11

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

And the electoral college system is working as designed; so that candidates have to pay attention to all the states and can't just pander to large groupings of people.

Actually, the "winner take all" method most states use means presidential candidates focus on battleground states, and ignore the obvious red/blue states for the most part. There are districts in Texas that Dems could win, and districts in Cali and New York that the GOP could win, but what's the point with the current system? If states moved to the Maine/Neb system, presidential candidates would be more active throughout the country during the campaign, and it would even out the rural/urban divide.

Anyhoo, back to the UK...