U.K. General Election, 4 Jul 2024

[Kirkhill]

It depends on what you mean by representative.

Our idea of democracy is considerably more representative than it was in 1950, or 1900, or 1850, just based on who is allowed to vote.

In those earlier eras people formed clubs and associations and those clubs and associations put forward people they knew to run for office, locally, provincially and federally.

Coincidentally, in those days, sports were played by local players playing on local teams supported by local fans that employed the local players. Thus you had the Kenora Thistles winning the 1907 Stanley Cup, the Sarnia Imperials winning the 1936 Grey Cup, any of the winners of the Minto and Mann Cups, and everybody and his brother competing for the FA Cup.

Russian professionals just don't engender the same community ties.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It depends on what you mean by representative.

Our idea of democracy is considerably more representative than it was in 1950, or 1900, or 1850, just based on who is allowed to vote.

Universal suffrage is one of the stresses on the system. There are more lines along which people divide and define their interests, and the easiest path to election is to promise to satisfy each interest in a way that looks "free". The latter is probably why parties of the left have more visible unity than parties of the right - the latter are usually ideologically committed to small government, which precludes satisfying everyone and thus makes it harder to maintain a big tent. Progressives just promise to satisfy everyone in the tent and send the bills elsewhere.

 

[dimsum]

Universal suffrage is one of the stresses on the system. There are more lines along which people divide and define their interests, and the easiest path to election is to promise to satisfy each interest in a way that looks "free". The latter is probably why parties of the left have more visible unity than parties of the right - the latter are usually ideologically committed to small government, which precludes satisfying everyone and thus makes it harder to maintain a big tent. Progressives just promise to satisfy everyone in the tent and send the bills elsewhere.

Yes, it can be a stress on the system.

But, the whole point of the system is to get a govt that speaks for as many people as possible, right?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Yes, it can be a stress on the system.

But, the whole point of the system is to get a govt that speaks for as many people as possible, right?

No, in my political ideology the whole point of the system is to have a government that safeguards the rights of people so that they can speak for (and among) themselves. That emphatically does not include providing privileges to some at the expense of others, except for those whose circumstances are abject. I can't quantify "abject", but I will assert that it doesn't include whatever is defined as the middle class. Furthermore, that applies to each level of government, and I also adhere to a principle that maximum subsidiarity is preferable. The sum of that - if the "many" are simply clamouring for benefits - is that government might not be speaking for the "many", ever.

 

[Blackadder1916]

The Canadian Progressive Conservative party united left wingers and right wingers against the Liberals.

While the expression "politics makes strange bedfellows" may describe what led to the "progressive" in the Progressive Conservative Party title, characterizing it as uniting left and right against the centre (Liberals) is a stretch. The "progressive" came about because the federal Conservative Party selected as its leader, in 1942, John Bracken (Premier of Manitoba since 1922); he agreed with the proviso that "progressive" be added to the title. He had been, after all, the leader of the Progressive Party of Manitoba. It wasn't a uniting of one party with another.

Canadian "Progressive" parties (provincial as well as the odd federal band) could not necessarily be considered "leftists". Some. the party as well as some members, were. Most, however, were mainly rural based, farmer focused (though farmer political activity of the 20s to 40s did have a social tinge) with free trade being a prime element of their platforms. They wanted to sell to the Americans. Some provincial parties using the title (like Manitoba's) adopted it when the farmers unexpectedly won a majority of seats and had to form government. Bracken was very much a conservative (small "c") and in fact very anti organized labour.

At the federal level, they were also a mixed bag with varying degrees of success and alliances. As can be seen in the make up of the Commons from the 1920s though to the early 1950s.

Appendices - General Election Results Since 1867

 

[RangerRay]

One thing I find objectionable about most (all?) forms of proportional representation proposed is that they all reduce local representation. Each proposed system reduces the number of MP’s from rural areas because they either create larger and fewer ridings outside the cities, or do away with the whole concept of local representation altogether.

My MP may be a trained seal, but that trained seal is from my locality.

 

[GR66]

One thing I find objectionable about most (all?) forms of proportional representation proposed is that they all reduce local representation. Each proposed system reduces the number of MP’s from rural areas because they either create larger and fewer ridings outside the cities, or do away with the whole concept of local representation altogether.

My MP may be a trained seal, but that trained seal is from my locality.

That's why I prefer the idea of a ranked ballot for our MP's. Ensures that there's at least a 50%+ consensus in favour of the elected candidate (over the other candidates) while maintaining a direct link between a specific candidate and his/her constituency. Save Proportional Representation for the Senate.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I was looking at votes vs seats, Labour did not see a massive gain in votes, under proportional representation they would have roughly 40 seat lead as opposed to the very large lead they have now.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Let the recriminations commence

How did pollsters do in predicting the British election?​

The biggest miss since 1992​

There was no shortage of predictions about how Britain’s general election would pan out on July 4th. An enormous amount of data gathered over the six weeks of the campaign—144 national polls in all, surveying a total of 622,000 people—pointed to one outcome: a large Labour landslide. That outcome duly materialised: Labour’s seat haul of 411 seats gives it a majority of 172 in the new Parliament. Even so, the polling firms did not exactly cover themselves in glory.

An average of 17 voting-intention polls conducted immediately before election day suggested that Labour would enjoy an 18-percentage-point lead over the Conservatives. But once the ballots had been counted, Labour’s share of the vote was just 10.3 points ahead of the Tories’.

Underestimating the Conservative Party’s support and over-estimating Labour’s is an age-old problem for the polling industry. But this is the biggest miss since the election in 1992. Jane Green, a professor of politics at Oxford University and president of the British Polling Council, says it is “too soon to know why” the pollsters were off target. Even so, theories abound.

Polling firms have a torrid time anticipating who will actually bother to vote. Turnout of just 60% was the lowest since 2001. New voter-id laws that require proof of identity to cast a ballot may have had a small effect on turnout (at local elections in May 2023, 0.25% of people who tried to vote were prevented from doing so). But that is likely to have mattered much less than muted enthusiasm for Sir Keir Starmer, Britain’s new prime minister, and a high degree of confidence about the eventual result. These factors may have resulted in younger people who told pollsters they would vote Labour turning out in lower numbers than expected (or casting their votes for other parties).

How did pollsters do in predicting the British election?

The biggest miss since 1992

www.economist.com