Date: 2010-05-10 11:08 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pseudomonas.livejournal.com
What happened to the Lib Dem vote: the Lib Dem vote share went *up* (compared to last general election), but not by as much as expected by pretty much anyone. The number of *seats* went down, but that's the quirks of our much beloved FPTP system &c. &c.
Edited Date: 2010-05-10 11:09 am (UTC)

Date: 2010-05-10 11:41 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sigmonster.livejournal.com
Lib Dem votes went up by about 900,000, significantly more than 10%. (Labour votes declined by 900,000, a little less than 10%; Tories were up by 2 million, or getting on for 25%!)

The increased turnout, and the fact that Lib Dems are starting from a low base compared to the other two large parties, kept the share of vote low despite that dramatic increase in total votes.

This is why uniform swing is an appallingly bad way of visualising voting patterns.

Date: 2010-05-10 11:45 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pseudomonas.livejournal.com
I think the correct measure is vote share, not vote number, since turnout didn't stay constant. We can have a good argument as to whether percentage change in base vote or absolute point change is the right measure. The thing is, by any measure people haven't been deserting the Lib Dems compared to last time, but not all the voters have been living in the right places for their votes to count.

I shan't even get into boundary changes *cough* Oxford West *cough*

September 2025

S M T W T F S
  123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 2nd, 2025 11:15 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios