The Clegg phenomenon and the 2010 UK Election

[Elentári]

President Obama rang to congratulate David Cameron half an hour ago...

William Hague and George Osborne have both been confirmed as Freign Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer, respectively...

but rumours are abounding on BBC News 24 that Nick Clegg may be confirmed soon as Deputy Prime Minister

[Elentári]

Downing Street has just confirmed that Nick Clegg is to be Deputy Prime Minister...Tory sources are hinting that there will be four other LibDem cabinet ministers....

...and Liam Fox is confirmed as Defence secretary.

[Inanna]

Interesting ride. Reminded me a lot of Indian politics - all the coalitions and who will be the PM, Deputy PM questions.

[vison]

But deputy PM is not the same as VP. Not at all.

[Padme]

This election reminds me of Florida's hanging chads.

[Túrin Turambar]

This election reminds me of Florida's hanging chads.

There were issues with the voting, but the results were basically above-board.

[Elentári]

Quite right, L_M...whether enough people were disenfranchised to affect any results has not become apparent yet.

The Electoral Commission has launched a review of what happened. It has asked members of the public who were unable to cast their vote because of queues at polling stations to let them know about their experiences via an official internet survey.

It aims to publish an interim report by the end of the next week, with the full report due to follow in July.

The Commission itself does not have the power to overturn election results, or order a re-run. The onus is instead on voters to launch a legal challenge.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ ... 8666653.st

In the meanwhile, Britain is left facing the fact that the party with the least share of the votes, and which actually lost seats, is to dictate the terms of government...while many are predicting the coalition will fail, the longer term implications are a concern.

One of the advantages of the first-past-the-post system is that the nation can comprehensively dismiss an unsatisfactory government, such as Labour in 1979 and the Tories in 1997. Coalitions are harder to get rid of - they just break up and re-form. Effectively the pogramme will become dominated by the smallest party in negotiations, and it makes it much harder to effect any very great change in direction.

[Padme]

Actually the results weren't above board, it was decided by the Florida courts....in a State whose governor was the brother of the 'newly' elected President. Gore won the popular vote, i.e. he had more votes than Bush.

[Aravar]

Actually the results weren't above board, it was decided by the Florida courts....in a State whose governor was the brother of the 'newly' elected President. Gore won the popular vote, i.e. he had more votes than Bush.

Lord M was talking about the UK, not Florida.

[Túrin Turambar]

Actually the results weren't above board, it was decided by the Florida courts....in a State whose governor was the brother of the 'newly' elected President. Gore won the popular vote, i.e. he had more votes than Bush.

Lord M was talking about the UK, not Florida.

Yes.

One of the advantages of the first-past-the-post system is that the nation can comprehensively dismiss an unsatisfactory government, such as Labour in 1979 and the Tories in 1997. Coalitions are harder to get rid of - they just break up and re-form. Effectively the pogramme will become dominated by the smallest party in negotiations, and it makes it much harder to effect any very great change in direction.

That’s an advantage of single-member districts more than an advantage of first-past-the-post. The Single Transferable Vote (Instant Runoff Voting in the U.S., Preferential Voting in Australia) generally gives stable majorities as well. The Australian House of Representatives uses the system, and it hasn’t seen a Hung Parliament since the 1940s (admittedly it is frequently governed by a Liberal-National Coalition, but the parties work so closely together on a Federal level they’re virtually one).

There’s a rumour flying around (one of many, by the looks of it) that suggests that David Cameron has offered Nick Clegg proportional Representation in the House of Lords. It’d be surprising, although we’ve had no shortages of surprises from Cameron and Clegg of late. It’s a highly workable idea, though.

I honestly didn’t expect a full Coalition. Still, while I’ve learned not to be cautious about politics I can’t help but feel optimistic at this moderate and broad left-right Coalition Government led by two out-of-the-mould leaders. And while fairness doesn’t factor in politics, it seems like a fair outcome – the Coalition partners between them won a majority of votes and seats, and the Coalition is led by the largest party in the Commons and the one that saw the biggest gains in the election.

This is quite a significant event – the first Conservative government in 13 years, and the first time the Liberals have been in Government since the wartime coalition that ended in 1945. It’s also only the second change of government in the U.K. in my lifetime – Britain runs on very long electoral cycles.

[Elentári]

Something else worth mentioning is that the new government has announced that five-year fixed-term parliament has been introduced to help guarantee stability. Previously the government could choose to go to the Country for re-election before their alloted five-years was up, usually if and when they felt public opinion, etc would be favourable.

The only way to remove a government before the five years is up will be in a vote of confidence backed by 55% of MPs.

[Túrin Turambar]

I don’t like the idea of fixed terms for Parliaments, much less five-year terms. It was always part of the Westminster model that a government could go to the electorate earlier to gain support for key legislation, or to try and win a majority in its own right. And five years is an awfully long time, particularly when it’s a doomed government limping through it (as we saw in the last term). There’s persistent pushes change the Australian Federal Parliament from three- to four-year terms and I’m not even sold on that idea.

[Elentári]

http://www.express.co.uk/cartoon/view/2010-05-13

[Inanna]

I don’t like the idea of fixed terms for Parliaments, much less five-year terms. It was always part of the Westminster model that a government could go to the electorate earlier to gain support for key legislation, or to try and win a majority in its own right. And five years is an awfully long time, particularly when it’s a doomed government limping through it (as we saw in the last term). There’s persistent pushes change the Australian Federal Parliament from three- to four-year terms and I’m not even sold on that idea.

But L_M, you can imagine the disruption that would exist if we didn't have fixed terms. Polls are expensive and if any party can call a poll at any point of time, a government would be too scared of passing any necessary but unpopular legislation. And it would be unstable. I think 4-5 years is fine, it usually takes longer for the results of one administration's policies to get results.

[Aravar]

But L_M, you can imagine the disruption that would exist if we didn't have fixed terms. Polls are expensive and if any party can call a poll at any point of time, a government would be too scared of passing any necessary but unpopular legislation. And it would be unstable. I think 4-5 years is fine, it usually takes longer for the results of one administration's policies to get results.

But its not a case of any party being able to call a poll at any time. It is the government that has the power, being a prerogative power of the Crown to dissolve Parliament. A dissolution can only occur in three circumstances:
(i) The government chooses it.

(ii) The government falls on a confidence issue and is replaced by a new government which chooses to dissolve

(iii) the government falls and no government can be formed.

[vison]

I believe it does make the ruling party somewhat more accountable to the voters.

The current premier of BC promised, when he was elected, to call an election after 4 years since he "believes" in fixed terms. He did it, but it was pretty clear he didn't want to. It was one promise he had to keep.

[nerdanel]

This is fascinating to me, as an outsider:

Per Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kin ... on_records

Longest period without a general election

The longest possible duration of a Parliament is currently five years. All period of six years or more between general elections are listed:

10 years: 1935 - 1945
8 years: December 1910 - 1918
6 years: 1812 - 1818
6 years: 1820 - 1826
6 years: 1841 - 1847
6 years: 1859 - 1865
6 years: 1868 - 1874
6 years: 1874 - 1880
6 years: 1886 - 1892
6 years: 1900 - 1906

[edit] Shortest period between general elections

All period of less than a year between general elections are listed:

7 months: November 1806 - June 1807
7 months: November/December 1885 - July 1886
8 months: September 1830(?) - April/May/June 1831
8 months: February - October 1974
10 months: December 1923 - October 1924
11 months: January - December 1910

[edit] Longest period without a change in government

The longest continuous Conservative government was in office for almost 18 years, between 4 May 1979 and 2 May 1997.

The longest continuous Labour government was in office for over 13 years, between 2 May 1997 and 11 May 2010.

The longest continuous Liberal government was in office for over 9 years, between 5 December 1905 and 25 May 1915.

The longest continuous coalition government was in office for almost 14 years, between 24 August 1931 and 26 July 1945, although its components changed significantly during that period.

It sounds as though the days of very long periods between elections have mostly ended, due to the prescription of the Parliament Act 1911 that Parliament's longest possible duration is five years. But it also seems that, as a matter of practice, very short periods between elections are uncommon, which would tend to minimize the concern about disruption. On the other hand, it seems as though in a coalition situation that is inherently unstable (as this one potentially is), the lack of fixed terms allows the government to go to the voters sooner if needed to bring a stalemate.

Not being a political science scholar, I wonder if this suggests that a (1) two-party country can do well with fixed terms, because one party will almost certainly have a majority* and can govern during the term in question; but (2) a three-party-or-more country may benefit from the flexibility of indefinite terms, within reason (e.g. with a five year cap such as the UK's). Thoughts?

* Though I guess, theoretically, a two-party system could still have, say, 48 members of one party, 48 of another, and 2 independents, in a 100-member body.

[Túrin Turambar]

Not being a political science scholar, I wonder if this suggests that a (1) two-party country can do well with fixed terms, because one party will almost certainly have a majority* and can govern during the term in question; but (2) a three-party-or-more country may benefit from the flexibility of indefinite terms, within reason (e.g. with a five year cap such as the UK's). Thoughts?

Frequently Parliaments that run on fixed terms still have an opt-out if no-one can form a government.

As an example, every Australian State save Queensland runs its Parliaments on fixed four-year terms, and all have some sort of escape clause allowing for an election if a Government cannot be formed. This system seems to work well in States with stable two-party systems, as well as Tasmania, which uses proportional representation in its lower house and has a sort-of three-party system as a result.

The main reason people seem to call for fixed terms is to take some of the government’s power away and guarantee more certainty. After all, being able to choose the date of the election can give the Prime Minister or Premier an advantage. Nevertheless, I still like the idea of the government being able to seek a new mandate on a particularly difficult question, or to call an early election to try and win a majority from a minority.

As a final note, minor parties aren’t always as keen to force elections as you might think, even when they do hold the balance of power. Canada has now had four years of minority Conservative Government with one election in the middle in 2008. The three left-leaning parties hold a majority of seats between them, but none see any real advantage to bringing the Government down.

Though I guess, theoretically, a two-party system could still have, say, 48 members of one party, 48 of another, and 2 independents, in a 100-member body.

Then it would have 98 members .

But yes, that can happen. Generally not in larger Parliaments, like the British House of Commons, but occasionally in smaller ones like Australian State and Canadian Provincial Parliaments. For example, by-election in 1996 left the Queensland Parliament split 44-44-1. I remember learning about what a Hung Parliament was for the first time in my Grade 4 class when it did.

[Lidless]

I remember doing an analysis of the block votes for the US electoral college many moon ago. I've also recently done the same for shareholders at work.

Voting power is not as straight forward as one might think and there has been much mathematical research on this by the likes of Banzhaf, Shapley and Shubik, all of whom concluded that the power of a voter was not simply proportional to their percentage of the votes they can cast. Here are a few simple examples to illustrate the point.

Example 1
A simple example would be where there are three shareholders. A and B both hold 49 shares and C holds 2 shares. In terms of voting power, each has 33.3% because it requires any two of them for a majority (LM's post above in effect).

Example 2
Suppose there are four shareholders. A, B, and C each own 26% and D owns 22%. Any majority must have at least two out of A, B and C. Whether D votes for or against is irrelevant. D cannot swing a majority unless at least two of the others have voted in favour – which is already a majority. D, therefore, has no voting power, whilst the others each have 33.3%.

Example 3
Suppose there are four shareholders. A owns 40%, B 30%, C 20% and D 10%. This example is a little trickier. The groups that can form a majority, with the swing votes underlined, are AB, AC, ABC, ABD, ACD, BCD, ABCD. There are twelve swing votes then, and A has 5 of them. Thus their voting power is 5/12. Despite B and C having different holdings, they both have the same voting power of 3/12 - 25%.

When voting in Parliament each MP can vote aye or nay despite whatever his party wants - it is not block voting. However, if it were then it becomes quite interesting. Taking all the parties we get the following for the top 3:

Seats
47% Conservative
40% Labour
9% Lib Dem

But voting power...
35% Conservative
22% Labour
22% Lib Dem

...which is much closer to how the nation voted:
36% Conservative
29% Labour
23% Lib Dem

[axordil]

Thanks for sharing that, Lidless. It sounds perilously close to discrete mathematics, which is one of those topics I used to love poking around in.