MP's electoral reform to damage LibDems

laresTue 13/09/11 09:37

"The government has ordered the overhaul of the electoral map to save money and correct a perceived bias in Labour's favour. In a new series fact-checking the biggest stories of the day Polly Curtis, with your help, investigates whether the electoral system is fair. "

"In the new electoral map for England published today there are some clues as to whether the reforms are indeed benefiting the Conservatives. The Boundary Commission publishes the new seats area by area and there is no central attempt to summarise the impact on the individual parties. But my colleagues on the datablog have done a crude analysis here of what the 2010 result might have been with the new constituencies. They have taken the votes from the areas that have moved into the new boundaries to model the results with the new boudaries. This is only an initial analysis, because it doesn't take into account any local variations, but it is very interesting.

James Ball and Simon Rogers write:

The Labour party could have netted 14 fewer seats, the Liberal Democrats 10 fewer, while the Conservatives, who dominate England, might have lost six seats. Using these figures and the results of the 2010 general election, the exercise modelled the effects of a uniform swing from the old boundaries to new. In reality, the effect on MPs' seats is more complex to measure as voters are not spread evenly across constituencies: some areas within may heavily favour one party, others its main rival.

If these provisional figures are correct and replicated in Scotland and Wales, they suggest that Labour suffer more than the Tories and more strikingly it is the Liberal Democrats who appear to be losing disproportionately.

Put another way the Conservatives will lose 2% of their seats in England, Labour 7.3% and the Lib Dems 23.25%.

There is plenty of academic evidence of a bias in the system to back these figures up.

Professor Charles Pattie, a geographer at Sheffield University who has studied constituencies and their consequences, says that there is ample evidence that the current system does favour Labour, but that it happened by accident not design and that size of electorate is not the only factor."

http://1sq.me/n5TqBt

spexTue 13/09/11 09:39

quoting > "Put another way the Conservatives will lose 2% of their seats in England, Labour 7.3% and the Lib Dems 23.25%."

I've been following this story with interest on BBC News. Part of me says that the Lib Dems will probably lose more than 25% of their votes at the next election anyway, and part of me says that such a plan would never be fair to all parties (if you'll excuse the unintended pun).

I'm not sure that any system based on the current arrangements is absolutely fair, but we don't live in a perfect world. Is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and appropriate response in this instance? I'm not sure.

philc777Tue 13/09/11 09:46

This was always going to be a piece of gerrymandering by the tories, and this proves it.

If Nick Clegg had any balls the Lib Dems would block it.

spexTue 13/09/11 09:52

quoting > "If Nick Clegg had any balls the Lib Dems would block it."

Well, according to Nadine Dorries, he's capable of blackmailing Mr Cameron...