Interesting day in UK!
I’m without internet for now other than handheld, so please discuss and I’ll lurk.
 |
THE CORE
Fruits & Votes is the Web-log of Matthew S. Shugart ("MSS"), Professor of Political Science, University of California, Davis.
Perspectives on electoral systems, constitutional design, and policy around the world, based primarily on my research interests. Also experiences with growing many varieties of fruit (always organic) and other personal interests. Please see the Mission Statement for more. (There is also an explanation of the banner.) Other "planters" have been invited to contribute. Please check the "Planted by" line to see the author of the post you are reading.
Join the conversation. Comments are always open. Except, that is, when Word Press mysteriously shuts them down, which happens with distressing frequency. Core principles: Henry Droop on the "moderate non-partisan section" Madison on "dangers from abroad" and "the fetters... on liberty" The Head Orchardist's other sites: PRESERVED FRUIT Dikes and Votes: Consensus government and flood control The 2008 candidates on political reform More fundamental than the climate The radical middle in US democracy Canada's dysfunctional electoral system The Hamas sweep: The electoral system did it
orchard blocks
|
10 May 2010
Propagation: Seeds & scions (7) 07 May 2010
There will be no Respect in the new House of Commons. The Respect-Unity Coalition, founded by high-profile Labour defector George Galloway in advance of the 2005 election, failed to win either of the two adjoining East London constituencies that were its best shot. In Bethnal Green & Bow, Galloway rode opposition in the Muslim community to the Iraq war (as well as working class resentment over New Labour) to victory in 2005. He stood by his promise not to seek reelection to the seat, standing aside for a local, Abjol Miah. Instead, Galloway ran in Poplar & Limehouse. In both of these constituencies, Respect came in third in this election. The results give us a hint at the lower salience of the Iraq issue as well as Galloway’s own personal vote. Without Galloway, Respect fell from 36.6% in 2005 to 16.8% in 2010 in Bethnal Green & Bow. Yet that Galloway-less 2010 percentage is close to what Galloway himself won in Poplar & Limehouse this time: 17.5%. Even that was a decline, albeit a very small one, on what the Respect candidate (Oliur Rahman) had in 2005: 18.1%. So Galloway bequeathed less than half his support to his party successor, suggesting the party was utterly dependent on the “personal vote” of its leader. Yet his unimpressive performance in his new district might lead one to conclude that, with the reduced salience of the Iraq issue, the party’s “natural” support simply is in the 17-18% range, even with its outspoken leader. (No one ever claimed that disentangling party and personal voting was straightforward!) Meanwhile, in Barking, BNP leader Nick Griffin came in third (14.6%) and Labour won a stronger majority of the vote than in 2005. Propagation: Seeds & scions (3) (Revised and extended.) In the UK voting results, the top three parties’ voting percentages appear to be 36-29-23. So, let’s repeat the exercise from just before the election, based then on polling averages: how (un)common is such a close vote among the top three under first-past-the-post elections? Of 210 elections in my database (20 jurisdictions, the most recent 6-17 elections in each jurisdiction as of 2006), how many saw the first party with less than 37% of the vote and the third with more than 22%? Just four: Nova Scotia 1998 and 2003, Ontario 1975, and the last (2005) UK election. Quebec 2007 would add a fifth (and I am not aware of any others since 2006–till now.) A related question is: how often has the third party been over 22% of the vote, yet under 10% of seats (as the LibDems almost certainly will be in the final result)? The answer is eight out of twenty three, but only one of those in which the first party was under 37%. That case was UK 2005. And among the larger set of severely under-represented third parties despite 22% (or more) of the vote, we also find the 1983 and 1987 UK elections. Normally, that is, when a third party has as large a share of votes as the LibDems have won in the last two elections, that party has sufficient regional support to win a substantial share of seats. The UK, on the other hand, is unusual among FPTP systems in featuring a persistent third party that has relatively little in the way of regional strongholds. It has much of southwest England and a good presence in Scotland, but otherwise continues to run no better than second place in most of the country. And second just does not cut it under FPTP. Propagation: Seeds & scions (2) The Green Party leader, Caroline Lucas, won Brighton Pavilion. But the result was close. She won 31.3%, which was almost ten percentage points above the party’s 2005 result, but less than three percentage points ahead of the Labour contender. The Conservative candidate won 23.7%. Propagation: Seeds & scions (7) (Updated.) A little while ago, Brown made his first post-election statement, saying he respects Clegg’s decision to talk first to Cameron, but making clear he is not resigning for now, and offering a referendum on electoral reform as part of a potential coalition with the LibDems. Just under an hour later, Cameron made his statement (available at the same “live blog” link as Brown’s). After trumpeting the size of the swing from Labour to Conservative, he acknowledged coming up short and needing to work with parliament. He explained what a set of “confidence and supply” agreements with “other parties,” but also made–surprisingly, to me–an offer of a “comprehensive agreement” with the Liberal Democrats. This agreement would have to respect the Tories’ rights to implement most of their manifesto, he maintained, but it would also allow the LibDems to implement some of theirs. Cameron reiterated his preference for FPTP, but also acknowledged that other parties had “their ideas” and offered an “all-party enquiry” on the electoral system. He never used the word “coalition” but the possibility that LibDems holding positions was certainly implied. A statement from Clegg is expected imminently. Or maybe not. Apparently he never made the statement originally planned (according to BBC TV) for about 2:40. Rather, the party issued a statement (according to the same live blog linked above):
Propagation: Seeds & scions (3)  Along the Royal Mile, Edinburgh, Scotland Propagation: Seeds & scions (0) For those so inclined, there are many psephological photos at the Flikr site, in addition to those appearing on the F&V front page. Propagation: Seeds & scions (0) So the exit polls released at 10:00 last night, which appeared a bit implausible at the time, seem to have been about right. The Conservatives are likely to be just over 300, Labour between 250 and 260, and the LibDems under 60. Is it possible for every party to lose an election–every major party that is? Presumably David Cameron has been closely studying Stephen Harper, and will try to do as much as he can with a plurality of seats, treading carefully while also daring the opposition to vote down bills deemed to be matters of “confidence” and force a new election. On the other hand, Gordon Brown remains PM and indications are he will try to make a deal with Nick Clegg and the LibDems. Clegg appeared to throw cold water on the idea earlier this morning, reiterating his statement during the campaign that a party that has the most seats and votes should be given a chance. Of course, a chance is not a guarantee; his statement appeared to leave open other possibilities if he does not like what Cameron has to say to him. Then again, maybe Cameron won’t have much to say to Clegg. It looks to me as if the small regional parties are the only real “winners.” Cameron may talk to them first about gaining at least their abstention on a budget and Queen’s Speech. I am not sure that deals between one national party and a set of regional parties would be very good for British democracy. Maybe it’s even the worst possible outcome, other than Labour having come third in votes and first in seats, as several projections a couple of weeks ago implied. On the other hand, Spanish democracy works relatively well with a big national party dealing selectively with regional parties. Maybe that’s the real “doing something different” that will come out of this election. The price demanded by such parties, such as the Northern Ireland DUP, might not be very high for a national plurality party to pay–concessions on budgets and authority for the regional governments, for example.* Of course, the current economic situation might make even the relatively low price too high to pay, at least politically. Another winner is the Green Party. Even if they have only one seat (Brighton Pavilion), Caroline Lucas, currently an MEP, will be the first UK Green MP. That’s one more seat for the potential “progressive coalition” that Brown would like to stitch together. Such a coalition would have more seats than the Tories (apparently), and a majority of the votes. But would it be progressive or regressive? It would be a coalition centered on two parties that took substantial steps back in seat totals (though the Liberal Democrats apparently gained about a percentage point in votes on their 2005 share). And it, too, would need to deal with regional parties. Another possibility might be a formal opposition agreement between Labour and the Liberal Democrats to serve as an alternative government-in-waiting, and which would try to legislate some of its priorities over the heads of the Conservatives, while letting Cameron’s team put in place (and pay the expected political price for) most of its budget plans. Electoral reform via an opposition majority? That would be a strange and interesting outcome! Not that I am predicting or betting on it… We will not know right away who will be PM, but the safe money remains on Cameron as head of a single-party minority cabinet. Update (9 May, 11 a.m. UK time): Later in the day, Friday, Cameron implied he would pursue a formal coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Talks are ongoing as of Sunday, though it will remain a difficult agreement to pull off.
Propagation: Seeds & scions (4) Note: link below fixed When we arrived in the flat we are renting, which is in the Hampstead and Kilburn constituency, there was a campaign flier that had been dropped through the mail slot. (One of the advantages of staying not only in a marginal district, but also in a residential area.)  This is the perfect campaign flier for a FPTP parliamentary campaign! The biggest type on the front emphasizes that the candidate, Chris Philp, is “a local leader.” The captions on the photos below show Chris “leading the televised Demo to save local Police Stations,” campaigning to save an emergency stroke unit, keeping “the 10 O’Clock Club open,” and “Helping out on Mitzvah day 2009.” At the same time, the top of the flier clearly emphasizes the national impact of the vote in this district. Philp is the Conservative candidate, and he offers a local echo of national leader David Cameron’s regular admonition: “The LibDem candidate here has said he’d back Brown in a hung Parliament.” In any case, we are told, the LibDem can’t win here (though the fine print admits that’s based on local results in the 2008 London Assembly election, not assessment of the current race nor the 2005 Westminster result). In reality this constituency was seen as a strong potential LibDem pick-up–more on that below. On the back of the flier, the top has the obligatory photo of Chris with his wife, and only at the bottom does it refer to policy, while also returning to the critical national admonition, “VOTE LIB DEM — GET GORDON.” These themes encapsulate FPTP parliamentary contests–in marginal seats, that is. The candidate needs to emphasize his or her local credibility and personal credentials, due to seeking to win votes as an individual who would be solely representing a specific area. Yet just as much, the national picture matters to voters, given the dependence of the executive on the legislative majority. In the result, Glenda Jackson (the retired actress) was reelected as Labour MP in a “landslide” of 42 votes over Philp. It was an extremely tight race, with the three top candidates separated by 841 votes (1.6%). Propagation: Seeds & scions (1) It is almost 1:30 a.m. here. Exit polls are suggesting at least 300 seats for the Conservatives, short of a majority by 20-some seats. However, the LSE Election Experts suggest that, based on swings in early-declaring seats, the Conservatives could be much closer to majority status–maybe past it. We will not know for a while. The surprise so far is projections that the LibDems may have suffered a net loss of seats. What happened? That, too, will not be clear for a while. Comments are open… Propagation: Seeds & scions (31) 06 May 2010
 Propagation: Seeds & scions (0) 05 May 2010
 Cameron/Tory posters along Finchley Road in the Hampstead and Kilburn constituency on the north side of London. Across the street is the office of the campaign of Tamsin Omond for MP (warning: link may not be suitable for all readers).  Propagation: Seeds & scions (2) Who could have imagined? Propagation: Seeds & scions (1) Today–one day before UK election day–the UK Polling Report average of polls shows the Tories on 35%, Labour on 28%, and Liberal Democrats on 27%. Needless to say, this would not be an outcome that matches Duverger’s Law, were it to materialize in the actual voting. But just how uncommon would such a result be? In the database I assembled for my chapter in the edited volume by Andre Blais, To Keep or Change First Past the Post, I have 210 elections under FPTP. These include three or four decades worth of elections from the UK, Canada, New Zealand (before it changed from FPTP), India, Botswana, all but the smallest Caribbean island states, Belize, and all Canadian provinces. In these 210 elections, how many saw the largest party have less than 36% and the third party have more than 25%? One. Nova Scotia, 1998. (In the comments, Joffré reminds me that there has been one more since the period for which I collected data: Quebec in 2007. And it’s the best example of all, with the three parties ranging from 33.1% to 28.3% of the vote!) If we expand the band a bit further, to something that might be more reflective of the final result (just a hunch, not a prediction), to less than 38% for the first party and still over 25% for the third, we pick up just two more: Nova Scotia 2003* and Ontario 1975. In all of these three, the top two parties were within two percentage points of one another, whereas in the UK election it is likely that the second and third parties will be closer than the top two. Each of these three produced a no-majority situation (a hung or balanced parliament): The top two parties tied in seats in Nova Scotia 1998, while in 2003 the leading party (Conservative) won 48% of the seats on 36% of votes (whereas the Liberals managed 23% on 31%). In Ontario 1975 the Conservatives and Liberals were 41%-29% on seats despite being 36%-34% on votes. In none of these did the third largest party by votes gain more than 30.4%, or less than 26.9% of seats. This election almost surely will see the third party do considerably better or worse than that. If the third party in votes is Labour–still a distinct possibility–it will almost certainly obtain over a third of the seats.** If it is the LibDems, the third party is likely to have not much more than 15% of seats. (Earlier projections that had Labour third in votes but first in seats no longer look likely, but such a result certainly remains imaginable.) Looks like a lot of us over here will be staying up rather late on Thursday. ______ ** In addition to UK Polling Report, see Politics Home. On the other hand, FiveThirtyEight is projecting Labour on 198 seats, which would match the 30.4% won by the third-place NDP in Ontario in 1975. (The FiveThirtyEight projections for the LibDems are on the high side–currently 113.) Travel note: This was composed and uploaded somewhere south of Preston, on a train between Glasgow and London. Nice countryside (despite that junkyard we just passed), and farther north we saw lots of itty bitty lambs. Propagation: Seeds & scions (11) 04 May 2010
Democracy International, a DC-area contractor that implements democracy assistance programs around the world, late last month released 34 “Consensus Recommendations for Electoral Reform in Afghanistan.” According to the report, these 34 items are “the major points of consensus among Afghan civil society organizations, international observer missions, assistance organizations, and independent election experts.” Notable actors included various UN bodies, ANFEL, the local AREU, various EU groups, IFES, NDI, the OSCE, and so forth. If you want to see all 437 recommendations that those groups made, visit DI’s Afghanistan website. Recommendation number one:
Afghanistan clearly does not host a model party system. Yet I wonder whether the ‘strong’ parties that might result from more party-centric electoral rules would be all that great. If, for example, closed-list PR turns divided societies’ elections into “national identity referenda,” would programmatic coherence and party discipline be such great ideas? It’s nice to see consensus emerging on some form of system that retains a role for the personal vote, whether through an SNTV tier as alluded to above, or maybe through OLPR, as belatedly used in Iraq. This is because I believe that most voters prefer moderates to extremists. Therefore, when a country’s best organized political leaders are extremists, institutions should be used to diminish their control over ballot access and rank. The verdict on this theory, of course, is still out, but I’m working on it. Propagation: Seeds & scions (9) |
FRUIT FEEDS
PROPAGATION
Recent comments.
CROSS-POLLINATION
FRUITS
The Fruit Blog (Fruit & fruit breeding)
Comparative democracy Electoral Panorama World Elections African Elections Database M. Herrera's Electoral Calendar Electoral Geography (Data archive) Michael Gallagher's data archive Election Finance (Blog, data archive) IFES Election Law (Rick Hasen) VoteLaw (Edward Still) Ballot Access News Electoral and Political Reform The FairVote Blog (US)
Blogs of political analysis PoliBlogArms and Influence (dormant) Outside the Beltway Political Science Weblog (abstracts) Ideological Cartography (Adam Bonica) Frontloading HQ (Josh Putnam) FiveThirtyEight Vote View (Keith Poole) The Monkey Cage A Plain Blog About Politics (Jonathan Bernstein) Political Arithmetik (dormant) Polls & Votes Pollster.com Polysigh Reflective Pundit Rustbelt Intellectual Simon Jackman The semi-presidential one Josep Colomer Chapel Hill Treehouse (dormant) Political Behavior (dormant) Dart-Throwing Chimp Countries at the Crossroads (Freedom House blog) Jacob T. Levy REGIONAL ANALYSIS
The Mace
Centre for European Politics
Bloggings by boz
Informed Comment Global Affairs
Frozen Garlic (Taiwan elections) OTHER SOCIAL SCIENCE BLOGS
Crooked Timber
CURRENT MOON NEWS ORGANIZATIONS Center for Voting and Democracy Californians for Electoral Reform SCION EXCHANGE
Bloggers who link or comment here (if not listed elsewhere on this page)
Afbau Ost HARVESTS
If by my laws you walk, and my commands you keep, and observe them,
May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005
ORCHARD SERVICES F&V time: This blog's date function is so set as to start a new day at approximately local sunset. (Why, if we have "day" and "night," should a new "day" start in the middle of the night?) FRUITS: Support your local, organic growers; and, plant vines and fig trees and pomegranates for the generations to come...
VOTES: For democratization and full representation, for environmental sustainability, social justice, and peace, always sincerely... |