Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Predicting a US election is much easier than predicting a UK election. Silver's meta-analysis is based on a collection of other polls. If those polls don't manage to estimate their (in)accuracy well enough, then the meta-analysis is also going to be flawed. The main reason why it is more difficult to predict a UK election is that in the US there are more than 10 times fewer electoral districts (for a presidential election).

Also I suspect American voters are more predictable than UK voters.

Originally posted by divegeester
Also I suspect American voters are more predictable than UK voters.

I'm not so sure about that, although the effect of voters' social circles might have more effect on voting behaviour in the US, given the lack of differences in policy proposals between the major parties.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I'm not so sure about that, although the effect of voters' social circles might have more effect on voting behaviour in the US, given the lack of differences in policy proposals between the major parties.

That may have more to do with the candidates people are being allowed to vote on.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I think this is a great idea but everyone I speak to about it says yeah but ....
there would undoubtedly be many, many problems and such a radical change
could probably only be implemented by a party with a big majority. And then
why should they?

It's certainly a radical change from the present.

However a good first step would be equally devolved government to
England, Scotland, Wales, and N Ireland. With a clearly defined separation
of powers and responsibilities between the UK government in Westminster
and the regional governments. That way we can vote [via STV] for MP's for
our regional government and the UK government on different issues which is
a start in the right direction.

DeepThought is correct that as our system currently works voting for different
policy areas would be a total mess...

However that doesn't mean that it's not possible to produce a coherent and
stable system where it does work. I can think of several, although I will admit
that there is no way in hell I'm ever going to be able to explain any of them
properly on an internet forum. So rather than take my word for it, I would say that
it should be possible for you to devise a few possible systems yourselves, as
long as you drop the idea that it's impossible to start off with. 😉

Originally posted by divegeester
Also I suspect American voters are more predictable than UK voters.

No, but the system is.

We had very accurate polling/predictions last election.
The exit poll in particular was pretty much spot on.

The reason it likely went so wrong this time is a combination of a change in the dynamic
which meant that the old models used by the pollsters were no longer valid, but they didn't
yet have the data to see by how much, or in what direction. And also that we have vastly
more seats than in the USA. The USA has 100 Senators, and 435 House reps. The UK
has 650 MP's. And, more importantly, we have many more tight races.

As what you want to predict is MP's and not proportion of the national vote, you need to
be able to forecast the results of the tight races, which means polling separately in as
many 'swing' constituencies as possible, or using complicated math to turn the national
poll data into a forecast of MP's. Polling lots of individual Constituencies is very expensive.
And the models were wrong for translating national votes into seats.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I'm not so sure about that, although the effect of voters' social circles might have more effect on voting behaviour in the US, given the lack of differences in policy proposals between the major parties.

In the US we get to choose between two candidates. I have absolutely no voice in which two people run. I'm pretty sure in the UK there are a limited number of candidates who are forced upon the population.

Originally posted by Eladar
In the US we get to choose between two candidates. I have absolutely no voice in which two people run. I'm pretty sure in the UK there are a limited number of candidates who are forced upon the population.

For King there is exactly one candidate at any one time. There is no election. More than one candidate has meant a battle almost every time it's happened in the past [1]. For the House of Lords, at the moment, we have the rather odd situation that the only elected component are the hereditary peers, where the rest of the hereditary nobility are the only voters. For the Commons there are normally around seven or eight candidates per seat. Anyone who can afford the deposit may stand. I don't think the formulation "forced on the population" captures what is happening. Frequently parties parachute candidates who do not live in constituencies into them for various reasons, but if members of the constituency are unhappy with that they can run for parliament as independents. Occasionally they get in.

[1] Richard II was deposed in favour of Henry IV without a battle.

Originally posted by Eladar
In the US we get to choose between two candidates. I have absolutely no voice in which two people run. I'm pretty sure in the UK there are a limited number of candidates who are forced upon the population.

Then maybe you should watch some UK election coverage, and see all the election
counts with all the candidates from all the parties standing.

The filter preventing anyone running for any seat [barring possibly some rules about being
a citizen and not having certain kinds of criminal record?] is having £500 for a deposit that
is returned if you get over 5% of the vote.

That's it.

If you want to run for a constituency, or form a new party to challenge for some number of them,
then you [assuming you are a UK citizen] can do that.

The problem is getting enough people to actually vote for you.


If more people did something other than just vote for the party they always voted for,
there would be much greater variety in candidates. And they would pay more attention
to the voters.

"The problem is not that we/you/they have the wrong political system. That's obvious.
It's that we/you/they have the wrong kind of people"


Bonus points to those who know where that [paraphrased] quote comes from.

Originally posted by DeepThought
For King there is exactly one candidate at any one time. There is no election. More than one candidate has meant a battle almost every time it's happened in the past [1]. For the House of Lords, at the moment, we have the rather odd situation that the only elected component are the hereditary peers, where the rest of the hereditary nobility are the on ...[text shortened]... Occasionally they get in.

[1] Richard II was deposed in favour of Henry IV without a battle.

It should be noted that unelected components of the system have little to no actual power.

What the House of Lords does [almost all the time] is scrutinise bills from a technical perspective
and find and fix errors and flaws. They don't generally oppose new laws on the merits.

And the Monarch has effectively no power at all.

The entity that actually has power and uses it is entirely elected.

Even if the system is archaic and need of overhaul.

Originally posted by DeepThought
For King there is exactly one candidate at any one time. There is no election. More than one candidate has meant a battle almost every time it's happened in the past [1]. For the House of Lords, at the moment, we have the rather odd situation that the only elected component are the hereditary peers, where the rest of the hereditary nobility are the on ...[text shortened]... Occasionally they get in.

[1] Richard II was deposed in favour of Henry IV without a battle.

Kings are appointed by those who have the money to fund the propaganda machine needed to get elected.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Then maybe you should watch some UK election coverage, and see all the election
counts with all the candidates from all the parties standing.

The filter preventing anyone running for any seat [barring possibly some rules about being
a citizen and not having certain kinds of criminal record?] is having £500 for a deposit that
is returned if you g ...[text shortened]... g kind of people"


Bonus points to those who know where that [paraphrased] quote comes from.

How many different parties have had their leaders achieve PM? Let's limit it to the past 20 years.

Originally posted by Eladar
Kings are appointed by those who have the money to fund the propaganda machine needed to get elected.

I'll let you into a little secret. The Queen wasn't elected, it's an hereditary position in the U.K.. Elected kings have been known, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was one such [1], and the Holy Roman Emperor was also elected, although it was an amazingly limited franchise.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian_Commonwealth

Originally posted by DeepThought
I'll let you into a little secret. The Queen wasn't elected, it's an hereditary position in the U.K.. Elected kings have been known, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was one such [1], and the Holy Roman Emperor was also elected, although it was an amazingly limited franchise.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian_Commonwealth

The Kings of which I speak are our political leaders.

Originally posted by Eladar
The Kings of which I speak are our political leaders.

Possibly the one who is king is the one paying the money and not the politician receiving it.

Originally posted by Eladar
How many different parties have had their leaders achieve PM? Let's limit it to the past 20 years.

First, the fact that people keep choosing the same parties doesn't mean they didn't have
the option to do something different.

And second... "Let's limit it to the last 20 years" is going to always land up with the same
few parties unless there is some great instability and turmoil going on.
Terms in the UK have typically [and recently] been 4~5 years long. [now fixed at 5, previously
seldom below 3] Which means that in 20 years you would typically only expect 4~5 elections.

Given that a popular party can win re-election and that there biggest opponent is the most
likely to take over when they loose then the most likely number of political parties in power
in that time frame is 2~3 [most likely 2]

As it turns out, in the last 20 years we have had 3 parties in government. Labour, Tory-Lib coalition,
Tory.