Hung Parliament

[jamesb]

Precisely. If they had the right to rule with that percentage, that means that the voices of 63.8% of the country were being ignored. What kind of democracy is that?!

 

Total percentage of the vote to labour in the 2005 election - 35.3%, so 64.7% of the country being effectively ignored.

[Mr.Ben]

For those of you who think a LibLab coalition would be the two losers, I would look at the votes:

 

Conservative 10,091,687

Labour : 8,144,932

Liberal Democrat : 6,400,096

 

(As of 9.20am).

 

So basically, a LibLab (Gorick?) government would represent around 4.5 million people more than a conservative one. Personally I'm with the 'Popular' vote.

[teejay]

36.2% of the British or English?

 

Thats the natioanl vote, in England its 40% Conservative, 28% Labour, 24% Lib Dem, with the Conservatives holding a majority by 63 seats at the moment.

[broc]

For those of you who think a LibLab coalition would be the two losers, I would look at the votes:

 

Conservative 10,091,687

Labour : 8,144,932

Liberal Democrat : 6,400,096

 

(As of 9.20am).

 

So basically, a LibLab (Gorick?) government would represent around 4.5 million people more than a conservative one. Personally I'm with the 'Popular' vote.

To be fair, a ConLib coalition would represent an even bigger 'Popular' vote......

[SteveBentley]

I'm actually fairly pleased with this outcome. The local Tory, who I think will get things done in the constituency, and would have got my vote if he wasn't a Tory got in, and it looks like a Lab/Lib coalition will form the Government. I think I've almost got what I wanted out of this election.

[featured_spectre]

I would be happy with a ConLib government, as between them they represent my views quite well! I am more worried that Gordon Brown can still stay as PM (despite it being a hung parliament!)

[broc]

Total percentage of the vote to labour in the 2005 election - 35.3%, so 64.7% of the country being effectively ignored.

 

It's more than 64.7% that were ignored.... remember these numbers are only based upon people who were able to vote & excludes those that could not or chose not to vote.

[jamesb]

It's more than 64.7% that were ignored.... remember these numbers are only based upon people who were able to vote & excludes those that could not or chose not to vote.

 

I have no sympathy for those who chose not to vote at all. I would like to see the actual percentage of spoiled ballot papers included in the stats, since these people have put in the effort to make their voice known. They do count them, as evidenced by the fact that they report the number, so why isn't this included in all of the fancy graphs we get shown?

 

I also have sympathy for those who, for whatever reason, were unable to vote.

[Silvor]

Officially a hung parliament now....

[ICT_GUY]

In Weymouth 70% of the population did not vote for our MP

[SteveBentley]

Those turned away? The polls opened at 7AM, and if that was too much trouble, there is always a postal vote! Morons.

 

That's grossly unfair. If the polling card states that the polls are open until 2200, turning up at 2130 is perfectly reasonable.

 

The affected seats where those administering the elction couldn't get their act together should be declared null and void and a by-election held.

[Mr.Ben]

To be fair, a ConLib coalition would represent an even bigger 'Popular' vote......

 

Quite right, and I would welcome it!.

 

Basically we, as a group have said that we don't want any of them in complete control!.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Mr.Ben

[sparkeh]

Those turned away? The polls opened at 7AM, and if that was too much trouble, there is always a postal vote! Morons.

 

Eh? you for real?

People were turned away due a series of cockups by the staff running the polling stations not because they are morons.

Some were turned away due to there not being enough staff to cope and some because the polling station had run out ballot papers!

If the polling station shuts at 10pm then everyone arriving before this time should get to vote. No one should have to get a postal vote because they don't trust polling station to do the job it has been tasked with, that idea is ridiculous.

[teejay]

That's grossly unfair. If the polling card states that the polls are open until 2200, turning up at 2130 is perfectly reasonable.

 

The affected seats where those administering the elction couldn't get their act together should be declared null and void and a by-election held.

 

Yes, there were some who had been queuing for over 2 hours who got turned away. There were also others who were turned away because the electoral role list hadn't been updated and other when the polling station ran out of ballot papers. Complete frace, especially as a load were first time voters, what sort of message does that send?

[Dos_Box]

That's grossly unfair. If the polling card states that the polls are open until 2200, turning up at 2130 is perfectly reasonable.

 

The affected seats where those administering the elction couldn't get their act together should be declared null and void and a by-election held.

 

I had a conversation with my wife about this before I left for work, and yes, the rules do state that the doors close at 10pm, and if you do not have a ballot paper in your hand then you can't vote. But the polling stations have been open since 07:00. If you want to vote, you ensure that you don't leave it until the last minute surely. Yes, there will be several exeptions why 'some' could not make it until 9pm, but hundreds at certain polling stations!? I'm just wondering if party activists hand been out knocking on doors and demanding that people get down to the polling stations and cast their vote in a certain way to swing marginal seats. There are quite a few complaints and investigations going on in London ATM with postal fraud being pointed at in many cases too. If true, these areas would have to go through it all again as well.

[Stuart_C]

Actaully this got massively on my nerves. When they were saying that people were queuing and were turned away they failed to mention how long they had been there. If people had turned up at 8 and been queuing for two hours then they have a point that it is unfair and something needs to be done. If everyone turned up with 5 minutes to go expecting to be able to vote then it's more their problem for leaving it to the last minute and they only have themselves to blame.

 

If the polling station shuts at 10, it SHUTS at 10. Not if you trun up before 10 then you still get to vote. We all work in schools, how many times to we tell pupil's not to leave things until the last minute!

[tech_guy]

Bunkbeds in number 10 then! How jolly! Dave can sing the rugby songs, and Gordon can do the laundry as he's good at laundering #ukelection

[Andrew_C]

I concede that those who had queued for more than, say, 30 mins are excused my Squirrely Wrath.

[Domino]

So long as they do something about electoral reform in that time, I'll be happy.

 

The proposed electoral reforms aren't much to get excited about. Yes they're suggested dissolving the house of lords in favour of a diplomatic secondary house, but its not the move towards a proportional system many were hoping for.

[jamesb]

Actaully this got massively on my nerves. When they were saying that people were queuing and were turned away they failed to mention how long they had been there. If people had turned up at 8 and been queuing for two hours then they have a point that it is unfair and something needs to be done. If everyone turned up with 5 minutes to go expecting to be able to vote then it's more their problem for leaving it to the last minute and they only have themselves to blame.

 

If the polling station shuts at 10, it SHUTS at 10. Not if you trun up before 10 then you still get to vote. We all work in schools, how many times to we tell pupil's not to leave things until the last minute!

 

Half an hour before the polls close could not reasonably be described as the last minute. Many had been queing longer than that, figures of up to four hours were quoted. In some cases people had been queing in the rain, doesn't change the facts but does show that they were actually eager to vote. When hundreds are turned away, saying that they must all have turned up with a few minutes to spare is a little unreasonable.

 

Some turned up early, saw the queues and so left hoping for a quieter period later. Then came back again, and repeat, before eventually giving in and joining the queue for an hour. After this they were turned away.

 

I agree completely that those turning up after 10pm should not be able to vote, the rules are quite clear on that, however you are suggesting that if the polling station happens to be unable to handle the number of voters, or has a rush at a certain point, or delays in clearing people to vote - essentially if there is any problem at all - then you are perfectly justified in taking away the one chance in four years that these people have to express their democratic right to vote.

[tech_guy]

Aw diddums - Jacqui Smith has lost her seat. Gravy train crashes to a halt. Husband now has to pay for his porn. #ukelection #ge2010

[sidewinder]

Agreed about no sympathy for those who were unable to vote. Well actually I have got sympathy for the few who genuinely couldnt get there at any other time and couldnt get their vote cast. But lets be honest, the vast majority of these people only have themselves to blame for leaving it so late. The polling stations are open for 15 hours, how many people work for that entire time? Very few.

Its not rocket science, the process has been the same for as long as anyone has been around. I just think people are getting stupider.

 

Another point, how on earth can you end up with long queues at a polling station anyway? If its being run efficiently, surely the turnaround is very quick, number is checked, person votes, pops it in the box, leaves. That whole process shouldnt take more than a couple of minutes at the absolute most. So perhaps theres also an issue that the problematic ones were poorly run

Edited May 7, 2010 by sidewinder

[IanT]

I would be happy with a ConLib government, as between them they represent my views quite well! I am more worried that Gordon Brown can still stay as PM (despite it being a hung parliament!)

 

I agree

[jamesb]

Agreed about no sympathy for those who were unable to vote. Well actually I have got sympathy for the few who genuinely couldnt get there at any other time and couldnt get their vote cast. But lets be honest, the vast majority of these people only have themselves to blame for leaving it so late. The polling stations are open for 15 hours, how many people work for that entire time? Very few.

Its not rocket science, the process has been the same for as long as anyone has been around. I just think people are getting stupider.

 

Very few work for that entire time, but that's irrelevant.

 

Let's assume that the majority of those who came later work standard hours. That means they finish around five o'clock. Call it a half-hour commute for them to get home, 5:30. Then it's not unreasonable for them to eat before going to the polling station, particularly if they're expected to wait a long time, call it 6:30.

 

They then get to the station at 7:00 pm.

 

I leave for work before 7 in the morning, so voting before work wasn't an option for me. I didn't get much of a lunch break, so going back and voting then was not an option. I then had to work a little late. Since I live right next door to my polling station I was lucky in that I could just stop in on my way back, plus my polling station did not have a queue. If it had done, I would have continued home, eaten, and tried again later rather than queing.

 

What, exactly, about any of the above is unreasonable or 'stupid' exactly?

 

The process is very simple. Go to polling station during the opening hours. Vote. Leave. The problem comes when queing is thrown in, and it is not unreasonable to expect that to be accounted for in the process rather than by the individuals trying to express their fundamental right to vote. Calling them stupid shows incredible ignorance and prejudice.

[teejay]

A former Libdem campaign / PR / press guy said that hung parliaments are no big deal, they happen in Europe all the time.

 

Well, he would as the Liberals benefit most from it. Also, in Europe you tend to have a larger number of mainstream parties which balances out the coalition government a bit better.

All we have here is GB held over a barrel by the SNP and Plaed Cymru.

Edited May 7, 2010 by witch
inappropriate language