Archive for category 2010 Election Results

This is an attempt to work out how the election results would have looked in 2010 under the Regional Top-Up system for the North East. There are 29 MPs in the North East. Under Regional Top-Up, 23 of them would be Constituency MPs and 6 would be Regional MPs.

The North East is an unusually small region, and I would recommend serious consideration being given to amalgamating it with Yorkshire & the Humber to form a large region like the North West.

It is worth remembering that the smaller parties may not have stood in every seat, so their total vote is less than it would have been under Regional Top-Up. RTU allows parties to appear on every ballot in a region, even if there is no local candidate, as long as the party has candidates in at least 1/3 of the seats. Hence the electorate would have a much more even choice across every region.

This is how the North East looked after the 2010 election:

The above table includes a column for how the number of MPs should look (roughly) under a directly proportional system. Both the Conservatives and Lib Dems are five MPs short of what their vote deserves, while Labour are massively over represented. The BNP gained a substantial share of the vote and deserved one MP.

Assumptions

Let’s assume that, after the number of constituencies has been reduced in the North East from 29 to 23, the MPs elected under FPTP are still returned in proportion to the 2010 result. That will give us 19 Labour, 2 Conservative and 2 Lib Dem MPs. The remaining 6 will be Regional MPs (RMPs).

Step 1: Add up the votes for each party

We have already done this at the top of this page; the table includes the total votes across the North East for each of the major parties.

Step 2: Create Party Lists

If this were for real we would look at all of the candidates for each party across the North East region, and list them in order of the percentage of the vote they received (grouped by party), removing those who were successfully elected. Each party should end up with a list of candidates in order of public popularity.

For example, the UKIP list would look like this (for the top five):

Step 3: Calculate the minimum percentage for an elected MP

Under a directly proportional system in the North East, we can calculate the percentage of the vote needed to get an MP elected: 100%/29MPs = 3.45% per MP.

UKIP, and every other party with a smaller fraction of the vote, is below the 3.45% minimum threshold for an MP in the North East. We can now discount all of those parties from the following calculations.

Step 4: Assign the Regional seats

We use the d’Hondt system to distribute the 6 Regional MP seats. The maths gets a little awkward to follow here, so if you aren’t interested, skip to the last couple of lines of the table below to see how the seats are distributed proportionally.

Note that we use the number of seats won under FPTP as the starting number of seats for each party. This requires an initial step to convert the total votes into the equivalent tally as if the first 23 seats had been distributed under the d’Hondt formula. For example, the Conservatives’ 282,347 votes are divided by 1 + number of seats (2), giving 282,347/3 = 94,116.

The numbers in red indicate which party gains the seat. The number in brackets indicates the number of seats held at each stage of the calculation.

This gives us a result closer to the numbers under a direct Proportional Representation scheme. The BNP missed out on their seat, but only just.

This is an attempt to work out how the election results would have looked in 2010 under the Regional Top-Up system for the North West. There are 75 MPs in the North West. Under Regional Top-Up, 59 of them would be Constituency MPs and 16 would be Regional MPs.

It is worth remembering that the smaller parties may not have stood in every seat, so their total vote is less than it would have been under Regional Top-Up. RTU allows parties to appear on every ballot in a region, even if there is no local candidate, as long as the party has candidates in at least 1/3 of the seats. Hence the electorate would have a much more even choice across every region.

This is how the North West looked after the 2010 election:

The above table includes a column for how the number of MPs should look (roughly) under a directly proportional system. The Lib Dems are, once again, eleven MPs short of what their vote deserves, while Labour are massively over represented. UKIP and the BNP deserved at least an MP each.

Assumptions

Let’s assume that, after the number of constituencies has been reduced in the North West from 75 to 59, the MPs elected under FPTP are still returned in proportion to the 2010 result. That will give us 37 Labour, 17 Conservative and 5 Lib Dem MPs. The remaining 16 will be Regional MPs (RMPs).

Step 1: Add up the votes for each party

We have already done this at the top of this page; the table includes the total votes across the North West for each of the major parties.

Step 2: Create Party Lists

If this were for real we would look at all of the candidates for each party across the North West region, and list them in order of the percentage of the vote they received (grouped by party), removing those who were successfully elected. Each party should end up with a list of candidates in order of public popularity.

For example, the UKIP list would look like this (for the top five):

Step 3: Calculate the minimum percentage for an elected MP

Under a directly proportional system in the North West, we can calculate the percentage of the vote needed to get an MP elected: 100%/75MPs = 1.34% per MP.

The Green Party, and every other party with a smaller fraction of the vote, is below the 1.34% minimum threshold for an MP in the North West. We can now discount all of those parties from the following calculations.

Step 4: Assign the Regional seats

We use the d’Hondt system to distribute the 16 Regional MP seats. The maths gets a little awkward to follow here, so if you aren’t interested, skip to the last couple of lines of the table below to see how the seats are distributed proportionally.

Note that we use the number of seats won under FPTP as the starting number of seats for each party. This requires an initial step to convert the total votes into the equivalent tally as if the first 59 seats had been distributed under the d’Hondt formula. For example, the Conservatives’ 1,038,967 votes are divided by 1 + number of seats (17), giving 1,038,967/18 = 57,720.

The numbers in red indicate which party gains the seat. The number in brackets indicates the number of seats held at each stage of the calculation.

This gives us a result closer to the numbers under a direct Proportional Representation scheme. Both of the smaller parties were given the MPs that they deserved, and the Lib Dems recouped most of their missing seats.

This is an attempt to work out how the election results would have looked in 2010 under the Regional Top-Up system for Yorkshire & the Humber. There are 54 MPs in Yorkshire & the Humber. Under Regional Top-Up, 42 of them would be Constituency MPs and 12 would be Regional MPs.

At the time of writing this, we are still waiting for the Thirsk and Malton result which was delayed due to the death of a candidate. We will assume that it will remain a Tory seat.

It is worth remembering that the smaller parties may not have stood in every seat, so their total vote is less than it would have been under Regional Top-Up. RTU allows parties to appear on every ballot in a region, even if there is no local candidate, as long as the party has candidates in at least 1/3 of the seats. Hence the electorate would have a much more even choice across every region.

This is how Yorkshire & the Humber looked after the 2010 election:

The above table includes a column for how the number of MPs should look (roughly) under a directly proportional system. The Lib Dems are, once again, ten MPs short of what their vote deserves, while Labour are massively over represented, despite the very small difference in votes between themselves and the Tories. UKIP had enough votes to justify at least one MP, and the BNP deserved at least 2 MPs.

Assumptions

Let’s assume that, after the number of constituencies has been reduced in Yorkshire & the Humber from 54 to 42, the MPs elected under FPTP are still returned in proportion to the 2010 result. That will give us 25 Labour, 15 Conservative and 2 Lib Dem MPs. The remaining 12 will be Regional MPs (RMPs).

Step 1: Add up the votes for each party

We have already done this at the top of this page; the table includes the total votes across Yorkshire & the Humber for each of the major parties.

Step 2: Create Party Lists

If this were for real we would look at all of the candidates for each party across Yorkshire & the Humber region, and list them in order of the percentage of the vote they received (grouped by party), removing those who were successfully elected. Each party should end up with a list of candidates in order of public popularity.

For example, the UKIP list would look like this (for the top five):

Step 3: Calculate the minimum percentage for an elected MP

Under a directly proportional system in Yorkshire & the Humber, we can calculate the percentage of the vote needed to get an MP elected: 100%/54MPs = 1.85% per MP.

The Green Party, and every other party with a smaller fraction of the vote, is below the 1.85% minimum threshold for an MP in Yorkshire & the Humber. We can now discount all of those parties from the following calculations.

Step 4: Assign the Regional seats

We use the d’Hondt system to distribute the 12 Regional MP seats. The maths gets a little awkward to follow here, so if you aren’t interested, skip to the last couple of lines of the table below to see how the seats are distributed proportionally.

Note that we use the number of seats won under FPTP as the starting number of seats for each party. This requires an initial step to convert the total votes into the equivalent tally as if the first 46 seats had been distributed under the d’Hondt formula. For example, the Conservatives’ 769,895 votes are divided by 1 + number of seats (15), giving 769,895/16 = 48,118.

The numbers in red indicate which party gains the seat. The number in brackets indicates the number of seats held at each stage of the calculation.

This gives us a result closer to the numbers under a direct Proportional Representation scheme. Both of the smaller parties were given the MPs that they deserved, and the Lib Dems recouped most of their missing seats.

This is an attempt to work out how the election results would have looked in 2010 under the Regional Top-Up system for the West Midlands. There are 59 MPs in the West Midlands. Under Regional Top-Up, 47 of them would be Constituency MPs and 12 would be Regional MPs.

It is worth remembering that the smaller parties may not have stood in every seat, so their total vote is less than it would have been under Regional Top-Up. RTU allows parties to appear on every ballot in a region, even if there is no local candidate, as long as the party has candidates in at least 1/3 of the seats. Hence the electorate would have a much more even choice across every region.

This is how the West Midlands looked after the 2010 election:

The above table includes a column for how the number of MPs should look (roughly) under a directly proportional system. The Lib Dems are ten MPs short of what their vote deserves, while the Tories and Labour are both considerably over represented. UKIP and the BNP both had enough votes to justify at least one MP.

Assumptions

Let’s assume that, after the number of constituencies has been reduced in the West Midlands from 59 to 47, the MPs elected under FPTP are still returned in proportion to the 2010 result. That will give us 26 Conservative, 19 Labour MPs and 2 Lib Dems. The remaining 12 will be Regional MPs (RMPs).

Step 1: Add up the votes for each party

We have already done this at the top of this page; the table includes the total votes across the West Midlands for each of the major parties.

Step 2: Create Party Lists

If this were for real we would look at all of the candidates for each party across the West Midlands region, and list them in order of the percentage of the vote they received (grouped by party), removing those who were successfully elected. Each party should end up with a list of candidates in order of public popularity.

For example, the UKIP list would look like this (for the top five):

Step 3: Calculate the minimum percentage for an elected MP

Under a directly proportional system in the West Midlands, we can calculate the percentage of the vote needed to get an MP elected: 100%/59MPs = 1.69% per MP.

The Green Party, and every other party with a smaller fraction of the vote, is below the 1.69% minimum threshold for an MP in the West Midlands. We can now discount all of those parties from the following calculations.

Step 4: Assign the Regional seats

We use the d’Hondt system to distribute the 12 Regional MP seats. The maths gets a little awkward to follow here, so if you aren’t interested, skip to the last couple of lines of the table below to see how the seats are distributed proportionally.

Note that we use the number of seats won under FPTP as the starting number of seats for each party. This requires an initial step to convert the total votes into the equivalent tally as if the first 46 seats had been distributed under the d’Hondt formula. For example, the Conservatives’ 1,044,081 votes are divided by 1 + number of seats (26), giving 1,044,081/27 = 38,670.

The numbers in red indicate which party gains the seat. The number in brackets indicates the number of seats held at each stage of the calculation.

This gives us a result closer to the numbers under a direct Proportional Representation scheme. Both of the smaller parties were given the MPs that they deserved, and the Lib Dems recouped most of their missing seats.

This is an attempt to work out how the election results would have looked in 2010 under the Regional Top-Up system for the East Midlands. There are 46 MPs in the East Midlands. Under Regional Top-Up, 36 of them would be Constituency MPs and 10 would be Regional MPs.

It is worth remembering that the smaller parties may not have stood in every seat, so their total vote is less than it would have been under Regional Top-Up. RTU allows parties to appear on every ballot in a region, even if there is no local candidate, as long as the party has candidates in at least 1/3 of the seats. Hence the electorate would have a much more even choice across every region.

This is how the East Midlands looked after the 2010 election:

The above table includes a column for how the number of MPs should look (roughly) under a directly proportional system. The Lib Dems are ten MPs short of what their vote deserves, while the Tories have 11 more MPs than they would under a pure PR system. UKIP and the BNP both had enough votes to justify an MP.

Assumptions

Let’s assume that, after the number of constituencies has been reduced in the East Midlands from 46 to 36, the MPs elected under FPTP are still returned in proportion to the 2010 result. That will give us 24 Conservative and 12 Labour MPs. The remaining 10 will be Regional MPs (RMPs).

Step 1: Add up the votes for each party

We have already done this at the top of this page; the table includes the total votes across the East Midlands for each of the major parties.

Step 2: Create Party Lists

If this were for real we would look at all of the candidates for each party across the East Midlands region, and list them in order of the percentage of the vote they received (grouped by party), removing those who were successfully elected. Each party should end up with a list of candidates in order of public popularity.

For example, the UKIP list would look like this (for the top five):

Step 3: Calculate the minimum percentage for an elected MP

Under a directly proportional system in the East Midlands, we can calculate the percentage of the vote needed to get an MP elected: 100%/46MPs = 2.17% per MP.

The Green Party, and every other party with a smaller fraction of the vote, is below the 2.17% minimum threshold for an MP in the East Midlands. We can now discount all of those parties from the following calculations.

Step 4: Assign the Regional seats

We use the d’Hondt system to distribute the 12 Regional MP seats. The maths gets a little awkward to follow here, so if you aren’t interested, skip to the last couple of lines of the table below to see how the seats are distributed proportionally.

Note that we use the number of seats won under FPTP as the starting number of seats for each party. This requires an initial step to convert the total votes into the equivalent tally as if the first 46 seats had been distributed under the d’Hondt formula. For example, the Conservatives’ 915,933 votes are divided by 1 + number of seats (24), giving 915,933/25 = 36,637.

The numbers in red indicate which party gains the seat. The number in brackets indicates the number of seats held at each stage of the calculation.

This gives us a result closer to the numbers under a direct Proportional Representation scheme. Both of the smaller parties were given the MPs that they deserved, and the Lib Dems recouped most of their missing seats.

This is an attempt to work out how the election results would have looked in 2010 under the Regional Top-Up system for the Eastern region. There are 58 MPs in the Eastern region. Under Regional Top-Up, 44 of them would be Constituency MPs and 14 would be Regional MPs.

It is worth remembering that the smaller parties may not have stood in every seat, so their total vote is less than it would have been under Regional Top-Up. RTU allows parties to appear on every ballot in a region, even if there is no local candidate, as long as the party has candidates in at least 1/3 of the seats. Hence the electorate would have a much more even choice across every region.

This is how the Eastern region looked after the 2010 election:

The above table includes a column for how the number of MPs should look (roughly) under a directly proportional system. The Lib Dems and Labour are both a whopping ten MPs short of what their vote deserves, while the Tories have nearly twice as many MPs as they would under a pure PR system. UKIP also had enough support to justify two or three MPs in Westminster, and the BNP should have one person elected.

Assumptions

Let’s assume that, after the number of constituencies has been reduced in the Eastern Region from 58 to 44, the MPs elected under FPTP are still returned in proportion to the 2010 result. That will give us 39 Conservative, 3 Lib Dem and 2 Labour MPs. The remaining 14 will be Regional MPs (RMPs).

Step 1: Add up the votes for each party

We have already done this at the top of this page; the table includes the total votes across the Eastern Region for each of the major parties.

Step 2: Create Party Lists

If this were for real we would look at all of the candidates for each party across the Eastern Region region, and list them in order of the percentage of the vote they received (grouped by party), removing those who were successfully elected. Each party should end up with a list of candidates in order of public popularity.

For example, the UKIP list would look like this (for the top five):

Step 3: Calculate the minimum percentage for an elected MP

Under a directly proportional system in the Eastern Region, we can calculate the percentage of the vote needed to get an MP elected: 100%/58MPs = 1.72% per MP.

The Green Party, and every other party with a smaller fraction of the vote, is below the 1.72% minimum threshold for an MP in the Eastern Region. We can now discount all of those parties from the following calculations.

Step 4: Assign the Regional seats

We use the d’Hondt system to distribute the 12 Regional MP seats. The maths gets a little awkward to follow here, so if you aren’t interested, skip to the last couple of lines of the table below to see how the seats are distributed proportionally.

Note that we use the number of seats won under FPTP as the starting number of seats for each party. This requires an initial step to convert the total votes into the equivalent tally as if the first 44 seats had been distributed under the d’Hondt formula. For example, the Conservatives’ 1,356,739 votes are divided by 1 + number of seats (39), giving 1,356,739/40 = 33,918.

The numbers in red indicate which party gains the seat. The number in brackets indicates the number of seats held at each stage of the calculation.

This gives us a result closer to the numbers under a direct Proportional Representation scheme. Although the result is more proportional to the vote, it does highlight one of the flaws in all top-up systems; they cannot completely rectify results that are so skewed in the first place.

This is an attempt to work out how the election results would have looked in 2010 under the Regional Top-Up system for the South West region. There are 55 MPs in the South West. Under Regional Top-Up,43 of them would be Constituency MPs and 12 would be Regional MPs.

It is worth remembering that the smaller parties may not have stood in every seat, so their total vote is less than it would have been under Regional Top-Up. RTU allows parties to appear on every ballot in a region, even if there is no local candidate, as long as the party has candidates in at least 1/3 of the seats. Hence the electorate would have a much more even choice across every region.

This is how the South West looked after the 2010 election:

The above table includes a column for how the number of MPs should look (roughly) under a directly proportional system. The Lib Dems and Labour are both five MPs short of what their vote deserves, while the Tories have 50% more MPs than they would under a pure PR system. UKIP also had enough support to justify two MPs in Westminster.

Assumptions

Let’s assume that, after the number of constituencies has been reduced in the South West from 55 to 43, the MPs elected under FPTP are still returned in proportion to the 2010 result. That will give us 28 Conservative, 12 Lib Dem and 3 Labour MPs. The remaining 12 will be Regional MPs (RMPs).

Step 1: Add up the votes for each party

We have already done this at the top of this page; the table includes the total votes across the South West for each of the major parties.

Step 2: Create Party Lists

If this were for real we would look at all of the candidates for each party across the South West region, and list them in order of the percentage of the vote they received (grouped by party), removing those who were successfully elected. Each party should end up with a list of candidates in order of public popularity.

For example, the UKIP list would look like this (for the top five):

Step 3: Calculate the minimum percentage for an elected MP

Under a directly proportional system in the South West, we can calculate the percentage of the vote needed to get an MP elected: 100%/55MPs = 1.82% per MP.

The Green Party, BNP and every other party with a smaller fraction of the vote, is below the 1.82% minimum threshold for an MP in the South West. We can now discount all of those parties from the following calculations.

Step 4: Assign the Regional seats

We use the d’Hondt system to distribute the 12 Regional MP seats. The maths gets a little awkward to follow here, so if you aren’t interested, skip to the last couple of lines of the table below to see how the seats are distributed proportionally.

Note that we use the number of seats won under FPTP as the starting number of seats for each party. This requires an initial step to convert the total votes into the equivalent tally as if the first 43 seats had been distributed under the d’Hondt formula. For example, the Conservatives’ 1,187,637 votes are divided by 1 + number of seats (28), giving 1,187,637/29 = 40,953.

The numbers in red indicate which party gains the seat. The number in brackets indicates the number of seats held at each stage of the calculation.

This gives us a result closer to the numbers under a direct Proportional Representation scheme. It ensures that the smaller parties have some level of representation, while maintaining a strong element of Constituency MPs elected under first-past-the-post.

This is an attempt to work out how the election results would have looked in 2010 under the Regional Top-Up system for the South East region. There are 84 MPs in the South East. Under Regional Top-Up, 64 of them would be Constituency MPs and 20 would be Regional MPs.

It is worth remembering that the smaller parties may not have stood in every seat, so their total vote is less than it would have been under Regional Top-Up. RTU allows parties to appear on every ballot in a region, even if there is no local candidate, as long as the party has candidates in at least 1/3 of the seats. Hence the electorate would have a much more even choice across every region.

This is how the South East looked after the 2010 election:

The above table includes a column for how the number of MPs should look (roughly) under a directly proportional system. The Lib Dems are the biggest losers under the current system, having just four MPs instead of 22. The Labour party was signficiantly penalised by the FPTP system and UKIP also had enough support to justify a significant presence in Westminster. The most disturbing figure, however, is the vastly disproportionate number of Conservative MPs in the region.

Assumptions

Let’s assume that, after the number of constituencies has been reduced in the South East from 84 to 64, the MPs elected under FPTP are still returned in proportion to the 2010 result. That will give us 57 Conservative, 3 Labour, 3 Lib Dem and 1 Green MP. The remaining 20 will be Regional MPs (RMPs).

Step 1: Add up the votes for each party

We have already done this at the top of this page; the table includes the total votes across the South East for each of the major parties.

Step 2: Create Party Lists

If this were for real we would look at all of the candidates for each party across the South East region, and list them in order of the percentage of the vote they received (grouped by party), removing those who were successfully elected. Each party should end up with a list of candidates in order of public popularity.

For example, the UKIP list would look like this (for the top five):

Step 3: Calculate the minimum percentage for an elected MP

Under a directly proportional system in the South East, we can calculate the percentage of the vote needed to get an MP elected: 100%/84MPs = 1.19% per MP.

The BNP, English Democrats, and every other party with a smaller fraction of the vote, is below the 1.19% minimum threshold for an MP in the South East. We can now discount all of those parties from the following calculations.

Step 4: Assign the Regional seats

We use the d’Hondt system to distribute the 20 Regional MP seats. The maths gets a little awkward to follow here, so if you aren’t interested, skip to the last couple of lines of the table below to see how the seats are distributed proportionally.

Note that we use the number of seats won under FPTP as the starting number of seats for each party. This requires an initial step to convert the total votes into the equivalent tally as if the first 64 seats had been distributed under the d’Hondt formula. For example, the Conservatives’ 2,140,895 votes are divided by 1 + number of seats (57), giving 2,140,895/58 = 36,912.

The numbers in red indicate which party gains the seat. The number in brackets indicates the number of seats held at each stage of the calculation.

This gives us a result closer to the numbers under a direct Proportional Representation scheme. It ensures that the smaller parties have some level of representation, while maintaining a strong element of Constituency MPs elected under first-past-the-post.

This is an attempt to work out how the election results would have looked in 2010 under the Regional Top-Up system for the London region. There are 74 MPs in London. Under Regional Top-Up, 58 of them would be Constituency MPs and 16 would be Regional MPs.

It is worth remembering that the smaller parties may not have stood in every seat, so their total vote is less than it would have been under Regional Top-Up. RTU allows parties to appear on every ballot in a region, even if there is no local candidate, as long as the party has candidates in at least 1/3 of the seats. Hence the electorate would have a much more even choice across every region.

This is how London looked after the 2010 election:

The above table includes a column for how the number of MPs should look (roughly) under a directly proportional system. The Lib Dems are the biggest losers under the current system, while the Greens, UKIP and the BNP all had enough support to justify a presence in Westminster. Labour, on the other hand, had a significantly distorted number of MPs elected in comparison to its share of the vote.

Assumptions

Let’s assume that, after the number of constituencies has been reduced in London from 74 to 58, the MPs elected under FPTP are still returned in proportion to the 2010 result. That will give us 30 Labour, 22 Conservative and 6 Lib Dems. The remaining 16 will be Regional MPs (RMPs).

Step 1: Add up the votes for each party

We have already done this at the top of this page; the table includes the total votes across London for each of the major parties.

Step 2: Create Party Lists

If this were for real we would look at all of the candidates for each party across the London region, and list them in order of the percentage of the vote they received (grouped by party), removing those who were successfully elected. Each party should end up with a list of candidates in order of public popularity.

For example, the Green list would look like this (for the top five):

Step 3: Calculate the minimum percentage for an elected MP

Under a directly proportional system in London, we can calculate the percentage of the vote needed to get an MP elected: 100%/74MPs = 1.35% per MP.

Respect, and every other party with a smaller fraction of the vote, is below the 1.35% minimum threshold for an MP in London. We can now discount all of those parties from the following calculations.

Step 4: Assign the Regional seats

We use the d’Hondt system to distribute the 16 Regional MP seats. The maths gets a little awkward to follow here, so if you aren’t interested, skip to the last couple of lines of the table below to see how the seats are distributed proportionally.

Note that we use the number of seats won under FPTP as the starting number of seats for each party. This requires an initial step to convert the total votes into the equivalent tally as if the first 58 seats had been distributed under the d’Hondt formula. For example, Labour’s 1,245,637 votes are divided by 1 + number of seats (30), giving 1,245,637/31 = 40,181.

The numbers in red indicate which party gains the seat. The number in brackets indicates the number of seats held at each stage of the calculation.

This gives us a result closer to the numbers under a direct Proportional Representation scheme. It ensures that the smaller parties have some level of representation, while maintaining a strong element of Constituency MPs elected under first-past-the-post.