User:RodCrosby/QPR2: Difference between revisions
→Not PR: text
(→Not PR: text) |
|||
Line 172:
Of the thirteen elections since 1974 FPTP produced 10 overall majorities and 3 hung parliaments. Simulations indicate that the outcomes under PR squared would have been 7 and 6 respectively. It's worth noting that, due to long-term changes in the operation of FPTP in the UK, since 2010 the ratio of majority to hung parliaments has been even, and the current Opposition Labour party faces an unprecedented challenge to secure a majority at the next UK election.
===Not PR===
PR-Squared does not explicitly seek close proportionality, although simulations indicate that it goes a lot further towards that outcome than FPTP.
Moreover, PR-Squared can deliver more proportional outcomes than some supposedly PR systems! For example, the Welsh Additional Member System has produced Gallagher Indexes of disproportionality in excess of 10% in four out of six elections since 1999. Simulations suggest that PR-Squared would have delivered Gallagher Indexes of '''''less''''' than 10% in nine out of thirteen elections for the UK parliament since 1974.
===Declarations===
While simulations indicate that around 60% of the seats would be declared individually, throughout election night, just as under FPTP, the final allocation of seats would not be made until all votes are counted, when it would occur practically instantaneously. However a clear indication, especially for smaller parties, would become apparent long before the conclusion of counting, and computer forecasts would no doubt be continuously updated, similarly for most electoral systems including FPTP.
| |||