A thought.... provoked by filklore_on_lj

[fleetfootmike]

What percentage of the folks who don't vote in a supposedly 'sure' seat don't vote because they don't think voting against the clear favourite will make any difference?

What if they all voted?

Comments

[armb.livejournal.com]

> What if they all voted?

Then the ones who didn't bother voting because their preferred candidate was going to get in anyway would all vote too, and it almost certainly still wouldn't make any difference.

I'm going to vote anyway.

[fleetfootmike.livejournal.com]

But you're effectively assuming that the spread of folks who don't vote is the same, or near the same, as those who do.

My contention is it potentially isn't.

[armb.livejournal.com]

No, my contention is that it is almost certainly not so different that it would change the result in somewhere seen as a safe seat.
(If you can come up with some method of persuading those who don't bother because it's a lost cause without also persuading those who don't bother because it's a done deal, then it would make a difference even if the spread was the same. In that case, I'd also like a pony.)

[fleetfootmike.livejournal.com]

I'd like a pony too. I just haven't given up on the possibility of getting one.

[aunty_marion]

I'm in a split borough, with a fairly sure-seated MP, and have voted tactically.

[billroper]

Then the Chicago Democratic Machine would "find" more votes for the person in the 'sure' seat.

Oh, wait! This is your election we're talking about. :)

(After the last census, I was gerrymandered from a safe Republican district to a safe Democratic district. The old Republican district is now a block away from my home and somewhat less safe than it was. Of course, it's still worth voting in other races, but U.S. House is a joke.)

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

We have had some boundary changes in England, which makes prediction a little harder, but we have enough constraints on how the boundary changes are done that gerrymandering isn't an issue, in the way that US maps of district boundaries suggest it is.

[plaid-dragon.livejournal.com]

We got moved, apparently to balance population disparities in districts to try to keep the numbers even. What's amusing is some of the candidates haven't worked this out so I have friends who have been leafleted by candidates from both districts.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Evidence from Aylesbury:

Name               Party                Votes    %       +/-
David Lidington Conservative            27,736  52.2    +3.8
Steven Lambert  Liberal Democrat        15,118  28.4    -0.4
Kathryn White   Labour                   6,695  12.6    -5.7
Chris Adams     UK Independence Party    3,613   6.8    +2.3

Turnout was up 5.8% at 68.2%, those who gained were the right (Tory and UKIP), LD and UKIP lost share.

[plaid-dragon.livejournal.com]

75% turnout. 47.4% tory, 34.1 % liberal, 10.2% labour.

Voting against the clear favourite would have made a difference if they had turned out and voted liberal. If the votes had been split between liberal, labour and others it wouldn't have made any difference. If you assume that the people who don't vote are likely to have a distribution weighted in favour of the underdog, we'd have got the same result with slightly different numbers.

[rickbooth.livejournal.com]

I keep seeing polls to the effect that if everybody who agrees with "I would vote Liberal if I thought they had a chance" actually did vote Liberal they'd win a clear majority. Hey ho.

I did vote in my safe seat, as I always do, and it made just as much difference as it always has.