@Dunkelzahnspeak @DianaFire@SandraPidgeon3 @Tapezukie @danxwho I don’t even particularly like Labour. I really hate people misusing numbers to try and make a point when things make their analysis meaningless though.
@Dunkelzahnspeak @DianaFire@SandraPidgeon3 @Tapezukie @danxwho You literally didn’t read my last messages. Seats matter because *by definition* only seats matter at the moment. If a system where voter share is the deciding factor were introduced, then you can use voter share to judge parties. Until then, your analysis is flawed.
@Dunkelzahnspeak @DianaFire@SandraPidgeon3 @Tapezukie @danxwho There’s no way of knowing how the outcome would be different if a different sort of campaigning were incentivised, where seats didn’t matter but voter share did.
@Dunkelzahnspeak @DianaFire@SandraPidgeon3 @Tapezukie @danxwho Money or effort there. You’re better off spending it in a seat you can win. So the voter share in the unwinnable seat drops. But when the system punishes going for maximum share, using vote share to judge parties is flawed, because…
@Dunkelzahnspeak @DianaFire@SandraPidgeon3 @Tapezukie @danxwho Please keep things to one thread at the end of my 3rd reply to stop this becoming impossible to follow
@Dunkelzahnspeak @DianaFire@SandraPidgeon3 @Tapezukie @danxwho Would fight in every seat. But that won’t get you as many seats, as you only have finite resources. Given that maximising voter share is at odds with winning the election, you can’t use it as a metric for assessing how much of a mandate people have.
@Dunkelzahnspeak @DianaFire@SandraPidgeon3 @Tapezukie @danxwho Under the current system, there’s no point spending time and effort in a seat you can’t win. It’s most efficient to put resources in to seats that are closely fought. Which means that voter share drops in seats that you can’t win. If you wanted to get highest vote share, you…