For that matter, possibly because I already knew about how Owen opposed the merger and was forced out, when I first read about that I assumed I'd misread or it was written the wrong way round.....
OTL Election maps resources thread
- Thread starter Thande
- Start date
It's looking good
With the Lib Dems, it's been interesting to watch the way the wards have fell. Most of the more urban wards had been already taken by Labour, in areas where the Lib Dems where the only opposition (as we can't vote Tory TM) while in the wealthier, more suburban areas the Lib Dems have held on for longer but have been swept away on a General Election turnout. While I think that the Lib Dems haven't got a chance of regaining those urban wards, in places like Stockport will they be able to bounce back in 2016?
Thande
Donor
Got bored again
Used your colouring pattern, Thande.
Oh, very nice!
I knew the collapse of the UCD was dramatic after the attempted coup, but wow.
Yeah, but it wasn't because of the coup. Voters tend to dislike when parties backstabs their leader into resignation while fighting a civil war within the party. The UCD must be one of the few cases of a party losing an election because of internal fights when they were leading the polls before the internal fight started. It was ridiculous, which is why nowadays Spanish parties hide their internal differences.
And yes, 1982 was quite something, a collapsed UCD, an unelectable AP and a country with desire for change and the PSOE promising that with them "A España no la reconocerá ni la madre que la parió" (Spain won't be recognised even by the mother that gave birth to her, sounds vulgar) as Alfonso Guerra stated all added up to the PSOE obtaining 202/350 seats and 48% of he vote.
Thande
Donor
More great work. Why did CiU do so well in 1994, or was it more that the PSOE did badly?
IIRC, it was indeed PSOE doing badly: European elections attract less, usually angrier people to vote and 1994 was a very bad year for PSOE: GAL, Roldán (the chief of the Guardia Civil was caught in deep corruption scandal, took a plane and ran way from Spain to avoid investigation) and many corruption scandals throughout the early 90s.
I find the province of Ávila particularly interesting (it's the only one that voted for CDS, so green, next to Madrid), it is consistently the most conservative province of Spain, alongside Segovia, with around 60+% of votes for the PP in every election but it fell for the CDS because Suárez was from there, to a large degree. Also, because the CDS had a nice tactic (until it blew up on their faces) on attacking the PP from the right on rural areas and the PSOE from the left in urban ones. For instance, in 1987, it was amidst a crisis in the AP/PP and with CDS seen as a potential successor to lead the right-wing, that vote splitting gave Segovia to the PSOE, an unusual feat indeed. PSOE got 29%, PP got 25% and CDS got 23%. It's like one of those British elections where the slightest plurality gives one a seat. But in Spanish European elections, the whole country is a single constituency so it didn't matter that much at the time. It was just something curious.
EDIT: I might try and do the maps for the 1977, 1979, 1986 and 2004 referendums, but I don't know if it's worth it. In the first two, the Yes vote stood around 85-95% depending on which, so I don't know if I should bother.
Here's something I've had lying about half-finished for a very long time, but which I was reminded of earlier today: a map of the last Norwegian election under FPTP, in 1918.
The Norwegian single-member election system was a bit eccentric, however: originally, most members were elected through an indirect system involving each parish sending representatives to a constituency electoral meeting, which in turn decided on a representative to send to the Storting in Christiania (as Oslo was still known). This system was gradually abolished over the course of the 19th century, replaced by a two-round direct election system, under which the voters would vote directly for their representative, who would win election if given a majority of votes - otherwise a rematch would be held under straight FPTP, and the candidate with most votes in this would be declared elected.
Constituencies were defined as either rural (landdistrikter) or urban (bykretser), and by law, rural districts had to be overrepresented to a certain degree. This meant a large advantage for the Liberal Party (Venstre), whose support base was mainly rural, whereas the Conservatives (Høyre) languished in eternal opposition. The Labour Party (Arbeiderpartiet) were on the up-and-up during this period, like their counterparts across Europe, and in the 1918 election they received the largest voteshare of any party at 31.6% - however, partly due to their support base being underrepresented and partly due to "anti-socialist alliances" formed by the main two parties in the second round of the election, they ended up with only 18 of the 126 seats. Meanwhile, Venstre obtained 28.3% of votes and 52 seats, and Høyre received 30.4% of votes and 39 seats. Frisinnede Venstre, a Venstre splinter consisting of evangelicals and urban businessmen, formed an electoral pact with Høyre in this election, and obtained ten seats. The party system was rounded out by the Peasants' Alliance (Norges Bondelag), a predecessor to the modern Centre Party, who received 4.7% and three seats, and the Workers' Democrats (Arbeiderdemokratene), a weird "non-socialist workers' party" consisting of Georgists and similar "this could only have been a thing at the turn of the century" groups, who stood candidates mainly in Oppland, winning three of the five rural seats in that county on 3.3% of the national vote.
This election saw no party or bloc come close to a majority of seats, and with the realisation that the party system was broken came a desire for constitutional reform. The next election, held in 1921, featured a proportional election system for the first time in Norwegian history.
The Norwegian single-member election system was a bit eccentric, however: originally, most members were elected through an indirect system involving each parish sending representatives to a constituency electoral meeting, which in turn decided on a representative to send to the Storting in Christiania (as Oslo was still known). This system was gradually abolished over the course of the 19th century, replaced by a two-round direct election system, under which the voters would vote directly for their representative, who would win election if given a majority of votes - otherwise a rematch would be held under straight FPTP, and the candidate with most votes in this would be declared elected.
Constituencies were defined as either rural (landdistrikter) or urban (bykretser), and by law, rural districts had to be overrepresented to a certain degree. This meant a large advantage for the Liberal Party (Venstre), whose support base was mainly rural, whereas the Conservatives (Høyre) languished in eternal opposition. The Labour Party (Arbeiderpartiet) were on the up-and-up during this period, like their counterparts across Europe, and in the 1918 election they received the largest voteshare of any party at 31.6% - however, partly due to their support base being underrepresented and partly due to "anti-socialist alliances" formed by the main two parties in the second round of the election, they ended up with only 18 of the 126 seats. Meanwhile, Venstre obtained 28.3% of votes and 52 seats, and Høyre received 30.4% of votes and 39 seats. Frisinnede Venstre, a Venstre splinter consisting of evangelicals and urban businessmen, formed an electoral pact with Høyre in this election, and obtained ten seats. The party system was rounded out by the Peasants' Alliance (Norges Bondelag), a predecessor to the modern Centre Party, who received 4.7% and three seats, and the Workers' Democrats (Arbeiderdemokratene), a weird "non-socialist workers' party" consisting of Georgists and similar "this could only have been a thing at the turn of the century" groups, who stood candidates mainly in Oppland, winning three of the five rural seats in that county on 3.3% of the national vote.
This election saw no party or bloc come close to a majority of seats, and with the realisation that the party system was broken came a desire for constitutional reform. The next election, held in 1921, featured a proportional election system for the first time in Norwegian history.
Last edited:
Alex Richards
Donor
Sounds rather like the Lib Dems there, running Liverpool and Harrogate at the same time.
You mean CDS? Yes, but without the localist aspect. You know how they say that all politics are local? That doesn't apply to Spain. With the exception of the historical regions, all politics, even local politics are national, with the exception of a few regional hot button issues, like water transfers.
Thande
Donor
Very nice. "Liberal Left Party, cooperating with Conservatives" - that's almost on the same level as Spain's Monarchist-Republican Party
The indirect system you describe sounds rather like how France used to do it.
I think Scottish districts of burghs used to do something similar as well.Very nice. "Liberal Left Party, cooperating with Conservatives" - that's almost on the same level as Spain's Monarchist-Republican Party
The indirect system you describe sounds rather like how France used to do it.
Thande
Donor
Technically yes I suppose. It was an electoral college when you think about it.
Anyway, couple of updates for the North East:
Gateshead - a relatively good result for the Lib Dems, holding their three wards from 2011 and coming close to retaking a fourth. Labour of course remain very dominant in an overwhelming way not seen in e.g. Sheffield or the second council of this post where they rarely win with over 50% of the vote - in Gateshead they pass 50% more often than not. UKIP were second in most of the Labour wards, but a very distant second, and didn't have a full slate (whereas the Greens did). It's still visible on the map how the Labour red shades are noticeably lighter than 2011, though still very safe (and general election turnout affects that too). The ward on the right hand tip had no UKIP candidate, note how much darker the Labour shade is. The Lib Dems still seem quite organised here and had a full slate, despite doing very poorly outside their target wards. In one ward a Continuity Liberal did very well, easily outpacing the Lib Dem and coming second behind Labour.
Hartlepool - one of the more surprising results of the election was that the UKIP candidate in Hartlepool came within eight percent of winning the seat. Though Hartlepool had seen a couple of UKIP council wins in 2014, it certainly wasn't thought more favourable than e.g. Boston and Skegness, yet on the night it was closer! We've heard a lot about UKIP cutting into Labour's core vote, but Hartlepool is one of the rare examples where Labour's majority was actually smaller than 2010 because of UKIP coming second, rather than UKIP coming second but more distantly than the Tories or Lib Dems did in 2010. One might imagine this would mean good things for UKIP on the council level, but in fact their support appears so evenly dispersed that they just fell short in a number of wards, the closest being the one where they were beaten by an independent. Also the Lib Dems are now completely absent, in contrast to Gateshead.
Thande
Donor
Two more North East updates.
North Tyneside is the Tories' best area in Tyne and Wear, but Labour overperformed this time and took all but two of the Tory wards. The Lib Dems have nearly collapsed here even compared to recent years and only contested three wards - two of them, including their incumbent one, they rather cheekily used their alternative ballot description of 'Focus Team'. I notice the Tories used 'Local Conservatives' consistently in one of the earlier councils I did (Gateshead I think).
South Tyneside, a better area for Labour anyway, saw the remarkable feat of a Labour wipeout (or 'redwash') with them winning every ward. Several of these were listed on the council website as 'gains from UKIP' so I think UKIP must have had some defectors, perhaps from the independents elected in 2011. UKIP performed fairly well in some wards but didn't come close to winning any and didn't have a full slate, whereas the Greens and Tories did. There were no Lib Dem candidates at all here, reflecting the parliamentary candidates losing their deposits (I will have to see if I can correlate those factors to produce a map of Lib Dem geographic party breakdown).
Speaking of the South Tyneside council website, it does something I've never seen done before - it lists turnout by polling station area and separates out postal votes from in-person votes. This shows that even wards with a 40-50% in-person turnout had a 75-80% postal turnout. I do wonder sometimes what elections would be like if postal voting was the default and everyone was mailed a ballot automatically, though I know Iain has pointed out many problems with the current postal voting system. Anyway, that's a good website, pie charts and everything, shame it's not for a more politically diverse council. Hartlepool by contrast has a rubbish website, it's just a series of scans of the physical declaration document.
Also the South Shields constituency illustrates the limitations of the majority shading system - it looks like a significant decline in the Labour majority for Lewell-Buck compared to Miliband, but it's actually a case of a majority that was just over 30% in 2010 and just under 30% in 2015, so a boundary (haha) issue. Lewell-Buck first got the seat when Miliband went off to join Thunderbirds in 2013, and the majority over UKIP for the by-election was about 26%, so it wasn't actually that different to the general two years later.
North Tyneside is the Tories' best area in Tyne and Wear, but Labour overperformed this time and took all but two of the Tory wards. The Lib Dems have nearly collapsed here even compared to recent years and only contested three wards - two of them, including their incumbent one, they rather cheekily used their alternative ballot description of 'Focus Team'. I notice the Tories used 'Local Conservatives' consistently in one of the earlier councils I did (Gateshead I think).
South Tyneside, a better area for Labour anyway, saw the remarkable feat of a Labour wipeout (or 'redwash') with them winning every ward. Several of these were listed on the council website as 'gains from UKIP' so I think UKIP must have had some defectors, perhaps from the independents elected in 2011. UKIP performed fairly well in some wards but didn't come close to winning any and didn't have a full slate, whereas the Greens and Tories did. There were no Lib Dem candidates at all here, reflecting the parliamentary candidates losing their deposits (I will have to see if I can correlate those factors to produce a map of Lib Dem geographic party breakdown).
Speaking of the South Tyneside council website, it does something I've never seen done before - it lists turnout by polling station area and separates out postal votes from in-person votes. This shows that even wards with a 40-50% in-person turnout had a 75-80% postal turnout. I do wonder sometimes what elections would be like if postal voting was the default and everyone was mailed a ballot automatically, though I know Iain has pointed out many problems with the current postal voting system. Anyway, that's a good website, pie charts and everything, shame it's not for a more politically diverse council. Hartlepool by contrast has a rubbish website, it's just a series of scans of the physical declaration document.
Also the South Shields constituency illustrates the limitations of the majority shading system - it looks like a significant decline in the Labour majority for Lewell-Buck compared to Miliband, but it's actually a case of a majority that was just over 30% in 2010 and just under 30% in 2015, so a boundary (haha) issue. Lewell-Buck first got the seat when Miliband went off to join Thunderbirds in 2013, and the majority over UKIP for the by-election was about 26%, so it wasn't actually that different to the general two years later.
Last edited:
Thande
Donor
And here's the final Tyne and Wear council, Sunderland.
On the face of it a very good result for Labour, taking out an independent and two of the Tories' three seats. Their majorities pale slightly elsewhere though due to the rise of UKIP; Sunderland has always been a place where there is a substantial Tory vote below the surface, and now it is fighting it out with UKIP for second place, each party having strength in different parts of the borough.
Although the Lib Dems didn't have much presence here even ten years ago, they had nearly a full slate which got nowhere. I suppose it depends on how organised the party is locally as well as how much chance they've got.
As there are a neat three parliamentary seats with no overlaps I could compare the total vote for Parliament and for the council, and actually the two were very similar for most parties, except some people voted Tory for Parliament and Lib Dem for the council.
Now on to Teesside, which (aside from Hartlepool which we've covered) uses all-ups rather than elections in thirds.
On the face of it a very good result for Labour, taking out an independent and two of the Tories' three seats. Their majorities pale slightly elsewhere though due to the rise of UKIP; Sunderland has always been a place where there is a substantial Tory vote below the surface, and now it is fighting it out with UKIP for second place, each party having strength in different parts of the borough.
Although the Lib Dems didn't have much presence here even ten years ago, they had nearly a full slate which got nowhere. I suppose it depends on how organised the party is locally as well as how much chance they've got.
As there are a neat three parliamentary seats with no overlaps I could compare the total vote for Parliament and for the council, and actually the two were very similar for most parties, except some people voted Tory for Parliament and Lib Dem for the council.
Now on to Teesside, which (aside from Hartlepool which we've covered) uses all-ups rather than elections in thirds.
Thande
Donor
This thread seems a bit quiet lately...
Moving on to the all-ups in Teesside, we've got Darlington and Stockton-on-Tees.
Darlington the borough saw a noticeable swing to the Tories this election (really it's more that both Labour and the Tories gained on their previous voteshare, but the Tories gained more). Perhaps surprisingly on a parliamentary level this did not manifest itself in Darlington the town which has been a swing seat in the past, but in the surrounding constituency of Sedgefield (AKA Tony Blair's former constituency); his successor Phil Wilson's majority, though still comfortable, noticeably paled. On the council level the Tories topped the poll as they previously did in 2007, but Labour kept control on a wrong-winner result. The Lib Dems managed to hold onto three of their five seats (though NB boundary changes reduced the total number of councillors, making comparisons difficult); one of their victories was due to the Tories not having enough candidates, as there was a substantial gap between the lone Conservative and the first of the two Lib Dems. In fact there were quite a few gaps in everyone's slate in Darlington except Labour, I think the Tories didn't see a surge in support coming and so failed to take advantage of it.
Stockton-on-Tees saw a lot of attention (as Veej told us) as Stockton South was a key swing seat in the election; in the end the Tories increased their majority there. The main story of the council election was Labour (rather than the Tories this time) burning out independent groups, though a fair number of them survived the general election turnout. No idea where the two new unaffiliated independents near the top of the map came from, they're not deselected incumbents. The Lib Dems were knocked down to one seat here, remaining competitive in the more urban of their two former wards but suffering a collapse to third place in the rural one.
The Greens had at least one candidate in every ward in both of these, while UKIP's candidacies were much spottier. There were also candidates from the North East Party, one of those rash of devolutionists that has shot up since the Scottish referendum, and the Libertarian Party, who seem to exist only so the BBC can mention them when discussing American politics.
Moving on to the all-ups in Teesside, we've got Darlington and Stockton-on-Tees.
Darlington the borough saw a noticeable swing to the Tories this election (really it's more that both Labour and the Tories gained on their previous voteshare, but the Tories gained more). Perhaps surprisingly on a parliamentary level this did not manifest itself in Darlington the town which has been a swing seat in the past, but in the surrounding constituency of Sedgefield (AKA Tony Blair's former constituency); his successor Phil Wilson's majority, though still comfortable, noticeably paled. On the council level the Tories topped the poll as they previously did in 2007, but Labour kept control on a wrong-winner result. The Lib Dems managed to hold onto three of their five seats (though NB boundary changes reduced the total number of councillors, making comparisons difficult); one of their victories was due to the Tories not having enough candidates, as there was a substantial gap between the lone Conservative and the first of the two Lib Dems. In fact there were quite a few gaps in everyone's slate in Darlington except Labour, I think the Tories didn't see a surge in support coming and so failed to take advantage of it.
Stockton-on-Tees saw a lot of attention (as Veej told us) as Stockton South was a key swing seat in the election; in the end the Tories increased their majority there. The main story of the council election was Labour (rather than the Tories this time) burning out independent groups, though a fair number of them survived the general election turnout. No idea where the two new unaffiliated independents near the top of the map came from, they're not deselected incumbents. The Lib Dems were knocked down to one seat here, remaining competitive in the more urban of their two former wards but suffering a collapse to third place in the rural one.
The Greens had at least one candidate in every ward in both of these, while UKIP's candidacies were much spottier. There were also candidates from the North East Party, one of those rash of devolutionists that has shot up since the Scottish referendum, and the Libertarian Party, who seem to exist only so the BBC can mention them when discussing American politics.
Alex Richards
Donor
Well, you know why I've not been able to add any new ones myself recently. An interesting set of patterns there- the Lib Dems really are varying a lot council by council. I'll try and finish Notts by Sunday.
. An interesting set of patterns there- the Lib Dems really are varying a lot council by council. I'll try and finish Notts by Sunday.