Aberdeenshire UA, Aboyne, Upper Deeside and Donside
Con 1144 (31.5; -18.3)
LD 969 (26.7; +0.6) 
Ind 842 (23.2; +23.2)
SNP 617 (17.0; -3.1)
BNP 44 (1.2; +1.2)
Ind 19 (0.5; +0.5)
Turnout 43.7%

Result of stage 4
Con 1241
LD 1180
Ind 1003
Non-transferable 211

Result of stage 5
Con 1468
LD 1566
Non-transferable 601

LD won on the 5th stage
LD gain from Con
Percentage change is since May 2007


Highland UA, Inverness West
LD 1503 (59.6; +34.5)
SNP 556 (22.0; -6.8)
Lab 210 (8.3; -7.7)
Christian People's Alliance 115 (4.6; +4.6)
Con 111 (4.4; -2.5)
Solidarity 27 (1.1; +1.1)
[Ind (0.0; -23.2)]
Turnout 38.3%
LD gain from Ind
Percentage change is since May 2007

Redbridge LBC, Wanstead
Con 1300 (37.3; -5.6)
LD 1030 (29.6; +17.9)
Lab 694 (19.9; -7.7)
Green 256 (7.3; -10.5)
BNP 171 (4.9; +4.9)
UKIP 33 (0.9; +0.9)
Majority 270
Turnout 40.7%
Con hold
Percentage change is since May 2006

Waverley BC, Alfold, Cranleigh Rural and Ellen’s Green
Con 429 (64.3; -5.9)
LD 238 (35.7; +13.5)
[Ind (0.0; -7.6)]
Majority 191
Turnout 45.1%
Con hold
Percentage change is since May 2007

Wycombe DC, Totteridge
LD 733 (54.1; +36.5)
Con 408 (30.1; -10.9)
Lab 214 (15.8; -25.6)
Majority 325
Turnout 31%
LD gain from Lab
Percentage change is since May 2007

Erewash BC, Derby Road West
Lab 696 (39.0; +6.7)
Con 584 (32.7; -12.7)
LD 301 (16.9; -5.4)
BNP 205 (11.5; +11.5)
Majority 112
Turnout not known
Lab gain from Con
Percentage change is since May 2007

Immingham TC, Bluestone
No Description 201 (76.1)
No Description 63 (23.9)
Majority 138
Turnout 13.3%
Other hold
Party defending seat: Ind. Cause: Resignation.
 

Information courtesy of the Association of Liberal Democrat Councillors 
www: http://www.aldc.org. 
Also available at http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/byelections/
-- 
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Cambridge

In article , john@acornusers.org (John M 
Ward) wrote:

> In article <p+kDVEGb9q8JFw5M@blueyonder.co.uk>,
>    Paul Hyett <pah@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 at 18:35:09, rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote 
> > in uk.politics.electoral :
> 
> > >Aberdeenshire UA, Aboyne, Upper Deeside and Donside
> > >Con 1144 (31.5; -18.3)
> > >LD 969 (26.7; +0.6)
> > >Ind 842 (23.2; +23.2)
> > >SNP 617 (17.0; -3.1)
> > >BNP 44 (1.2; +1.2)
> > >Ind 19 (0.5; +0.5)
> > >Turnout 43.7%
> > >
> > >Result of stage 4
> > >Con 1241
> > >LD 1180
> > >Ind 1003
> > >Non-transferable 211
> > >
> > >Result of stage 5
> > >Con 1468
> > >LD 1566
> > >Non-transferable 601
> > >
> > >LD won on the 5th stage
> > >LD gain from Con
> > >Percentage change is since May 2007
> 
> > How unusual is it for the party leading after the first stage to 
> > end up losing?
> 
> Yes: this is exactly what I have been getting at all along with these
> warped and complicated fiddle-systems that end up with the wrong 
> outcome. Despite what some here have claimed is "always" the case --
> that the candidate with the highest vote always wins -- this is a
> very clear instance of that not being so.

PR supporters make no such claim.

> I'm sure the supporters of this multi-stage methodology (which could be
> categorised as "keep fiddling with it until you get the answer you want,
> not what the electorate want") will have plenty of explanatory excuses;
> but the bottom line is that it is plain wrong and probably corrupt.

So, you'd rather have a mere 31.5% of the voters get 100% of the 
representation with voters having not make difficult tactical 
considerations whether to vote for the independents or the SNP or Liberal 
Democrat candidates and thereby distort their genuine preferences?

AV is not perfect because the winner still gets 100% of the representation 
with well under 100% of the voters' support but it's still the support of 
well over one-third of those voting.

-- 
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Cambridge                    http://www.rosenstiel.co.uk/
Cambridge Liberal Democrats: http://www.cambridgelibdems.org.uk/

In article , 
rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk () wrote:

> So, you'd rather have a mere 31.5% of the voters get 100% of the 
> representation with voters having not make difficult tactical 
> considerations whether to vote for the independents or the SNP or 
> Liberal Democrat candidates and thereby distort their genuine 
> preferences?
> 
> AV is not perfect because the winner still gets 100% of the 
> representation with well under 100% of the voters' support but it's 
> still the support of well over one-third of those voting.

Hear, hear.

I was composing a reply along the same lines, but then saw that you had 
responded.

Ian Ridley
"I am a Liberal because I prefer progress to stagnation; 
because I place the happiness of the many above the privileges 
of the few; and because I believe that disastrous revolutions 
are best averted by timely reforms" - George Osborne Morgan.

ikr2@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:

> rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk () wrote:

>> So, you'd rather have a mere 31.5% of the voters get 100% of the 
>> representation with voters having not make difficult tactical 
>> considerations whether to vote for the independents or the SNP or 
>> Liberal Democrat candidates and thereby distort their genuine 
>> preferences?
>> AV is not perfect because the winner still gets 100% of the 
>> representation with well under 100% of the voters' support but it's 
>> still the support of well over one-third of those voting.

> Hear, hear.
> I was composing a reply along the same lines, but then saw that you had 
> responded.

> Ian Ridley
> "I am a Liberal

Well, that at least explains it - and thanks for making it clear.

Fiddling the counting of the vote (to make it look like one of the losers 
won) is the only hope of government that Libs realistically have.

I expect your patron saint is the late President Marcos.

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 at 21:08:33, JNugent  
wrote in uk.politics.electoral :
>
>Fiddling the counting of the vote (to make it look like one of the 
>losers won) is the only hope of government that Libs realistically have.

I think that's a bit strong, Jon - it's not as if all the parties 
involved didn't know the voting system beforehand - and the LD's weren't 
even responsible for pushing this voting system through, since Labour 
were in control at the time.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Paul Hyett wrote:

> I think that's a bit strong, Jon - it's not as if all the parties involved 
> didn't know the voting system beforehand - and the LD's weren't even 
> responsible for pushing this voting system through, since Labour were in 
> control at the time.

IIRC it was one of the demands the Lib Dems made when they held a gun to the 
head of Labour in the hung Scottish Parliament.

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 at 13:16:26, Tim Roll-Pickering 
 wrote in uk.politics.electoral :

>Paul Hyett wrote:
>
>> I think that's a bit strong, Jon - it's not as if all the parties involved
>> didn't know the voting system beforehand - and the LD's weren't even
>> responsible for pushing this voting system through, since Labour were in
>> control at the time.
>
>IIRC it was one of the demands the Lib Dems made when they held a gun to the
>head of Labour in the hung Scottish Parliament.

But Labour could still have refused.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham