User talk:Frogsprog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Show that you can contribute positively and substantively in the following way:

  1. Choose an article or section thereof which you feel needs improvement.
  2. Copy the article or section to your talk page (please remove any category links)
  3. Demonstrate a substantive improvement over the current text, including references
  4. Indicate when you believe this task has been sufficiently completed

I will monitor your talk page and, if your work is satisfactory, will consider unblocking you.

I'd advise against posting another unblock notice, as this page is likely to be protected if you continue. - Revolving Bugbear 14:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Revolving Bugbear - As can be seen below, the current section (below) is a stub - and doesn't illustrate adequately the complex problems arising from the existence of "safe seats" in the United Kingdom specifically (it gives no mention of the contrasting "marginals" which exacerbate the situation and should be mentioned in order to put the situation into context). My version (underneath) contains a hypothetical situation backed up by references in order to brief the reader in full on the concept of safe seats in the UK by way of a simple example. The original also gives nothing in the way of references making it an impossibility to verify it's accuracy or for the reader to conduct further reading by looking at the (non-existant) references. My work includes references from the BBC's college revision website and the Dept. for Constitutional Affairs --Frogsprog (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

==United Kingdom==

Contents

[edit] Current Version

Examples of safe seats are in the Labour Party heartlands of urban northeast England and those of the Conservative Party in the shires. An example of a safe Labour seat is Houghton & Washington East, where in the 2005 general election Labour received 64.3% of the vote, giving them a 46.3% majority over the second-placed Liberal Democrats (at 18.0%). An example of a safe Conservative seat is Richmond (North Yorkshire). In the 2005 general election, the Conservatives gathered 59.1% of the vote, giving a 39.4% majority over Labour (at 19.7%). Even in the safest of seats upsets can, and sometimes do, occur. Whilst it is rare for the opposition to take such seats, outside candidates may be able to. Recent examples include the election of Peter Law and George Galloway to very safe Labour seats in 2005, and Martin Bell to the safe Conservative seat of Tatton in 1997. These often occur as protest votes, and particularly in by-elections.

[edit] Version by Frogsprog

In the United Kingdom, the concept of safe seats is often cited as a major disadvantaged of that country's first past the post system - in other words, because the United Kingdom works on the concept of a constituency based First Past The Post (or single relative majority) electoral sytstem there are many seats where a vote for the second place party is considered a wasted vote.[1]. Conversely the system in the United Kingdom is often attributed to the occurence of "marginals" - seats where the sitting MP wins his or her election by a matter of a couple of dozen votes.

This curious mix of safe and marginal seats can result in such scenarios as:

Seat one

Labour - 300 votes

Conservative - 299 votes

Liberal Democrat - 250 votes

note here that the majority of the population votes against labour - this is a marginal

Seat two

Conservative - 950 votes

Labour - 30 votes

Liberal Democrat- 20 votes

note here that although the Conservatives have 900 votes more than everyone else put together - the victory is still the same as in the above marginal

Seat three

Labour - 250

Conservative - 245

Liberal Democrat - 10

another marginal

Overall

Labour - two seats (580 votes)

Conservative - one seat (1494 votes)

Liberal Democrat - no seats ( 280 votes)

Although an exaggerated result this shows how the existence of safe seats (such as seat two) can theoretically result in the government winning less votes overall that the opposition - simply because many opposition votes are concentrated in one area. [2]

It was mainly owing to the "safe seats" situation that Lord Jenkins advised a new system AV Plus or Alternative vote top up in the Jenkins report in order to eliminate the consitutional injustice many feel is the result of the existence of safe seats in the UK [3]

[edit] References

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/education/bitesize/higher/modern/uk_gov_politics/elect_vote1_rev.shtml First Past The Post (Highers revision)
  2. ^ http://demochoice.ca/distorted_outcomes.htm A Canadian site illustrates the possibility of safe seats in the Westminster system
  3. ^ www.dca.gov.uk/rights/dca/voting/qa.pdf DCA paper on the proposed conversion to AV+


This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "MONGO has now been de-sysoped so there is no need for his indefblocks to be allowed to remain WP:AGF. Everyone is capable of reform aren't they? I'm willing to be on probation--Frogsprog (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)"


Decline reason: "Considering this edit [1], your second most recent, I see no reason to overturn this block. —- B (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "That's true B but like I said. Everyone is capable of reform. And plus - that edit was a revert, and plus again that edit was way over a year ago. Why can't I be unblocked and monitored? Time's the greatest healer right? From WP:INDEF "the more usual desired outcome is a commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and – if unblocked – to refrain from the problematic conduct in future." --Frogsprog (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)"


Decline reason: "Given your blatant and deliberate attack, and your refusal to acknowledge how absolutely inappropriate it was, I simply do not believe that you have reformed. — Yamla (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

{{helpme|Could someone inform user:Revolving Bugbear that I have followed his criteria to prove that I deserve to be unblocked to the best of my ability and please ask that he review it --Frogsprog (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)}} {{unblock|I acknowledge and apologise for my previous behaviour. Why don't you just give me forty-eight hours to prove myself and perform some simple housekeeping such as monitoring recent changes rather than editing for content. It is not a case of belief - anyone can reform as Jimbo and policies alike have said. Please - I want to prove myself --Frogsprog (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)}}

I have informed him of your request.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 20:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] unblock

As it stands now, I would unblock you. I do have a few reservations about what you've laid out above -- your example may qualify as WP:OR -- but it seems to me you have a desire to contribute constructively.

I am going to consult with the admins who declined your previous requests, and possibly with some others.

In the event of an unblock, I would recommend thoroughly reading over Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and discussing changes on the talk pages of articles. - Revolving Bugbear 20:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. I have been doing already. I am sure for the information classed as OR I could find a source to make it no longer OR --Frogsprog (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems that "B" has his reservations about my unblock. I would like to reassure him (or her) that my statement about MONGO's desysop was not intended as an insult to that contributor - merely a way to illustrate how much has happened since back then --Frogsprog (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You will not be unblocked. You are a checkuser confirmed sockpuppet of Lancastria. --Deskana (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)