UK Election Arcana, Explained By Software

An anonymous reader writes "For the first time in 35 years the UK government is looking to be at risk of getting a hung or coalition government. (The most recent previous hung parliaments were in 1974 and 1929.) The voting rules are somewhat arcane and the votes this time are such that there are many strange possible outcomes and a surprisingly large number of permutations of coalitions that could be formed and political strategies that may go into their forming. There are at least 60 permutations, some more politically plausible than others. Adam Back wrote some software to work out the permutations, and lists some of the arcane factors affecting the outcome. If Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown chose to, it would appear even that he could simply refuse to resign, ostensibly trying to form a coalition indefinitely, maybe even forcing the Queen to dismiss the current government, which last happened in 1834 under King William IV."

Comments

Silly Brits

[ShakaUVM]

Silly Brits.

This is why they need a reasonable, commonsense system like our electoral college.

Re:Silly Brits

[martin-boundary]

It all went downhill when they got rid of the Ministry of Silly Walks.

Re:Silly Brits

[tepples]

As I understand it, the UK never really got rid of Silly Walks; they just folded gait correction into the National Health Service.

Re:Silly Brits

[biryokumaru]

... and one part radical anarchism disguised as Reagan worship.

Ronald Wilson Reagan. Each of his names has six letters. 6 6 6. Think about it.

Re:Silly Brits

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what passes for "conservative" nowadays in the US: one part racism, one part religious wingnuttery and one part radical anarchism disguised as Reagan worship.

American "conservatives" are in no way anarchist. They are 100% for government if is to wage war or to enforce "family values".

If Labour doesn't get in...

[ickleberry]

What will Slashdot do without the steady stream of news about how the UK is becoming more of a surveillance state? There will hardly be anything here anymore.

I'll be going back to hang out with the overzealous teenage ubuntu fanboys and militant atheists on Digg

Re:Risk?

[Gordonjcp]

I don't think it should be called a hung parliament until someone shows up with 6500 metres of good strong rope.

Re:Risk?

[machine321]

Horses are hung. Parliament is hanged.

Re:Almost no difference...just more efficient

[Pvt_Ryan]

No need to get excited though: there is a word of difference between a hung and hanged! ;-)

such a shame I for one would vote to hang them all..

Re:Arcane?

[gmhowell]

You still keep the queen around, of course, she has no political power and her role is to produce news for the tabloids that the illiterate of your country can follow. The queen in the UK = Oprah in the states.

No, not true. The queen still has absolute control in at least the UK and Australia. I have a copy of the Australian constitution and it is a very thin book. It pretty much says "the queen may set up the government in a particular way, or she may not".

The people may not like it but the queen is effectively a dictator.

You underestimate the power that is Oprah.

Re:More than 2 parties

[Cimexus]

Yes on behalf of Australia I would like to apologise for releasing Murdoch on the world. If it's any consolation he dominates our media as much as he does in the US/UK...