The BBC can't do simple Maths

[secrets in symmetry]

According to the BBC (SNP prepares to form government (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13319936)):


With all results in, the SNP had 69 seats, Labour 37, the Tories 15, the Lib Dems five, and others three.

The SNP now has a clear majority of four in the 129-seat Scottish Parliament, enough votes to hold an independence referendum.

Clearly, the SNP have a majority of 9 because they have 69 seats, and the others therefore have 60 between them (37+15+5+3=60).

My guess is that whoever wrote that report knew the SNP needed 65 seats to get an overall majority. The logic then goes that the SNP won 69, which is 4 more than 65, therefore their majority is 4.

This error has been there since just after the final results were announced yesterday!

[stewart4364]

The BBC can be correct in what they are quoting. Assuming 4 SNP MSPs vote against their party the Scottish Parliament would have 65 fors (69 - 4 = 65) and the opposition parties would have 64 (60 + 4 = 64) giving the Scottish Parliament a majority of 1. Assuming 5 SNP MSPs voted against their party the Scottish Parliament would have 64 fors (69 - 5 =64) and the opposition parties would have 65 (60 + 5 =65) giving the opposition a majority of 1 meaning that the Scottish Parliament would lose on that particular vote. I think this should explain why the BBC state that the Scottish Parliament have a majority of 4.

[secrets in symmetry]

I understand what you're saying, and I thought of that too, but majorities are never defined that way (although it would make sense to do so), and the BBC isn't that sophisticated. It's more likely that the writer had been up all night and couldn't think straight when he or she wrote it.

[RecQuery]

I worry about news media in general especially when it comes to science, technology or even basic facts, it's not the first error I've seen the BBC make.

I try to collate stories from different sources and follow up references and citations. It's annoying sometimes. I keep hearing Al jazeera are suprisingly good, been meaning to give them a try.

[xva]

According to the BBC (SNP prepares to form government (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13319936)):


With all results in, the SNP had 69 seats, Labour 37, the Tories 15, the Lib Dems five, and others three.

The SNP now has a clear majority of four in the 129-seat Scottish Parliament, enough votes to hold an independence referendum.

Clearly, the SNP have a majority of 9 because they have 69 seats, and the others therefore have 60 between them (37+15+5+3=60).

My guess is that whoever wrote that report knew the SNP needed 65 seats to get an overall majority. The logic then goes that the SNP won 69, which is 4 more than 65, therefore their majority is 4.

This error has been there since just after the final results were announced yesterday!

I'm afraid the BBC is absolutely right. A majority in a parliamentary election means 'more than half'. Enough to carry a vote.

At the 2010 General Election, a majority would have been gained by getting 326 seats. The Conservatives got 306, making them 20 short of a majority. By combining the LibDems 57 seats the coalition has a majority of 37 combined - i.e it would only take 37 rebels for them to loose their majority in a vote.

Listen carefully to Peter Snow next time.

[secrets in symmetry]

It's the number the BBC got wrong, not the fact they got a majority. An overall majority of 9 means that the SNP gained 9 more seats than everyone else put together, which necessitates "more than half". A majority is not defined by the potential number of rebels, although that could be a possible definition when you refer to total numbers of MPs. However, it would be a stupid definition to describe the winning margin in an actual vote in Holyrood when MSPs from parties vote against party lines, or abstain. I suppose that's why the standard definition is used.

It appears that the BBC aren't the only ones to make that particular mistake.

The BBC's error reminds me of the "No to AV" campaigner who was worried that no-one would gain 50% of the votes in many cases!

[xva]

IAn overall majority of 9 means that the SNP gained 9 more seats than everyone else put together

But if only 5 MPs defected to other parties, they lose their majority. It doesn't take 9 of them to move for the majority to be lost. Hence they have a majority of 4.

[secrets in symmetry]

Your first two sentences are correct.

Your third one is wrong because that is not how a majority is defined!

[xva]

Your first two sentences are correct.

Your third one is wrong because that is not how a majority is defined!

Source ?

[Corrie 3]

Source ?
Why....HP of course !!!!!!!!

C3....:eek::roll:;)

[secrets in symmetry]

Source ?Courtesy of the Oxford English Dictionary (http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/overall-majority):
Overall majority


more votes in an election or vote than all the other people or parties together
the difference between the number of members that the government has in a parliament and the number that all the other political parties have together

The first definition is clearly a qualitative one. The second is the one I was referring to. In the case of Thursday's election, the SNP overall majority is

69-(37+15+5+3) = 69-60 = 9

[xva]

The hair is split.


Courtesy of the Oxford English Dictionary (http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/absolute+majority)

absolute majority

more than half of the total number of votes or winning candidates


65 > (129 / 2)

The SNP absolute majority is

69 - 65 = 4

[secrets in symmetry]

Once again your last sentence does not follow from your first one.

The SNP have 69 seats.

The minimum number of seats needed for an overall majority is 65. The opposition combined does not have 65 seats (it has 60), so why subtract 65 from 69?

Are you always this awkward and stubborn? :)

That's not meant as an insult, I'm smiling in a friendly fashion as I wrote it.

[xva]

Number of SNP votes
a) 64
b) 65
c) 66
d) 67
e) 68
f) 69

Overall majority
a) none
b) 1
c) 3
d) 5
e) 7
f) 9

Absolute majority
a) none
b) 0
c) 1
d) 2
e) 3
f) 4

[Rheghead]

No there are 69 angels on this pin head.

[secrets in symmetry]

No there are 69 angels on this pin head.Yes, mostly, but there's a wee bit more to it than that.

I was merely waiting for xva to discover that his definition implied that 65 seats for the SNP is an absolute majority of zero using his definition. I can't imagine many people would find that satisfactory. The first version of his last post demonstrated this quite nicely.

His definition would work better if 65 seats gave a majority of 1, so 66 seats give a majority of two, ..., 69 seats a majority of 5, etc. It works better when there is an even number of seats, where there is no ambiguity.

With his definition you have the same odd/even ambiguity in a vote in which many MSPs abstain. You have to calculate the difference between the number of yes and no votes, divide it by two, and round the result down if the number of total votes is odd. Can you imagine journalists getting that right?