To think that the election results don't add up?

Yes. It isn't fair but no one said it was and, in fact, when people were explicitly told it wasn't fair, we as a nation went "'I'm cool with that". Unfortunately, as many of us are bitterly aware, referenda have consequences even if we don't like the outcome.

The LibDems have had decades of their vote share not being reflected in nr of seats. They have been more tactical this time and got a substantial vote share to win some constituencies, but very little in others. Whereas Reform came second or third on about 7-8k in many constituencies - too thinly spread.

I bet if Farage had just won a massive majority via FPTP he and his supporters wouldn't be complaining or proposing PR.

It is all very transparent what is going on here.

Yes, people might vote differently if we had PR. Or they might not.
They would. There would be no point in tactical voting.

But 70% of the population said no to change in 2011. It's not a con if you know exactly what is happening, surely? All these arguments have been running about for years! It was one thing that UKIP, the Greens and Liberals all had in common. But the voters decided they preferred the system we have by a large margin.

I have a different perspective. FPTP can help against populist parties however what is often overlooked is that FPTP allows & enables larger parties to ignore & disenfranchise a sizeable part of the electorate which frustrates people. Over time, this can increase flow to more extreme groups. But this flow doesn’t get attention as they aren’t winning seats.

Reform haven’t just appeared in this election. This group has been around since Brexit, feeling disenfranchised. In 2019 the Brexit party did not stand against the conservatives. How many of them were part of the Conservative majority?

In PR, the movement to fringes is more immediate & more obvious.

In PR, the larger parties will often steal some of the smaller parties’ policies which brings some people back to centrist parties.

So in PR, the feedback to the larger parties is more immediate.

But yes, then governments may have coalitions to deal with. The upside is that they can’t just point at each other arguing the opposite opinion like children. They need to influence, negotiate & have reasoned arguments & compromises.

DreadPirateRobots either doesn't understand how the British voting system works, or they are indulging in Trumpian tactics. Or maybe both.

People vote differently in FPTP. If it was PR I’d have voted Labour but as it was FPTP I voted tactically - LibDem as I wanted the nasty party out

I think you're overestimating the sophistication and critical thinking skills of the average Reform voter.

The reason why Reform got so many votes was that there were a lot of people who think they have their best interests at heart and if they actually got into power then suddenly everyone who was not white and/or doesn't have English as their first language would magically disappear and their lives and economic prospects would improve drastically without them having to do any of the unpleasant and badly paid jobs that were generally done by all the 'immigrants' that the country is apparently over-run with.

Welsh synod are trying a different approach which sounds sensible
senedd.wales/senedd-now/senedd-blog/how-your-vote-is-used-to-elect-members-of-the-senedd/

Of course

But this is the FPTP for you. Ridiculous, if you ask me.

How can parties with such different share of the public vote be given equal powers in parliament? Or even more perversely, a party with 12% gets 71 seats but a party with 14% - only 4.

This isn’t a representative democracy, if you ask me. And I’m not saying it because I like Reform, I’m saying it because people are being conned - their votes literally don’t matter.

www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/5/uk-general-election-2024-why-do-some-popular-parties-win-so-few-seats

Labour Party: 35 percent vote share, 412 seats
Conservative Party: 24 percent vote share, 121 seats
Liberal Democrats: 12 percent vote share, 71 seats
Reform UK: 14 percent vote share, 4 seats
Green Party: 7 percent vote share, 4 seats
Scottish National Party (SNP): 2 percent vote share, 9 seats
Sinn Fein: 0.7 percent vote share, 7 seats
Plaid Cymru: 0.7 percent vote share, 4 seats

The winner can win only by vote of difference. There is 650 seats. With only two parties on the elections there is a possibility that the winner win all the seats only with 650 votes more than the looser.
If a party consistently is the third, they may have millions of votes and cero seats.

The downside of PR is it enables extremist minority parties to hold governments to ransom. E.g the Scottish Greens in Holyrood. Almost nobody voted for them yet they had ministerial posts

I’m Northern Irish and prefer STV but the Westminster elections are set up for the most popular candidate to win. While Reform were clearly popular this time, there was (nearly) always someone more popular, so that’s who won. It’s the majority in individual contests that matters, not popular nationwide.

Everyone was desperate for a change of government. Yet turnout was quite low for a GE: 60% - that's 7.6 points lower than 2019.

They were always the ones that were pushing for an eu referendum as well.

Neither is perfect but FPTP is less imperfect.

People vote differently in FPTP. If it was PR I’d have voted Labour but as it was FPTP I voted tactically - LibDem as I wanted the nasty party out.

LDs absolutely deserve what they got, as do Reform.

and the fact that Greens got same as Reform is wonderful and Farage needs to be reminded of that.

happy fucking days! What a fucking amazing result!!

Just demonstrates the need for a change in the way votes and seats in parliament work.
Also shows the Labour victory is far from a landslide!
Downside of PR is general lack of a majority, so end up with coalitions, which also aren't ideal.

It is ironic that the Liberal Democrat's have benefited so much from FPTP when they are predominantly in favour of PR, but they have done enormously well out of their approach this time. They have benefited from tactical voting and targeted campaigning, and have managed to get a lot of media coverage. They seem to be recovering from the Nick Clegg coalition era and I'm glad for that, giving proper choices on the centre-left. They have really focused on specific issues as well which are of concern to many people, I practiced tactical voting and they had no chance in my area, but I do feel more aligned with their policies than labour policy around areas such as the two child limit.

Number of elected representatives based on fraction of vote is exactly what a proportional representation voting system can deliver.

Funny how people on the right never complained when the Greens just got 1 MP although they used to get a good vote share

Reform would have four MPs and be a completely marginal party either way. Whatever political system you have, number of elected representatives is not determined by the national fraction of the vote you get.

It’s a bit more nuanced than that. Many Labour voters gave their vote to other parties as tactical votes (and they got votes from others in the same way). It’s very hard to say how many people wanted to vote Labour and would have in a PR election. You can’t extrapolate PR results from FPTP ones.
Edit: I don’t think you were trying to d9 that extrapolation. Just a point in addition.

Such as Reform having about 90 MPs under PR, instead of 4 that they have now.

Surely it is a result of the fact that we elect a local representative and that is how our election works? Other voting systems like STV would not change that. It would have to move to a totally different system like electing off lists (by PR or similar) but that moves away from having a local MP directly elected to a constituency by the voters in that constituency.