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

I think Keir Starmer is more than aware that he won largely on negativity towards the Tories. He's not a fantasist. It's his job now to win the electorate round and actually grow to like him

Yes, they do this in Germany or did when I was studying German politics, but it is also criticised as preventing small parties from getting into power.

Exactly this. I was in favor of PR back then, but didn’t vote for AV as it was a clearly crap system. Even Nick Clegg didn’t like it!

That vote was not a tale of what people think about PR, it was a tale of Nick Clegg being out-politicianed by David Cameron.

Only on page one but it’s astounding how many people don’t actually support democracy. I didn’t vote reform, never will, but democracy means they get seats, and in a PR system it would mean they could potentially be King Makers, just like the rather extreme left Greens are in Scotland.

Favouring a voting system and then having a wobble because citizens might vote for someone you don’t like, is a deeply undemocratic mindset.

I’m the same - although Lib Dems did manage to get their seat here. I would totally have voted Labour if we had PR so while it’s easy to dismiss Labour’s percentage of the votes, they undoubtedly have further support through the tactical voters. My vote for the LDs was actually a vote for Labour. Most people I know feel the same.

Because we have a system in which you're really supposed to pick an mp who you think represents your consituancy best not just vote for who you want to lead the country.

Yes people can and do vote tactically but generally people won't vote in large numbers unless there is a good quality MP standing in their region who is going to advocate for their needs in the HOC. The LD's may have had less proportion of the votes but don't even try to tell me that Reform have more credible mps.

It's actually proof that the system works imo and is probably our best bet at keeping nutjobs out of politics

It's also worth noting that one of the reasons the Tories did so well in 2019 was because the Brexit party as it then was didn't stand. As I recall, they didn't get a massive share of the vote either, yet had a large majority.

I think there is a good chance that LibDems (who pushed for the 2011 referendum) are now thinking 'be careful what you wish for' and 'everything happens for a reason'... Disaster averted! The international press might otherwise not be reporting now on a landslide centre-left victory but on how the UK is another victim of far-right ideologies.

Yet a slightly higher vote share, and extra 2%.

There are measures to combat the small extremist groups eg having a 5% or 10% threshold that a party needs to achieve to get MPs.

Good point. I think you're right about Greens.

Yes - I only voted Lib Dem because that was the best chance we had in my area to get rid of the Tory seat (it was so close but Conservative just held it). But if we used PR instead of FPTP I would have voted Labour. Lots of people voted tactically, understanding the FPTP system, so you can't really rely on the percentage of votes to give a full picture.

As I said on the other thread about this, if we had PR or another form of voting, people would vote in a different way.

I vote LD anyway, but I also voted LD because they had the best chance to beat the Tories in my area. But if we had PR, that consideration wouldn't apply and if eg I liked the Greens I might vote for them instead. I imagine the Greens would actually be the biggest beneficiary of a proportional system, rather than Reform or UKIP before them.

I said there are ways round it. I was explaining it in the simplest terms.

I said there are ways round it. I was explaining it in the simplest terms.

It has everything to do with FPTP!

So do those results mean 14% of the people voted for Reform?

As everyone except Keir Starmer seems to realise, this was not a Labour victory, it was people turning their backs on the Conservatives

You think he doesn't realise that? He's not thick you know. I think it was fairly obvious that he has a complete grasp of the situation from what he said in his speech - referencing those who voted Labour and then those who did not vote Labour.

This is the system for the Scottish Parliament elections

For the same reason Labour got two thirds of the seats with only one third of the votes 🤷‍♀️

Labour didn’t increase their % of votes, but did increase their seats.

Its the FPTP system.

This. There’s a few different ways to do PR.

I think one I read about once was you get two votes one for the “national” candidate/party to represent you and one for the “local” individual person to represent you. Then the seats in parliament represent a mixture of the MPs. It would mean larger constituencies though. Not sure what it’s called exactly but it’s the method of PR that gives the best of both.

Most people vote for the party anyway in reality.

Everyone should have an equal vote. I live in a safe Labour constituency where turnout was extremely low because it's pointless voting.

Not necessarily true.
there’s many forms of PR (not just list PR)
Ireland has PR STV & you vote for a candidate

You get just over 30% of the total votes cast but 60% of the seats, not a fair system but neither Labour or the tories would want to change it as it vastly favours them

Okay- I'm embarrassed to ask- but Mumsnet is mums net so help a gal out. I remember being told this when I was younger but can someone explain FPTP and PR to me in real simple terms.

Would help if you could use this elections numbers. So 412 seats means 412 candidates won their seat. That means there's 412 MPs sitting in Labour side of the House of Commons. Is this right?