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

[RobynRB]

How did LibDem get 70 odd seats and Reform 4 when Reform got 14% of the vote. I mean, I understand how it works... but it's hardly cause for LibDem's 'greatest result' ever is it? I bet Nigel is fuming. And rightly so.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

People had their chance to change the voting system in 2011. They rejected it.

I find it amusing that people only now seem to realise this is exactly how FPTP works.

Hence the 80 majority the Tories got in 2019. That's how it works.

The Telegraph are wetting their pants over the unfairness of it. Funny, because they always supported it until now. Now they are Reform fans suddenly it isn't fair.

Pathetic.

*Edited for typo

This.

This is obviously the angle Reform UK Ltd are going for post election. They were robbed by an unfair voting system/the establishment etc. etc. etc. As I said, very Trumpian.

Meanwhile. Farage is so concerned about serving the people of Clacton that he is crowing on Twitter about his new Westminster drinking buddies.

He will do sweet FA for his constituents.

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.

It is representative, but not proportionate.

Nobody's being "conned", everyone knows ( should know) how it works.

I'm starting to understand why FPTP works.
People are stupid as proven by the Brexit referendum. FPTP serves as a necessary little filter. And not just to prevent hang parliament.

It really is.

Not to worry, Starmer can tell them to lump it.

No! Don't tell me that Farage is... deliberately misinterpreting facts to fit his agenda?!?! Say it ain't so!

Yes, I do. I was just highlighting the disparity in the numbers. It's ironic that the LibDems were all about PR, I bet they've changed their tune now.

I am so sorry to break it to you, but yes. Shocker, ain't it?

But there is no disparity. This is EXACTLY how fptp works

If you understand how the voting system works and don't like it then start making the case for proportional representation which will be fairer.

That data only undermines your point. Sinn Fein only stand in a very small number of constituencies, in not-very-densely-populated areas. They're a local-issues party. Calculating their national fraction of the vote is both absurd and pointless. The people of the constituencies where SF won wish, as a majority, to be represented in their government by a SF representative, and a political system that overruled them because there aren't that many of them on a national scale would be one of tyranny.

Literally no political system, anywhere, works on the basis of looking at how the vote goes nationally and assigning the government proportionally, because that's both unworkable and undemocratic. Every political system works by an area electing, by majority, the person they wish to represent them, as is their right. The differences between PR and FPTP have absolutely nothing to do with how the vote looks proportionally at the national level.

FPTP supposedly produces strong governments because there is no need for horse trading that happens with PR and winner takes all, but it can make voters feel and believe their votes are meaningless if you are in a Tory or labour stronghold and turns the political system into a 2 party state.

Ironically the LDs who as the 3rd small party use to bang the drum relentlessly about changing from FPTPto a PR system would not have got so many seats today if we had that in place.

One oddity that struck me yesterday when I was voting was why do we use pencils instead of pens to mark the ballot paper wouldn’t the risk of fraud be high as a result?

You can't assume that people would vote the same way under PR as they do under FPTP. Lots of the votes cast yesterday were tactical votes for whoever-will-get-the-tories-out.

FPTP is massively flawed

PR is massively flawed too

So is every other system

People generally prefer the deeply-flawed system that they are familiar with.

Sounds like the Lib Dem votes were concentrated in smaller areas that translated into actual seats, whereas Reform were often the second runner to Labour. I rememember a similar thing happening with UKIP a few years back.

FPTP innit 🤷🏻

That in mind, it’s not possible to know how many of those voters voted as they did knowing that there was no danger of reform actually winning the election/seat. Clearly that kind of thinking wouldn‘t account for all the votes tho.

Didn’t they campaign for AV not PR? AV can help to avoid extremist / divisive parties gaining more influence whereas PR doesn’t provide any checks and balances.

Lib Dems high efficiency is no accident. It’s due to tactical voting. Some LD voters will actually be labour voters voting tactically. But FPTP gives us no way of knowing how many.

LD were helped by centralised tactical voting strategy websites like Carol Vorderman’s

While I agree that there are people too stupid to vote, I can't help but think that this is not the way to achieve the 'right' result. Perhaps there should be a test before allowing people to vote, not as to who they are voting for, but rather do they understand how the system works and say, who the leader of the opposition is... you'd be surprised. My colleague told me his wife, who earns roughly twice what I ear, didn't know who Kier Starmer is, or even if he was a man or a woman.

https://www.lder.org/

No changing of tune. I think (and whisper this) they might actually believe in changing the system for the better even though they have benefitted from the current system today. It's almost like sometimes people have political beliefs that go beyond self-service.

Under PR the Lib Dems would have got about the same number of seat as they got through FPTP. They don't need to change their tune.