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.

The upshot is that if the voting system was different many people would have voted differently.

The LibDems got their seats because of tactical voting - they had most of their votes in places where they had a real chance to win/ get the Tories out and not random, 'wasted' votes in constituencies where Labour were strong contenders.

Reform supporters just vote randomly with no idea how it all works. I imagine many of them didn't get to vote because they didn't know what ID to bring either. And if they had won/ had more seats it wouldn't be right for anybody - they do not know what is good for them, and are only united by their hatred for anything and anybody.

Okay, leaving Reform out of it since that's clearly a red rag to a load of bulls, is it right that 34% of the vote gives you 64% of the seats?

I find it hard to believe anyone can justify that other than just parroting 'that's how it's always been and you never moaned before' over and over again.

But then I guess this will go on forever, since the party in power will never wish to change the system that got them into power.

I've seen a table of how the results would work out if PR was in place currently.

Reform would have got 93 members, Labour would have got something like 212.

Spot on

the childish us v them school debating in HOC is tiresome & out of touch.

“I disagree” isn’t enough from opposition. What don’t you agree on? And where do you agree? (Spoiler: it’s not a good thing if you never agree). And crucially, what would you DO differently about it? What are your policies, your solutions, your visions. Not your pithy jibes 🙄

This is how I feel. On the one hand electoral reform is clearly needed. On the other, I worry about giving extremist parties a platform and a foot hold.

Its why SNP had over 80% of the Scottish seats and 40 odd % of the vote.

It's not a great system.

FPTP means that most votes don't really matter which means that many people get disillusioned with the whole process - and is undoubtedly a contributory factor in the long term trend for decreasing voter turnout.

Post war UK general election turnout:
1945 - 72.8%
1950 - 83.9%
1951 - 82.6%
1955 - 76.8%
1959 - 78.7%
1964 - 77.1%
1966 - 75.8%
1970 - 72.0%
1974 Feb - 78.8%
1974 Oct - 72.8%
1979 - 76.0%
1983 - 72.7%
1987 - 75.3%
1992 - 77.7%
1997 - 71.4%
2001 - 59.4%
2005 - 61.4%
2010 - 65.1%
2015 - 66.2%
2017 - 68.8%
2019 - 67.3%
2024 - 59.9%

Yes, because only 'thickies' would vote for the party I don't like... again, you don't actually want 'other people' to have a meaningful vote do you.

It's right for the FTPF system, factually.

Morally is it right? Probably not, but that's the boundaries of the system we work within.

Well they didn't change their tune even when FPTP put them in government (admitted as junior partner but still with a significant seat at the table) - something I doubt they'd have achieved with PR. So actually, I think your cynicism is misplaced.

In a PR system, Reform voters would not have been ignored & left to fester for so long.

we saw them at Brexit vote. They haven’t gone away. Don’t forget the Brexit party stood aside to allow conservatives get their big win. How much of that win was actually existing reform voters???

Bit stupid as your vote really does matter. Some constituencies were divided by a handful of votes.

The message to those who wanted Labour in government was to vote tactically, even if that meant not voting Labour. That message was really driven home and it was successful. Resounding result for Labour.

My constituency has been true blue for as long as I can remember. Labour won with a margin of around 30 votes. My vote really counted here.

You'll find the Green Party are feeling the same way. Supposedly they'd have 45 seats under PR.

In fact, the Lib Dem could still feel hard done by, as with their vote share, they'd also have far more seats under PR.

Of course they matter. There are a number of constituencies who have unseated their MPs by less than 20 votes, in electorates of tens of thousands. They matter.

@RobynRB yeah, I did say. Many people are stupid and vote led by their hatred towards their fellow humans. You need the extra filters of the current voting system.

Democracy as a rule of law has many short-backs. It's just the best we have so far. It's not perfect. Because people aren't.

Mine doesn't. Safe Conservative seat since 1868!

Perhaps the issue is that in FPTP some votes count far more than others.

It’s not proportional representation….by name or nature

this

But then you end up voting for who is the best places least worst option rather than in line with your beliefs or whose policies you support or who would be the best person to represent your area.

I'm politically homeless so definitely open to options. My seat was SNP and I wanted the slimy, lazy creep gone (and I don't like the party either). The only way to do that was to vote Labour, do I really believe in what Labour are offering? No. Do I think the candidate for Labour (former local councillor) is a lazy fuckwit? Yes. Did I hold my nose and vote for him anyway? Also yes. Giving a free-er choice, I would have looked at the other candidates and manifestos more closely and maybe voted differently but there wasn't really a choice due to FPTP

There was a referendum to change FPTP to an alternative voting form similar to PR in 2011. Turnout was only 42% and the vote was almost 70% of voters wanting to keep FPTP. I guess OP didn't vote or wasn't aware of the referendum that could change the system.

IMO not everyone who voted in protest for Reform in the current FPTP system knowing it was highly unlikely to result in a Reform MP (apart from a maximum of 13 constituencies that Reform were even in consideration for) would have voted for Reform if there was PR. A good amount of the votes for Reform were warning protest votes against the Tories and made knowing they were unlikely to result in a Reform MP.

In PR you have more than 1 candidate per constituency. That’s the whole point of it!

Because our electoral system needs reform. Think about it. Two seats next door to each other with 20000 votes turn out each - these figures are just picked out of the air by the way

Seat A - Reform get 8000 votes and Lib Dems get 8500 with Tories on 2000 and Labour on 1500 - Lib Dems win

Seat B Reform get 7000 votes and Tories get 9500 with Lab getting 3000 and Lib Dems getting 500 Tories win

So Reform got 15000 votes and no seats even though out of 40000 votes

Reform 15000
Tories 11500
Lib dems 9000
Lab 4500

And that is why FPTP is an unfair system and also why parties have to focus their resources in particular constituencies rather than working nationally to pull out every vote they can. People would be more engaged in the political process if they thought their vote would count rather than what's the point the same person will get in here again anyway.

I'd hate to see Reform in government BUT seemingly a lot of the British people would be quite pleased.