Do you know how votes translate to Seats?

[Woj]

Labour got nearly twice as many Seats as they did Votes (by percentage).

That's not right, surely?!?!?!

Tactical Voting is a symptom of what's wrong with FPTP, not a solution!!!

And don't forget, Reform UK is in favour of changing to PR

^https://www.change.org/MakeVotingMeaningful^

tactical voting also takes place under PR

it’s not something unique to FPTP

On a lighter note... ;-)

But the extent of Tactical Voting is unique to FPTP.

PR eliminates most of the need to do so.

Sorry but It really isn’t.

the Scottish electoral system is completely skewed by tactical voting.

PR has done nothing to eliminate it.

politicians and academics believe as
you prior to its introduction but

We voters just learned how to adapt to a different voting system.

speaking to Irish friends who use a different PR system they tell me of the extent of tactical voting that goes on there too

There is an all party (except Reform, at last count) parliamentary group looking at the situation.

There is a consensus that if (or when, going on the trend) the two biggest parties get less than 50% of the popular vote combined we are in trouble.

As the OP showed it was 57.4% in 2025

https://www.fairvote.uk/work/appg-fair-elections

The evidence shows that Coalition Governments are no weaker than what we have today.

The tradeoff is:

1. we all get what the minority want, or
2. we all get some of what we want.

Surely the latter is preferable!?!?

^https://www.change.org/MakeVotingMeaningful^

The Scottish electoral system (used for Holyrood elections) is not completely skewed by tactical voting, though tactical voting does exist.

Why:

• Scotland uses the Additional Member System (AMS):
• Constituency vote (first-past-the-post)
• Regional list vote (proportional “top-up” seats)
• The list vote is specifically designed to counteract distortions from the constituency results and reduce disproportional outcomes.

On tactical voting:

• Some voters do vote tactically in constituencies, similar to Westminster elections.
• There has also been limited and uneven tactical behavior on the regional list vote (e.g. debates about splitting votes between parties).
• However, evidence shows this has not systematically or decisively distorted outcomes across elections. Party seat shares still broadly track vote shares, especially compared to pure FPTP systems.

Bottom line:
Tactical voting can influence some results at the margins, but it does not dominate or “completely skew” the Scottish electoral system. The proportional element largely does its job.

The main problem with coalitions is when then are opaque - like the 2017-2019 Tory-DUP one. Christ knows who promised who what. All we know is that it cost the UK £10billion.

At least the 2010-2015 coalition was properly implemented with a document for all to see (not that many did, it turned out).

To the extent that Policies can only be finalised once you know who's been elected, sure.

No system in the World is perfect. But FPTP has more fundamental problems, imho.

I've spoken, briefly, with Alex Sobel... ;-)

When was the last time any Party got 50% of the votes!?!!?!?!?!?

Where did I say anything about 57.4%???

That's why the Lib Dems were anal about documenting everything (much good it did them).

Remember, if you are the junior partner in a coalition, then all you need to do is vote against the main party in a VoNC and it's endsville.

Personally I am very comfortable with transparent coalitions. Because the greatest harm the UK has done itself has always been under a "strong" government - of either stripe.

I didn't say you did. I did 😀

Also I wasn't talking about one party. I said "When the combined vote of the two main parties falls below 50%"

Have you considered becoming a Campainger, or even just supporting (need not be financially) a campaign Group? :-)

Have you considered I may do so already ?

I don't follow any party allegiance - mainly because I can think for myself.

It was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek question, but there's no emoji for that (?)

I work mostly in co-ordination with MVM (but not exclusively), as they've already got a lot of work under their belts.

You must've gone to a good school then 😊

Reviewing the situation every decade or so seems reasonable to me.

What people thought in 2011 may vary greatly from what people think now.

Any past decision can be changed at a later date. That's Politics 101...

The 2011 referendum was nobbled by the Tories who put the worst possible option on the ballot. Rather than securing a mandate to explore a revised voting system by a Royal Commission (which generally gets broad parliamentary support when it reports) they just put a shit option on the ballot.

And because people really are that dim, I know at least 3 people who had passionately campaigned for electoral reform saying they would vote against the measure as it wasn't what they wanted. Their "logic" was they would wait for the next chance to get exactly what they wanted.

Ok your reply was so obviously written by AI. And your AI prompt has given you biased and overly simplified answer.

mine is lived experience is real knowledge and understanding of the Scottish electoral system.

every person whose lived and voted in Scotland since 2014 knows that, for many, voting is all based tactically voting for parties along constitutional lines and it has massively affected results accordingly.

It’s part of the curriculum in Scotland and taught in Modern Studies.

As I don't life in Scotland I have to go on the sources I can find.

If really that many still vote tactically despite having AMS, then whatever happened to the Canny Scot!?!?! 😢

The funny thing about Proportional Representation is, that people who support it always think that their fave party will be the senior partner in the inevitable coalition. Whereas in the UK, PR would work very well for Reform 😆

The difference between the national proportion of votes and the number of seats is not due to first past the post vs proportional representation

In the UK we vote for each seat. That seat could be a clear majority far ahead of other candidates or it could be a relative majority.
FPTP or PR would just tweak the results but still end up with one candidate taking the seat

The overall majority of seats results in that parties leader being asked to form a government

The overall result does not mean that the party in government gets to make all the decisions
Parliament votes, and every politician in a seat (who has turned up that day*) gets to vote in parliament

MPs within the governing party should vote in line with party policy when it is a topic they campaigned for, (as directed by the party whip, but in practice can vote differently) but in all other cases they should vote in line with their local electorate (therefore you should be contacting your MP in advance of votes)

*assuming your MP turns up to parliament, goes into the house rather than the bar/public gallery, and listens to how votes are counted - Farage for example often failed to turn up for votes, then when he did turn up and try to vote he failed to do so properly and failed to be counted

As an aside, the first series of Auf Wiedersehn Pet showed an example of FPTP vs PR when they were choosing a colour to paint their hut.
FPTP - No body agreed on one colour
PR - They ranked all the colour options and the result was a colour that nobody wanted, but was the most common low ranking

Holyrood consists of 129 elected members. 73 of those are Constituency MSP's, directly elected by constituents on a FPTP basis, no scope for "tactical" voting there really beyond what you sometimes see if it's a close 2/3 horse race, one of the candidates is deemed unpalatable for some reason, and votes are lent in an attempt to ensure they are not elected.

The remaining 56 MP's are "list" MSP's elected by 2nd vote preferences. This is where you commonly see tactical approaches because the more Constituency MSP's a party has elected, it becomes exponentially more difficult for them to have a regional list MSP elected. It works reasonably well, with the main gripe being that because candidates for the list are selected by parties and not the electorate, you end up with utterly hopeless unelectable gimps like Murdo Fraser having a decades-long career as an MSP despite having never won any sort of direct election, and in fact, having been resoundingly rejected every single time he has stood in one.

IMO there really ought to be strict term limits on List MSP's, because they are accountable to absolutely no one outside of their own parties.

Much as I detest Reform and their cheerleades, I would happily see them in a PR parliament.

It's telling that despite their whining about FPTP, they ran a mile from the all party committee on electoral reform.

It will become increasing unsustainable for a government to have absolute power (which the system insists on) when they are the minority when ranged against the people who did not vote for them. That way civil war lies.