so who'd win if the numbers of votes translated equally into seats?

[DrinkFeckArseGirls]

so could someone very slowly explain to me who'd win, if we counted whose got most votes.

Under PR, Conservatives would have got 240 seats, Labour 23, UKIP 83, LibDems 53, SNP 37 Greens 24.

To form a goverrment they need over 320 seats so none of them could have done it without deals and coalition type arrangements.

www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/441055/ukip-farage-first-past-the-post-proportional-representation-83-seats-electoral-reform

It would all depend on which parties made deals.

Labour would have got 213, niot 23

www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/general-election-result-who-would-5659167 simple explanation here.

Conservatives therefore woul probably have been able to form a government since they had the legitimacy of more seats and others like the LibDems would probably therefore do a deal with them.

Is this inspired by the "UKIP are really the third biggest party because they got more votes than the SNP" thing? It's not quite as simple as that...

As it stands, anyone with the £500 deposit can stand for election, you don't have to be a member of any political party. "Getting the most votes" UK-wide would totally obliterate that right.

Also as it stands, we don't actually vote for a political party, we vote for a local candidate to represent us. "Getting the most votes" would remove that local connection and you wouldn't have the foggiest who your MP was.

The system as it stands needs revamped, but changing to "gtmv" isn't the way.

UKIP got more votes than the SNP because they stood in all 650 constituencies, the SNP only stood in 59.

Hope this makes some kind of sense, happy to try to address any further questions. :)

'UKIP got more votes than the SNP because they stood in all 650 constituencies, the SNP only stood in 59.'

But the SNP would not have done as well as UKIP in England. The LibDems stood in 650 seats and UKIP gave them a lesson.

We cannot know how well, or how badly, SNP would have done in rUK; there were many, many people who wanted to vote for "Nicola" after she first started appearing on TV debates and was seen outside of Scotland. "Can I vote for Nicola Sturgeon?" was one of the top UK Google searches in the run up to the GE; of course, no-one actually voted for her at all, since she wasn't standing.

Many who voted UKIP did so as a protest at there not being much alternative, SNP might well have picked up many of those votes.

But we'll never know for sure.

Conservatives would have won under PR, but not with a majority. Under PR, the most likely outcome would have been a Conservative and UKIP coalition. But there is no clear way of knowing this for sure, because people might have voted differently under a different voting system.

And also UKIP done very poorly in Scotland.

I have no idea what the answer is on this.

It's also impossible to answer, because people are voting into a system that they know favours the main established parties, which effects how they vote

People are put off from voting, and others adopt tactical voting.
Eg you get, "I would vote green but it'll never make any difference so i may aswell not bother" or "Id better vote Tory to stop ukip getting anywhere" without thinking it through.

Under PR I would certainly have considered TUSC who were very strong in my area, but we live in a solid labour seat (labour got in.) so i knew they would never get anywhere.

I thought this was very interesting...

The map is interesting.

The question with the Did not Votes is, is it a statement of "None of the above", or is it "can't be arsed"? Or even a mixture of both?

Thanks gor all the answers! Very educational.