Page 2 | More than 70% of the people who voted on Thursday…

EasternStandard · 10/05/2026 10:51

crumpet · 10/05/2026 10:33

The winning party doesn’t need a majority % though in our current system.

They just need a bigger %than anyone else. So a 30% share could still be a win if the other 70% is divided between lots of other parties to the extent that no-one else has 30%.

Yep and by op’s own metric Labour are wanted by even fewer people in the electorate.

MeetMeOnTheCorner · 10/05/2026 11:53

@herbalteabag How can you vote Green with their far left policies that will bankrupt taxpayers and ensure our dc having a huge debt to service? Why not vote for a mainstream party that’s surely closer sanity and not anti-Semitic?

herbalteabag · 10/05/2026 11:54

MeetMeOnTheCorner · 10/05/2026 11:53

@herbalteabag How can you vote Green with their far left policies that will bankrupt taxpayers and ensure our dc having a huge debt to service? Why not vote for a mainstream party that’s surely closer sanity and not anti-Semitic?

Edited

Because I'd rather have virtually anyone than Reform and voting elsewhere was too risky.

MeetMeOnTheCorner · 11/05/2026 13:27

@herbalteabag That’s awful in my view. It’s just another extreme to muddy the already muddy pot of extreme parties. They are not the eco warriors of the past. They have over 30 ongoing inquiries into anti semiotic views held by candidates! How can people vote for this new far left rabble?

LlynTegid · 11/05/2026 13:31

The sooner we have a form of PR for all elections in the UK, the better.

It will not stop a party from being able to say they had the most votes or most seats (Geert Wilders did in the Netherlands in 2025 as an example), but having to work cross-party and represent the views of the majority of voters will prevent elected dictatorship.

NoWordForFluffy · 11/05/2026 13:33

crumpet · 10/05/2026 10:33

The winning party doesn’t need a majority % though in our current system.

They just need a bigger %than anyone else. So a 30% share could still be a win if the other 70% is divided between lots of other parties to the extent that no-one else has 30%.

In each constituency. I'm now musing whether it would be possible to not have the highest % overall, but win the most seats.

Yes, it is (thanks, Google!): https://electoral-reform.org.uk/more-votes-but-less-seats-surely-youre-joking/

More votes but fewer seats? Surely you’re joking?

Imagine if at the next General Election one party received the most votes, but another – with fewer votes – returned more MPs.It sounds wholly unfair, undemocratic and absurd. But

https://electoral-reform.org.uk/more-votes-but-less-seats-surely-youre-joking/

redskyAtNigh · 11/05/2026 13:41

People vote strategically due to the FPTP system though.

In my council ward a vote other than Lib Dem or Reform was pointless.
This is unlikely to be the case in a general election (where voting Lib Dem is largely pointless).

You can't tell from my vote how I would vote in a General Election.
You can't tell from my vote (even in a General Election), what my preferred party is.

My ward also had 3 councillors elected - 2 of them were from one party and one from a 2nd party. So some people must have split their 3 votes between parties, presumably because they were undecided.

Sherwoody · 11/05/2026 13:46

That’s a very good result for Reform. I don’t believe anyone would vote for Green at the GE, they seem to be very low intelligence and a bit of a joke.

MeetMeOnTheCorner · 11/05/2026 14:05

@LlynTegid Then we get into horse trading, refusing to compromise and stalemate! It’s been a feature in Israel for decades and Germany too. No system is perfect and FPTP suited 2 main parties. I can see that now we don’t, there’s a huge issue. However these awful parties might not ever work with others to form a stable government and it’s a huge risk. They might have to do this anyway in 3 years. We shall see.