"But why doesn't the person with the most votes win?" - explaining the results to a child

[Hulababy]

8y DD was asking about the election this morning, but I am not really sure I can explain it all clear enough. I don't know enough about it all in order to clarify it in simple terms.

In her opinion - the person who got the most votes should "win" and be prime minister.

How to explain why this is not the case? Not sure she gets the whole majority issue.

Maybe school will have covered it a bit (fingers crossed).

Because more people, in a way, voted for him not to win.

I had the same dilemna (7 year old). I simply said that although the Conservatives had got the most votes, they hadn't got more than half the votes so... two of the parties were going to have to work together to be the new government. I didn't think I could get into the whole constituencies and first past teh post thing at 6:30 this morning!

Hmm - that mmay work.

her only experience of voting is at school for councils, and head girl/prefects, etc - where it is the person who has the most votes, even if only by one vote - hence her confusion obviously.

I'm now so fucked off, I told mine it is because they are stuck next to an archaic, backwards city-state that a few traitors who lived up here, who are hopefully burning in Hell next to Judas, sold them out to for money 300-years-ago, and this is why we are being forced to pay for the greed and corruption of the City with the sweat of brows. So it's best for them to stay here till they're old enough, then leave.

lol TooPragmatic - it was early morning here too as DH has put the news on s soon as he woke up.

Not sure Dd will go for that expanation expat!

Sorry, just venting.

as well as the early morning excuse, hula, I also wasn't sure he would understand if I went into detail. (I honestly know a few voters who don't seem to entirely understand why we don't have a new PM today.)

expat, reading that i feel like i really wimped out on a proper explanation!

I told them that, too.

The 'Hell next to Judas' works.

I can see both sides TBH, esp. when you look at my explaination, but I think there are too parties now for 50% + seats = win to ever work again.

Can you see Americans paying 20%+ VAT and take that lying down, ilove?

Nope, nor can I.

Thanks that help me explain things to OH - English not being his first language

Note to DS please sleep all night soon - mummy needs her intelligence back

It's because people in the UK don't vote for who they want to be prime minister, they vote for who they want their MP to be. All the folk in LittleTown vote for Mr A, Mrs B or Ms C and whoever gets the most votes wins the chance to be MP.

This happens in 650 places across the country, and then all the MPs get together in Parliament. If there is a clear majority of MPs who all belong to the same party eg the Blues, and they outnumber everyone else put together then they'll always be able to have their way and they get to be the government. However if the Blue party have the most people, but the Reds, Yellows, Greens and everyone else added together would outnumber them then the Blues don't have a "clear majority" and the result is a hung parliament.

The Blues could take charge but they might want to pass a law that everyone else disagrees with, and the Blues wouldn't have enough people to be able to force it through. That's what will happen if they try to have a minority government. However if they get together with the Yellows, or if the Reds do instead, then the combined colour groups will have enough people to overule everyone else as a coalition.

I recall that the "more people voted for that person not to win" explanation was the one my dad put to me and that was when it finally clicked.

Just give them Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky...

could we put your DD in charge of electoral reform? She would sort the whole farce out with her clear sharp questioning that exposes the unfairness of the current system.

DS (this morning): who is the new Prime Minister?
Me: Well we don't know yet cost they haven't finished counting all the votes.
DS: Is it the blue man?
Mum: Might be. But if he doesn't get enough votes then he might have to share with someone else
DS: Is it like deadlock - why don't they let Simon Cowell choose like on X Factor
Me: err its a bit more complicated than that
DS: Who chooses if they can't decide?
Me: I think the Queen might choose
DS: They should have Simon Cowell cos he's richer than the Queen
Me: errrrrrrrrrrrrr, go and watch Ben 10!

I am alarmed as my DS has watched X Factor ONCE!

CBBC's Newsround should cover it - website or it's on BBC around 5pm.

Good thinking Chippy - Newsaround is great for explaining the complicated stuff to me children.

Will set to sky plus, thanks

my dd is keen on power-sharing, ie she thinks they should all just get together and take it in turns to make decisions. I put it to her that then they would all have to move into 10 Downing St together and she didn't see a problem with that, particularly as they all have kids who would have fun playing together.
A seductive solution but politically unworkable I fear.

"Is it like deadlock - why don't they let Simon Cowell choose like on X Factor"

That man is Nick Clegg, who has a disproportionate amount of power in regards to his mandate, although obviously won't produce the winner's album