jimenato

As has been pointed out, the current FPTP system means that you do not need a majority to win and it rarely happens.

If 'democracy demands the majority wins' then FPTP is failing badly.

Annetje

GE 2019 total votes 32.014.110
Tories votes 13.966.454
Other parties votes 18.047.656

Majority of voters did NOT vote Tories and yet they have a 80 seats majority out of 650 seats.

KJMW

With respect you can play with the stats as much as you wish. Manipulate or misinterpret what I have said, it really isn't important. You know and I know that the party with the greater number of MPs is the winner in an election. The winning MP has won by virtue of the greater number of votes cast for hi/her. I can't help it if you believe the U.K. to be undemocratic, I think otherwise. You will believe what you want to believe, so will I!!

carcajou

You ignored my question. Have you reflected on the link between Corbyn's - and the Lib Dems - policies and the election outcome? If so, what did you find?

BristolUK

You wouldn't think tripe like that post would be written by someone who claims to be "of the left" would you.

DaveLovesDee

With a complete lack of respect intended, the stats have already been played with when 43.6% of votes cast gives the winning party 56.2% of the available seats...... And the gerrymandering of constituency boundaries have almost always favoured Tory seats, those that haven't have benefited Labour. I don't recall any boundary changes that have benefited smaller parties....

The UK is democratic compared to some countries, but it's a flawed democracy when people believe, as you do, that winner takes all is a representative democracy.

BristolUK

A friend of mine has always called it an elected dictatorship.

carcajou

Incorrect with that comment, again.

I actually want to win the next election. Corbyn and Lib Dem dead-enderism, after-the-fact temper tantrums about election rules, refusals to self-reflect and refusals to build coalitions across wide segments of society (or worse yet, viewing said coalitions as a weakness) are just about the complete opposite way to go about that.

Thankfully, the Democratic Party looks to have avoided (just barely) the worst instincts of the extremist activists, and for that will be rewarded with electoral viability.

The whole point of these exercises is to actually win elections and have power.

Scamp

I honestly don't think the same people would be complaining if Corbyn had won 40-something % of all votes cast and got into power.

On this thread, highlighting that only 3 governments have ever had 50%+ of the total vote yet we're acting like this latest government have cheated their way to power?

Lion in Winter

We've covered this already on this thread. Party political feeling and division have become so high that it's apparently (for many on this thread anyway) impossible to discuss the defects of the FPTP system without taking it as a complaint because the "wrong" party won. Nevertheless, irrespective of which party won, the numbers clearly state that the share of power that government we now have holds is disproportionately high to the number of people who voted for them, and that the share of power (almost none, and completely none for the parties with only a handful of MPs) that other parties now hold is also disproportionately low to the number of people who voted for them. That's just a fact. Obviously, whichever way an election goes there are going to be some people who are happy with that because they "won". In 2001, Labour gained a huge majority in Parliament, much, much larger than Johnson's, with a slightly smaller lead in vote share than Johnson got. I expect most Labour supporters were ok with that and I expect Tories complained then, but I wasn't on BE, and of course the poisonous brexit wasn't in the mix. That is largely what has created so much anger and division and what made this election different in terms of how people reacted to it.

But it isn't illegitimate to question the entire system, when you look at all these results. Perhaps the source of many of our problems is this combative, two-party system, where all other parties and the majority of the populace are effectively locked out of power and representation.

Scamp

I think the problem is people are just going to be people and whinge regardless. It's human nature. If the format were different and Tories lost, they'd moan. If the format was this and Labour lost, they'd moan.

Everyone just moans about everything, it's what people do. There isn't a perfect system, it is what it is, play the game as it stands and try to make a result happen. Everyone faces the same rules.

Lion in Winter

I don't disagree that some people will always moan and whine, but the fact that this is the case should not stop us from attempting to create an electoral system that is more representative. It never is what it is - FPTP didn't come down the mountainside on tablets - it is what we have made it and if we managed to move on from rotten boroughs and some districts getting more than one MP, and voting rights dependent on property ownership or sex, we can move on from this. And we should.

Scamp

Yes, there's lots to move one from. The confusion and news around students voting in different places was concerning. I think things would be easier if it was mandatory to vote, like Australia - yes, it's only a fine but it's incentive enough for some people.

Lion in Winter

Sure, but that doesn't change the way in which are (aren't) represented. Safeguards and requirements are good, but the system they support needs to be functional for a modern representative democracy and the one we have clearly is no longer.

Scamp

I think we do have a representative democracy. More constituencies voted for one party over another. The variables of each constituency cause a lot of upset. Size, numbers, borders etc...all reasons for people be frustrated. But would that change if the format of voting changed? Would we just scrap them or make them different? There's always going to be a line between areas and that's always going to upset someone. It's like VAR in football, armpit offsides are stupid but if the line was toes or noses, it would be equally stupid - but there needs to be a line.

I don't know of a proportional, locally represented voting system that ends up with the kind of result that people would get behind. Maybe I should invent one. I probably could at the weekend.