So what happens if the Lib Dems get most votes, Labour get most seats yet Cameron gets asked to form a government? Quite possible in our stupid electoral "democracy".

I don't know how that would happen.

I cannot see the LibDems getting the most votes.

I can't see Labour getting the most seats.

I can't see David Cameron being asked to form a government if either of the above were to happen. There is no way that the Conservatives would be the strongest party if they did not have the most seats or the most votes.

Ah JC that is the problem. The way things are... because of boundary changes and "first past the post" - if Libs get 31% of the popular vote they would only win about 100 seats.
If Torys get 30%, they will win fewer seats than Labour with 29% of seats.
But if Labour get £0% and Torys 29%, Torys will still have hundreds more seats than the Libs.

Bizarre but not only true but possible.

Even if Torys get 34% of vote and Labour 29%, Labour will have more seats.

preferential voting produces a better outcome although sometimes a party can govern with 49% of the vote.

But the lack of PR in the UK is rediculous.

I fully believe that if there is a referendum on PR in the UK it will be rejected. It's just not British.

Wouldn't it be funny if the LibDems win the election under the current system but, when a study is made, they find that they would have lost under PR.

I think if Britain is to survive and not depend on United Nations food parcel handouts in twenty - or five? - years' time it has to abandon notions like "it's just not British."

In our present electoral system it does not matter who gets most votes !

The party with the most seats will try and form a Government.

The prob for the LibDems is that their popularity is spread across the country and its likely they will finish second in many places. That doesn't count for anything in the present system !

In The Know wrote:
In our present electoral system it does not matter who gets most votes !

The party with the most seats will try and form a Government.

The prob for the LibDems is that their popularity is spread across the country and its likely they will finish second in many places. That doesn't count for anything in the present system !


That's because they only finish in second. It means they didn't win. The core of our system is about electing someone to go to Parliament to represent the people of a particular region. Once that person is elected it is their duty to listen to and represent all of the people, even those who did not vote for them. Unfortunately it's impossible to satisfy everybody, but the majority decide who will be that representative.

Under PR there might be up to six conflicting representatives for each area, and nobody will be quite clear who their MP is. The intention might be to "give a voice everyone", but that is impossible. If I want Joe Bloggs tp represent me and I will not accept anyone else then, under true PR, Joe Bloggs must go to Parliament even if he speaks only for me otherwise I will not have a voice. A bit Monty Python really.

Non winners must learn to accept losing. It's part of life. No matter how many times or ways a system is changed there will always be those who don't win, and there will always be those who feel they don't have a voice.

MC MC, if Britain is to not rely on United Nations food parcels we need to return to supporting our own agriculture and show more support for home grown businesses, as opposed to the heavy reliance on imports. Last century saw two world wars where Britain was mainly isolated and we had to fend for ourselves. If that happens again we need to be self sufficient. Abandoning notions like "it's not British" won't help us one bit. It's by being British that we have survived and remained strong throughout the centuries.

Emma Bee wrote:

but the majority decide who will be that representative.



Thats the whole point Emma Bee - in first past the post, there are 635 individual winners - but its possible that the TOTAL votes for the runners-up could be more than the party who gets most seats.

I think I'm right in saying at the last election B-Liar won with 27% of the vote (meaning that 73% of the population DIDNT want him !)

Actually you missed my point, ITK. The quote you use refers to the majority who choose their own MP to represent their region. Not the number of people in the country. Our Parliament is made up of constituency MPs. We are not a Presidential State, even though recent media debates have tried to shape us into one. If the most regions choose members of a particular party then that party forms the government. We do not vote as a nation, as such. We vote within our constituency for our constituency MP.

Fully agreed, EM - just wish it was not so ! (After all, don't the majority of people vote for a "party" rather than an MP ?)