Gutted.

[rhythmaning]

I've been reading an awful lot in the last couple of days about need to reform the UK's electoral system, particularly the anomalies resulting from first past the post.

One of my real hopes for Thursday's general election was that, as the polls suggested, three world be a hung parliament and a minority government. I created this scenario in which a government of either shade would see that FPTP was untenable, with the smaller (but powerful - in my scenario, at least!) pushing for change.

As it was, the SNP (who, by the way, support proportional representation) got 56 seats on 5% of the vote, in contrast to UKIP, who got 1 seat with 13% of the vote. The Conservative party won 331 seats on 37% of the vote.

Clearly inequitable, whatever one's views of UKIP.

The thing is, with the Tories now having a majority, they have absolutely no need to push for a change. Indeed, they'd be foolish to do so.

I think this is the thing that has pissed me off most since Thursday. A hung parliament might have been a lever for electoral change. With a Tory majority, we're just wasting our breath.

This election has proved it's needed. But the outcome has ensured it won't happen.

Comments

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

But UKIP stood in over 600 seats and the SNP contested 58. You'd expect their share of the vote to differ.

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

Certainly! But in terms of "votes per seat", it is still startling and, I would say, not equitable.

Here's a little table...

Party Seats Votes Votes/Seat
UKIP 1 3,881,129 3,881,129
LD 8 2,415,888 301,986
Plaid 3 181,694 60,565
Labour 232 9,347,326 40,290
Con 331 11,334,920 34,244
SNP 56 1,454,436 25,972

[andrewducker]

Yes. But it would differ a lot less in a more proportional system. It's only because of FPTP that it's so bad.

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

I don't disagree. I do think that it's not right to talk about FPTP being a bad system and proportional representation a good one, they are simply different. The SNP, by virtue of only being interested in a small number of seats where they were relevant, well known and had infrastructure in place, were able to run a highly efficient, targeted campaign. UKIP ran in so many seats including ones they had no chance of winning. Obviously they piled up a lot of useless (if that's the right word) votes spread all over the place. Is that the fault of FPTP, or is it UKIP's fault for not organising their campaign better?

[andrewducker]

"I do think that it's not right to talk about FPTP being a bad system and proportional representation a good one, they are simply different"

I disagree. The point of a voting system is to ensure that people are (and feel) represented in the governing of the country.

A system which requires people to target specific seats heavily, at the expense of others, or penalises groups which have broad low-level support over ones which are specific and local, is one which leaves many people unrepresented and feeling left out of the political process.

Duverger's Law kicks in, and pushed people into tactical voting, and then reinforces the plurality of parties - so that everyone has to vote for a big tent they don't really believe in, rather than for a party that actually means something to them.

I believe that a system that denies people representation, leaves them feeling exclused from the political process, and forces them to lie about who they want their representative to be _is_ an actively bad system.

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

Well, tactical voting occurs in all kinds of voting systems including PR. I think to call it lying is to use unnecessarily dramatic language. An elector is under no obligation to vote for the candidate that most represents their views, any more than they are obliged to vote for the same party each time or vote at all.

No-one is required to target their resources, of course, I'm only suggesting that for a relatively new party such as UKIP it might be a sensible option. Talking of tactical moves, it would not surprise me if they fielded so many candidates this time deliberately so they could cry foul at the results.

[widgetfox.livejournal.com]

I think there are those playing a longer game who remain optimistic, but I agree that rapid engagement with change is now unlikely.

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

OK, I have left the kids to drown each other in the bath ... I make UKIP's vote share per seat 0.026 ish and the SNP's 0.086. One is about a third of the other.

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

I hope your kids have learned to swim... ;)

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

Survival of the fittest ... it's nature's way! ;-)