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]

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.