What Chris said carries some weight, though.
It's not about how many people vote, it's about how many people voted per constituency. If one town has 10000 residents with a Labour majority, they get 1 seat. The town next door could have 2000 residents with a Tory majority - but they also get 1 seat. So London being Red means nothing, really. Most major cities were. And it's where Labour got most of their seats from. It's the little constituencies out in the sticks that no-one really cares about that actually make the difference. And the fact that after this election the Tories have 70 (SEVENTY!) new MP's tells you exactly just how significant those areas are. And, if we're looking at numbers, I think London's Red population vastly out numbers the total of all those new constituencies.
The Tories nailed it. They didn't only keep at it in their usual strongholds - they went into to the small population mining towns, etc. Go back to my example of the towns: why struggle to convince 10000 people, when you get the same result with 2000?
Well played, Boris. Well played.
If anything, it's probably the most valid point all the whiners today have had, and have to say I see their point: 2000 people can have the same impact as 10000 people. There's just something wrong with that set up.
BUT, we wouldn't have seen anyone from Labour complaining about it if Corbyn went to meet with the queen today instead of Boris.
1. One of the worst elections regarding what you are referring to was the 2005 win by Tony Blair against Micheal Howard. And there was plenty of bitching about that at the time
Blair won 35.2% of the vote, and 355 seats
Howard had 32.4% of the vote...just 2.8% less and only got 198 seats. That 2.8% of the vote was essentially worth 157 seats. That's huge!!
With some sort of PR, it will not only even out this issue, but resolve the bigger issue of entrenchment of a 2 party system for constituencies themselves. And Labour are the guiltiest party wrt resisting change to this problem. Why? Because they have been the largest beneficiaries of this system
2. In a constituency. This isn't as much in issue when there are only 2 parties, as if 1 party ends up with 40% then the other one gets 60% ....so in essence the majority wins. Nobody can argue that much about that.
However when a 3rd party enters the fray, it starts to get a bit more schitty. If 1 party gets 60%, and the others get 40% between them, again majority rules...we can live with that. However if one party gets 35% , and the other 2 get 32% and 33% , you in essence are giving mandate to 35% of the vote, and ignoring the 65%....which is actually the majority. Votes in the bin, essentially.
3. Entrenchment of 2 party system. We all like our votes to count. And we like them to count for policies that closest match our beliefs. In a FPTP system, since it's inherently more difficult for new parties to enter the fray, we will not be choosing the party that closely matches our opinions, but will ignore that party because it doesn't stand a chance of getting close to the 50% to win, so in essence most of the people are voting for the party that can win which least disagrees with our views.
I agree with Chris on this , that some sort of hybrid system needs to be established, as we often vote for the person rather than the party.
