Most liked posts in thread: Tracey feckin Brabin

I don't see the system as favoring one party, it just means that you're better off winning a lot of seats by a small margin than few seats by a large margin but I don't see that as being an advantage.

As I mentioned, Labour getting a 157 majority despite only getting 2.8% more of the vote back in 2005 shows that it works both ways. In comparison the Conservatives having a 163 majority for a 11.5% difference in the vote seems massively fair!

But you're right that having 3 parties who are pretty aligned is detrimental to Labour. Although they can't agree within their own party let alone try to try to agree with others!

 

Clearly the system does favour the Tories. The Blair result in 2005 was an isolated aberration from the general trend.
A good example is 1951. "The highest share of the vote received by Labour in a general election was 48.8% in 1951, when the Conservatives won the most seats despite polling fewer votes". This was the hugely popular Atlee government which created the NHS and powerhoused the WW2 recovery by building council houses and other infrastructure - slung out on its ear despite the highest Labour vote in history because of how our voting system works.

The article below explains it better than I can.

Three particular points stand out for me:

1."out of the last 20 elections since 1950, 19 have had a majority of voters choosing parties to the left of the Tories, yet the Conservatives have seized power two-thirds of the time."

2. "Counting votes by constituency helps the more geographically dispersed Tories, as Labour votes are concentrated increasingly in urban areas, denying a national democratic result. That’s why it took 50,835 votes to elect a Labour MP, but only 38,264 to elect a Tory, 336,038 for a Liberal Democrat and a shocking 865,697 for a Green."

3."Boris Johnson won his 80-seat majority on a just 1.3% increase in vote share over Theresa May’s lost majority in 2017".

This last quote in particular, illustrates the point I was trying to make to @1975citygent .

The impression is given in the media and on these pages that the socially liberal views of most LP MPs, members and supporters are wildly out of step with the mood of 'the country' and that the vast majority of 'ordinary working people' don't support those views. But this is clearly incorrect. Despite a hugely unpopular and inept opposition leader, a terrible election campaign by Labour, the Labour Brexit fiasco and overwhelmingly favourable media support, Johnson only increased the Tory vote by 1.3%. And more people voted against the Tories than for them!
The apparent massive popularity of Johnson's Tories is actually a simple quirk of our electoral system. In reality, the country is split very closely down the middle between social liberals and social conservatives, but FPTP creates large majorities out of paper thin victories.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/18/labour-electoral-system-priti-patel-mayoral-elections

 

It is all about borders, You may have a Labour seat next to a Conservative seat, But by moving the border by only a few hundred feet would produce either 2 Labour or two Conservative seats depending on the make up.

 

Yes, but 'any other party' don't keep getting elected into government time after time, despite being supported by a minority of the electorate. But the Tories do, because of how our electoral system works. You like it, because it produces the result you want, but it's totally undemocratic to have governments elected by a minority of the electorate time and time again.

 

That's part of it, but only a small part. It's much more about the concentration of Labour voters in metropolitan areas, chopping the overall vote into constituencies and FPTP producing millions of votes that count for nothing.

 

I'm touched by your concern but I have a life that isn't Bantam Talk unfortunately

 

there are very few proven cases of it especially compared to the number of votes cast which is what he will mean. How you prove it is another matter but until it is then it is just hearsay

 

still not substantiated or proven

 

It goes on. Not to a point where it has a detrimental effect nationally but it does happen.

 

The asking for ID wouldn’t stop the possibility of this happening though as ID wouldn’t be asked when securing a postal vote

 

Just heard a piece with the numbers in from 2019, so General, Local and European elections.
There were 595 allegations of voter fraud that ended up with 4 convictions and 2 cautions