Here's how First Past The Post "works":

  • Thread starter Thread starter DLPB_
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DLPB_

Guest
Here's how First Past The Post "works":

Con (36.9%) Seats: 331
Lab (30.4%) Seats: 232
Ukip (12.6%) Seats: 1
LD (7.9%) Seats: 8
SNP (4.7%) Seats: 56

Use your brain for half a second and work out why this is a pathetic sham we (UK) live in.
 
The problem is, the 2 parties that hve the most mps have them because of this system... so they won't change it.  Only a massive rally would do that and people are too bone idle and fickle for that.  Most don't even understand what I posted.
 
Yea man I didn't really understand any of that, I need to brush up on my British
 
Here's how First Past The Post "works":

Con (36.9%) Seats: 331
Lab (30.4%) Seats: 232
Ukip (12.6%) Seats: 1
LD (7.9%) Seats: 8
SNP (4.7%) Seats: 56

Use your brain for half a second and work out why this is a pathetic sham we (UK) live in.
Click to expand...
So, are you against the result or against the method?

What do you think the result should have been?
Would the result change if the method you preferred was used?

I'm not from the UK but, I'm curious about this.
Also, isn't there too many seats in total? If I were from the UK I would prefer reducing total seats.
 
sword_in_the_stone.png


Relevant
 
Yea man I didn't really understand any of that, I need to brush up on my British
Click to expand...
In simpler terms, the division of seats for each party doesn't match the percentage of votes each party got. I whipped up a quick graphic that should help visualize the problem:

9ZhK6mh.png


As this chart shows, the percentage of votes each party got does not adequately correspond to the percentage of available seats that party took. This is especially noticeable with the UK Independence Party (Ukip), who got more votes than either the Liberal Democrats (LD) or the Scottish National Party (SNP), and yet received only one seat. This usually happens when there's a decent number of people who support a particular party, but they are too divided geographically and cannot form the majority in any one area needed to get their candidate in. This is often made much worse through gerrymandering, especially in the US, though I don't know how much that comes into play in the UK.
 
Basically, it's THIS stupid:

Imagine that there are 4 parties standing for Manchester.

Party 1: Votes: 67424
Party 2: 67425
Party 3: 67426
Party 4: 67427

This is an extreme example, but it's just to illustrate what goes on in the wider scheme of things.  If the above happened, Party 4 would gain a seat.  The MP would be elected to the House. ALL OTHER VOTES WOULD BE DISCARDED.  They would be meaningless. All that would count in the above scenario is that Party 4 = +1

The Scottish National party now have UNPRECEDENTED POWER with around 4% of the vote, compared to UKIP who have no power at all with 12%.
 
Last edited:
DLPB, would you please answer my previous questions? I'm curious. ??? Everyone else can do it too! ;)
 
Why is it set up this way? The US definitely has some wanky laws that made a lot of sense a long time ago but make no sense now. Tesla selling cars direct to consumers and the war on drugs come to mind
 
DLPB, would you please answer my previous questions? I'm curious. ??? Everyone else can do it too! ;)
Click to expand...
I'm against it because it is undemocratic...  the figures stand for themselves.
 
Why is it set up this way?
Click to expand...
Because it favours the elite.  It favours the rich public schoolboys who are running the show here and who want to keep their power. And the electorate have been subdued by years of socialist brainwashing and dumbing down of education.  They don't even know how the system works.  My own grandma thinks that "every vote counts" despite me telling her repeatedly why it doesn't.  She, like most, doesn't want to listen.  And the elite count on that.  They count on stupidity.  See the George Carlin quote I posted. The United States isn't any better.... it's basically a stage show.  Two rich parties who are also in the back pocket of big business. Democracy used to mean something, but it hasn't for a long time.  All you have is the illusion of freedom... but it's better to be half free than live in some of those Middle Eastern countries.
 
Last edited:
Scotland votes against independence, still votes for SNP who championed it anyway.
 
45% voted for independence. If we assume those same 45% voted SNP, and the remaining 55% voted other parties, SNP would still be getting more votes because that 55% is being split. And that's ignoring other reasons people might have changed attitude since the referendum.

The actual figures:
-1617989 people voted YES in the Scottish independence referendum
-1454436 people voted SNP in the general election
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top