- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
UKIP must be feeling a bit sore - 12.6% of the popular vote, 3.8 million votes and just one MP... meanwhile, with just 38% of that number of votes, the SNP are sitting on 56 seats! As @KSaiyu pointed out above, UKIP have more votes that the Lib Dems and the SNP combined... if vote share translated directly into MPs, UKIP would have 82 MPs.
If it were straight PR, we would have had the following result: CON 239, LAB 198, UKIP 82, LD 50, SNP 31, GRN 25
Incidentally, of those 6 major parties, all but the Liberal Democrats actually got a higher % of the vote than in 2010, with the Conservatives scoring the smallest increase (0.7%) and UKIP by far the highest (9.6%). The Lib Dems are down 15.2%... that's gotta hurt.
This sounds like a much fairer voting system, are there many downsides to it?
The current system you can theoretically get 100% of the seats with a fraction of the votes, and although that's very unlikely to happen, it shows how unfair a result you could get.
For anyone interested I also worked out the formula for working out the minimum number of votes needed for 100% of the seats;
(1/number of parties)*total number of votes + 650
It should be right, does assume there are the same number of parties in each constituency, and also assumes I understand the current voting system properly. And yes, I was bored.