UK General Election (Poll Results in OP)

Cast Your Non-Binding Vote Here

  • Alliance Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Blaunau Gwent

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Conservative

    Votes: 8 20.5%
  • Democratic Unionist

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • English Democrats

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Green Party

    Votes: 2 5.1%
  • Labour

    Votes: 14 35.9%
  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 2 5.1%
  • Monster Raving Loony Party

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • National Front

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Pirate Pa-aarty UK

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Respect

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Scottish National Party

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Social Democrat and Labour Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Traditional Unionist Voice

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • UK Independence Party

    Votes: 4 10.3%
  • Yorkshire First

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • British National Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Spoiled Ballot

    Votes: 5 12.8%
  • I Won't Be Voting

    Votes: 2 5.1%
  • Ulster Unionist Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    39
  • Poll closed .
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. :P
 
My mum, one of the only members of my family who always votes Blue voted Green. Apparently she likes what the Tories used to be, but "doesn't trust Cameron". She voted for the Greens as she didn't want to waste her vote.. How I resisted the temptation to make the obvious joke I don't know.
 
This sounds like a much fairer voting system, are there many downsides to it?

As I understand it the downside to this comes with choosing local MPs, take the example of this election: UKIP get 12% of the vote so they should get 78 MPs but only one constituency that actually wanted a UKIP MP representing them, what happens to the rest?
 
SNP going from strength to strength, Love that as much as the perception nothing has changed. Hilarious stuff.
 
This sounds like a much fairer voting system, are there many downsides to it?

Organisationally the constituencies need to be managed to ensure that they continue to have a similar number of voters, that's about all.

As I understand it the downside to this comes with choosing local MPs, take the example of this election: UKIP get 12% of the vote so they should get 78 MPs but only one constituency that actually wanted a UKIP MP representing them, what happens to the rest?

Constituencies continue to exist, just with a managed number of voters as I mentioned above. Each constituency still votes, still returns an MP. The seats aren't just divvied up according to the overall UK vote.
 
As I understand it the downside to this comes with choosing local MPs, take the example of this election: UKIP get 12% of the vote so they should get 78 MPs but only one constituency that actually wanted a UKIP MP representing them, what happens to the rest?
Question is, is there any serious need for that many constituencies? Finland, which is about the same size as UK, only has about a dozen of them for comparison.
 
Question is, is there any serious need for that many constituencies? Finland, which is about the same size as UK, only has about a dozen of them for comparison.

It's on a population basis though.
 
The Times
George Galloway lost his bitter battle to keep his seat this morning. The Respect founder was beaten by a Muslim woman he had mercilessly hounded over her sad childhood and family life.

He sought to humiliate Naz Shah, condemning her as a liar who had pandered to anti-Pakistani stereotypes by complaining that she suffered misery at the hands of a male-dominated culture.

In the end, it was Mr Galloway who was belittled with a crushing rejection from the voters of Bradford West. Ms Shah, the Labour candidate, commanded half the vote with 19,977 votes to Mr Galloway’s 8,557.

On top of his defeat, he was reported to police by the returning officer for retweeting a message suggesting exit polls said he was winning by a margin of two to one over Labour. A law introduced in 2002 imposes a maximum six-month jail term for publishing exit polls before voting finishes. A Respect spokesman said: “It seems like a storm in a thimble.” Mr Galloway has looked barely able to conceal his excitement in recent weeks at the prospect of leaving Bradford West and returning to London to fight to become mayor next year.

This was the second time in two general elections that Mr Galloway has been chased out of constituencies with a large Muslim population. In 2010 he came third in Poplar & Limehouse.
Come on down, you'll find we're a lot less tolerant of known racists around these parts.
 
Question is, is there any serious need for that many constituencies? Finland, which is about the same size as UK, only has about a dozen of them for comparison.
Finand's population is just 8% of the UK's.

Also, I just woke up to the election results. I think it may be time for me to consider getting a graduate job on the continent... :P
 
Last edited:
Also, I just woke up to the election results. I think it may be time for me to consider getting a graduate job on the continent...

:lol: Good luck with that.

Other than Germany, the rest of Europe is an unemployment nightmare... even the Germans have one hand tied behind their back as they are trying to manage the constraints of a single currency with wildly differing economic needs across the region.

GB is in by far the strongest position across the Union :)
 
Finand's population is just 8% of the UK's.

Also, I just woke up to the election results. I think it may be time for me to consider getting a graduate job on the continent...

So, you want to leave the country with one of the fastest growing economies in Europe, and that's creating more new jobs than the rest of Europe combined, to find a find a job in Europe? Interesting.
 
I guess I should have added a :P at the end there ;)

Although I haven't ruled out working abroad when I graduate, I would by far prefer to stay in the UK.
 
Last edited:
With 650 constituencies, that's roughly 100,000 per constituency?

Would be very interesting to see the contrast between the physical size of the largest and smallest constituency under a system like this. I am sure someone has worked it out.
 
It's time to start inspecting other countries closely.
I know a place you'll absolutely love!

900px-Flag_of_Greece.svg.png
 
With 650 constituencies, that's roughly 100,000 per constituency?

Not that high as the entire population isn't entitled to vote... there are around 46M eligible voters in the UK, so c.71,000 per constituency on average.
 
Very different times, socially & politically.

Labour are dead without the Scottish seats.
Most Labour governments would still have had a majority even without Scottish seats. Just as Labour would still have lost last night even if every single person in Scotland had voted for them.
 
In this particular case, however, Labour's predicted wipeout in Scotland had the even more potent effect of galvanizing the Tory vote south of the border, which might explain how the Tories and Labour were even in the polls (the polls being a measure of voting intention for those who have already decided how they will vote), and yet the Tories ended up with an overall majority. While there are also other reasons (mainly the other parties all being absolutely useless), the thought of the SNP holding the balance of power probably convinced a lot of floating voters that a Tory vote was the best way to avoid that. If Scottish Labour had not polled so terribly in the last few weeks of the campaign, I doubt there would have been such a massive upsurge in Tory support at the last minute.
 
Most Labour governments would still have had a majority even without Scottish seats. Just as Labour would still have lost last night even if every single person in Scotland had voted for them.

Hmmmm... Labour have been in power 11 times since 1923. 4 of those times they would definitely have had a majority without the Scottish vote ('45, '66, '97, '01), the rest of the results would probably have ended in a hung parliament at best.
 
A lesson for future elections - be careful how you spoil your ballot:

BBC
Conservative MP Glyn Davies - who held the Montgomeryshire seat in mid-Wales - admitted to being "rather pleased" with holding his 5,300 majority. However, one of those who ended up voting for him might not share his glee.

He wrote on Facebook: "One voter decided to draw a detailed representation of a penis instead of a cross in my box on one ballot paper. Amazingly, because it was neatly drawn within the confines of the box, the returning officer deemed it a valid vote. Not sure the artist meant it to count, but I am grateful. If I knew who it was, I would like to thank him (or her) personally."

He added later: "Seems it doesn't actually have to a cross. It's one of the funniest election incidents I've ever known of."
 
Back