Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Poor Liberal Democrats (UK) - 23% of popular vote, only 9% of seats!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 02:20 PM
Original message
Poor Liberal Democrats (UK) - 23% of popular vote, only 9% of seats!
Talk about a system that seems to have a fundamental flaw in it.

Party______Seats__Votes____%
Conservative 306 10,706,647 36.1
Labour 258 8,604,358 29.0
Liberal Democrat 57 6,827,938 23.0

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/election2010/results/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. And they want electoral reform because of it.
Labour and the Conservative parties are dangling it in front of the Lib Dems but would either party really act on it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. There's talk of proportional seating, right?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. It would be better for liberals - see table within...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
T Wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
2. as compared to the US where we Dems could have 51% of the presidential vote and NO
Edited on Fri May-07-10 02:23 PM by T Wolf
POTUS.

Or 53% of the vote for Congress and virtually no representation.

Politics, like everything in this world, is run by the elite for the elite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. +1
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. I really appreciate such a useful addition to the discourse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
3. Then again, in 2000, we got 51% of the vote but none of the White House seats. (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. lol
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
5. Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. Yeah right! You could be from the USA and have the Representatives on the 'left'
Edited on Fri May-07-10 03:04 PM by HughMoran
& still not get the left policy that you'd like!

;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
6. If I read this correctly, Nat'l vote doesn't equate to # of seats.
MP seats are determined by the local vote, in each MP district, not based on an overall national %.

i.e. That would be like comparing national House of Rep vote totals / % by party, with the number of seats won or lost. The two don't correlate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Right.
It just seems like having only 9% of representation when you have 23% of the popular vote (especially in a parliamentarian system where coalitions are key) is inherently unfair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Exactly, Sir: 'First Past the Post' In Each District
There are no 'party lists' in Great Britain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
11. That's not a flaw, it happens when a population group is not uniformly distributed across districts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-10 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
15. Then there's what would happen to a third party in the U.S.:
if it got 23% of votes, it would likely get ............... 0% of seats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC