If any conservative pundits mention this, please be sure to reply with "so you're saying you think we should have a more... proportional voting system?" 😇
The rules of the election were well known ahead of time. In general, it is more productive to win elections under the existing well-known rules, instead of belly-aching about how unfair the rules are.
Not wrong when you take tactical voting into account. Voters know how to game the system too . The main objective of many was to minimize the Tories . The LibDem voting share is pretty bad but they won their most seats ever because voters knew where it made sense to vote for them and where not
Exactly . Plenty of reporting about where Labour went out and spend time and effort to campaign and where they didn't put in effort . Labour under Corbyn IRC wanted to compete everywhere . It gained them a decent vote share but that doesn't help you win election in the UK system by ittself.
I know for example some people reacted angrily when Labour stopped puttin in effort into the seat Farage won but if you look at the result there was no world where putting in more money and effort would've helped them at all.
There has been an awful lot of comment about Labour's vote share from Corbyn sympathizers and I am not impressed. There is also a lot of focus from too many online pundits about admitting DC and Puerto Rico for US Senate elections instead of Democrats winning the states that already exist.
We should admit D.C. and Puerto Rico to afford them proper representation in our government. There is certainly no guarantee that Puerto Rico will elect Democrats post-statehood. It’s still the right thing to do if Puerto Ricans want it.
It’s axiomatic that NO system of voting is perfect
So rather than bitch about Labour consigning Tories et al to “also ran” curiosities…
Why not look smart and suggest a theory of why candidates aligned with a 14% minority party, should take a seat from one the district’s constituents solidly favor
This is the wrong takeaway. What this really shows is that primaries are good things. Reform and Conservatives would get together. Labour, Green, and a good chunk of Lib Dems would get together.
We're 14 years removed from a hung parliament, and 7 from a minority Tory government. Each time, it was only after the elections that coalitions formed (once logically, once pretty strangely). Voters deserve to know in advance what the coalition will be.
If You Ran The Zoo, what fraction of our Congress would you budget to be individually chosen by party bosses to top up their proportion?
And need I ask, this means you’d abolish the Electoral College and dramatically disempower the Senate?
well if I ran the zoo I'd set up a New Zealand style MMP system with explicit provision for parties as private institutions, and then I would radically clamp down on party campaign spending and especially outside spending. Senate and EC would gone entirely
Still bitching, tho—what’s YOUR plan?
For 🇬🇧 to have 100 at-large seats and voters get to vote for 100 of the (>500?) candidates
Unworkable; leading to no accountability
Or “instant runoff” like we enjoy here for local Oakland offices, which might not change much
Speak up!
Single Transferable Vote. Every time. You still vote for your own MP but you _actually_ get to rate your preferences rather than the current system.
Why did Reform get so many votes Vs Lib Dem/Green? Because the never-Tory voters understand tactical voting, that's why.
Scottish Parliament's system seems fine. There's a bunch of ways to fix it.
Oakland IRV doesn't solve the problem, it's just a better way of electing a single person.
Their moderate centrist saviour getting lower turnout and no higher vote share compared to ""terrible toxic vote losing leftist" Corbyn is REALLY SOMETHING
