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.
