Secret Squirrel has heard of UKIP , which was totally kippered and filleted in the past election,getting only 1 seat and not yet being able to have it's party leadered voted in to office. Indeed, they got 4 million votes, and only 1 seat, which meant that UKIP had a smattering of support scattered about merely thither and yon across the length
and breadth of England but not concentrated in any one place enabling it to get a seat.
That's how the system works, so many voters in any particular constituency will vote one lad in from the party the majority choose, coming close doesn't count you see. This IS the system which is employed world wide in democracies, and no cry baby party, nor cry baby party leader can and should be able to change it...........it is THE system and it works,that is how it works.UKIP’s Nigel Farage called for an end to first-past-the-post elections after the party was left with one elected MP despite a 13% share (the UK’s third-highest) of the vote.
The Green Party also had a 3.8% share of the national vote and just one seat and the
Lib Dems were left with 8 seats with a 7.9% share.
Meanwhile, other smaller parties benefited from FPTP(First Past The Post--majority wins). The SNP secured 56 seats with just 4.7% of the national vote share.
There's nothing wrong with the system of voting, just that the distribution of voters versus constituencies is not correct, rather it is not representation by a specific number of population......as is self evident in the Scottish ratio 56 seats with just 4.7% of the national vote.
But the popular vote was split between the two major parties, with the Tories at 37 percent and Labour at 31 percent according to latest count of votes broadcast by BBC.
Ukip claiming 83 seats should've been had for 4million voters goes with a ratio of 48,193 persons to a seat..........
This Figures to 15,951,807 voters having voted for Cons to give 331 seats,but actual votes totalled 11,334,920 or 34,244 voters per seat......and hey the SNP got 56 seats off of 1,454,436 voters at 25,972 voters per seat.......
the Labour got for 40,292 voters per seat at 9,347,926.
Why doesn't the division of seats in parliament reflect the popular vote?
The Electoral Reform Commission has been trying to change the system for years, running a referendum on electoral reform in 2011. But British voters rejected electoral reform in the poll. All that could be and needs be done really is to redraw the electoral maps, such that the electoral constituencies have a basic equal number of
voters,regardless of whether new constituencies are then created. If all things were fair and equal, there being 46,500,000 eligible British voters, for a total of 650 seats that would be a constituency requirement of 71,538 voters to each and every one starting in applied balance,but it just isn't so. However UKIP which received spread out support thinks it should get to select itself, or have a candidate selected on the basis of vote received broad spectrum,ridiculous. Also ridiculous is a proposed system of selecting two candidates a first and a second, BUT that would mean a selection of another party, NOT the one you desire and hence your selected party(and thence leader), could loose the election.......not what you desire.The British system divides the country into legislative districts with each being represented in parliament by a single MP.
If a number of parties contest a seat in a district, the winner is the candidate who receives the most votes within the district.One winner of the majority of the votes, the rest loosers,nothing wrong with that is there, No, I should say not.
Let's look at UKIP's sour grapes complaint, now population wise, we combine the populations of Birmingham,Leeds,Sheffield,Bradford,Liverpool,Manchester,and Bristol to total 4,059,771 of what UKIP would say are their votes, but rather than giving UKIP 83 seats as they claim they should have, they here get 29 seats, BUT face it, the people here didn't vote UKIP, UKIP support was spread out thither and yon and totalled to 4million, and so what of it, loosers are loosers, winners are winners.It goes by whom the people vote for,the majority of the people,he wins, the others loose, because their votes were less. And so it should be and is and should remain, the will of the majority in any given constituency,loosers don't count, nor do their numbers of votes, regardless as they lost.
Secret Squirrel,
MRL,
MP,Dunny On The Wold,
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-engineering.
No comments:
Post a Comment