Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaccers
Labour 29% spread across more constituencies = 258 seats
LibDems 23% spread across fewer constituencies = 57 seats.
Seems easy to understand to me.
If the LibDems were better at it they'd get more votes across the nation.
Interesting how despite the landslide against them in 97, the Tories didn't whinge about the voting system.
To quote Russ, the LDs need to "man up" and do better with the voting public.
|
The Lib Dem support is scattered across the nation isn't it? That's the problem, where as Labour have strongholds in urban areas and the Tories in rural area, the Lib Dem support is spread thingly over a whole bunch of places never reaching enough to overcome the incumbent party. Which is why they need a very high swing to every get near government.
Anyway I am not saying it wasn't "easy to understand", I am saying that only 7% more people voted Labour yet the seat distribution is unevenly favors them.
It may be fine if you voted for the winner, but it's pretty demoralizing if your voted for the Liberal Democrats and your vote just never bloody matters.
-
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Guardian
If you divide the number of votes each party received by the number of seats they won (as things stand now), you get these figures: Conservatives: 35,021
Labour: 33,338
Liberal Democrat: 119,397
|