How much majority is required to win election?

[AJI]

I heard somebody say something strange just earlier which got me thinking.

They said that on the last election Labour won with only 22% of the vote.
And that for Conservative to win in the early 1990's they needed something like 40% of the vote.
Now I'm not sure if those figures are correct in any way but I did realise that I am not sure how the votes are converted into parliment seats.


So my question : Does any one party have to reach a similar majority of votes to win the election?
Or is it similar to the above whereby say the Conservatives need to gain 40% of the vote and Labour still only need to gain 22% to stay in power?

[JRM]

It depends on the make up on constituencies.

For an overall win, you need the majority of the seats - but the number of people voting for you per seat various enormously per seat, so in your example Labour may only have 22% of the national vote, but they won enough seats to hold a majority in parliament.

Lib Dems are the normal classic case where they win lots of votes, but not enough to win each seat, so if they come 2nd in every constituency they could get a huge percentage of the national vote, but no seats in parliament

[ewenm]

Remember stats can be stated in such a way as to make almost any point - 22% might be the percentage of the electorate that voted for Labour last time, but includes the 40% (or whatever figure it was) of the electorate that didn't vote at all etc, etc.

[Puggit]

In 2005 election Labour polled around 40% of the votes, but as the turnout was 50-odd percent, they polled 22% of the electorate.

[PaulHogan]

To win a seat you have to get more votes than any of the other candidates.

To win an election (outright) you have to get 326 seats*.

• Although in reality with the nutters and non-conformists the generally accepted target is 317 seats, iirc.

[JagLover]

Puggit said:

In 2005 election Labour polled around 40% of the votes, but as the turnout was 50-odd percent, they polled 22% of the electorate.

No they polled 36%, and achieved a decent majority with that.

Labour could probably retain power now with as little of 34% of the vote. Whereas the Tories need to be polling around 40% to do the same.

[AJI]

JagLover said:

Puggit said:

In 2005 election Labour polled around 40% of the votes, but as the turnout was 50-odd percent, they polled 22% of the electorate.

No they polled 36%, and achieved a decent majority with that.

Labour could probably retain power now with as little of 34% of the vote. Whereas the Tories need to be polling around 40% to do the same.

Ah I see.

So it really isn't a fair system where one party requires a larger percentage to win than another party.
If each/any party always required 40% (to use a given number for example) then it would be fairer yes/no ?

[JagLover]

AJI said:

JagLover said:

Puggit said:

In 2005 election Labour polled around 40% of the votes, but as the turnout was 50-odd percent, they polled 22% of the electorate.

No they polled 36%, and achieved a decent majority with that.

Labour could probably retain power now with as little of 34% of the vote. Whereas the Tories need to be polling around 40% to do the same.

Ah I see.

So it really isn't a fair system where one party requires a larger percentage to win than another party.
If each/any party always required 40% (to use a given number for example) then it would be fairer yes/no ?

Given that most Lib Dem voters incline left it seems fair to me that the centre right party needs at least 40% of the vote for a majority, otherwise it wouldn't have a proper mandate.

What does seem unfair is the smaller constuency sizes of many labour seats, which allows such a disproportionate representation. Boundaries should be based on up to date population figures and sizes should be as even as possible.

[sonic_2k_uk]

JagLover said:

AJI said:

JagLover said:

Puggit said:

In 2005 election Labour polled around 40% of the votes, but as the turnout was 50-odd percent, they polled 22% of the electorate.

No they polled 36%, and achieved a decent majority with that.

Labour could probably retain power now with as little of 34% of the vote. Whereas the Tories need to be polling around 40% to do the same.

Ah I see.

So it really isn't a fair system where one party requires a larger percentage to win than another party.
If each/any party always required 40% (to use a given number for example) then it would be fairer yes/no ?

Given that most Lib Dem voters incline left it seems fair to me that the centre right party needs at least 40% of the vote for a majority, otherwise it wouldn't have a proper mandate.

What does seem unfair is the smaller constuency sizes of many labour seats, which allows such a disproportionate representation. Boundaries should be based on up to date population figures and sizes should be as even as possible.

Have the current government carved up the constituencies to give them a benefit then, or is that not possible? Who decides these constituencies?

My constituency has been adjusted his time, making lib dem more likely to stay in. There were only 267 votes between them and the tories in 2005, so the boundary changes make a huge difference to the likelihood of the tories taking the seat back.

[oyster]

JagLover said:

What does seem unfair is the smaller constuency sizes of many labour seats, which allows such a disproportionate representation. Boundaries should be based on up to date population figures and sizes should be as even as possible.

A point that doesn't seem to get much mention either in the media or on PH (or indeed by the Tories).

Cameron is likely to have a bigger lead over Labour that Tony Blair did over the Tories in 2005 when he was re-elected.
But despite this, many PH'ers seem to think it is Cameron's fault that the Tories are not likely to wine a big majority, when the true cause is actually the very biased electoral boundaries.

[XJR40]

IIRC the Conservatives received more votes in England than Labour in the last two elections. It's crazy that we have devolved assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but not for England, seem undemocratic to me...

[Eric Mc]

No paarty has won an election in the UK with over 50% of the vote since the 1930s.

[SamHH]

sonic_2k_uk said:

Have the current government carved up the constituencies to give them a benefit then, or is that not possible? Who decides these constituencies?

Electoral boundaries are set by the four independent Boundary Commissions (one for each part of the UK). You can object to boundary changes that they propose and an inquiry may be held. There is more information on their websites.