Election seat calculator

[Stevenj214]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_20...

If I put the 3 main parties and 'others' to 25% each of the vote share, the seats are distributed as so:

315 Labour
206 Conservative
100 Lib Dem
29 Other

Why isn't the number of seats equal?!

[elster]

Labour changed the boundaries.

[grumbledoak]

A quick check of the history books will reveal something that you apparently didn't know - the Unions are not particularly fond of democracy. In my lifetime they have just about evolved from putting those who voted "the wrong way" into A&E. To rigging the elections, banana republic style.

[Jasandjules]

elster said:

Labour changed the boundaries.

^ This. It means that the Tories have to get a lot more votes to get the same number of Parliamentary seats. It's a travesty.

[Puggit]

On top of the above problem, many of the Tory voters that could have voted out Labour in marginal town/city constituencies have fled to safer Tory rural areas, where their votes make little change.

[Puggit]

BBC explains (with glee) why the Tories need 10% extra:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_20...

[Stevenj214]

Puggit said:

BBC explains (with glee) why the Tories need 10% extra:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_20...

Thanks for that. It makes me think more that Proportional Representation/Single Transferable Vote is fairer for all.

[MX7]

PR still has constituencies and boundaries, and if they are outdated, as ours are, I don't think it would improve it.

[5unny]

Stevenj214 said:

Puggit said:

BBC explains (with glee) why the Tories need 10% extra:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_20...

Thanks for that. It makes me think more that Proportional Representation/Single Transferable Vote is fairer for all.

PR would lead to even more seats for left wingers/socialists and greenies because together Labour and the Lib Dems will get more votes than the Tories.

[Stevenj214]

MX7 said:

PR still has constituencies and boundaries, and if they are outdated, as ours are, I don't think it would improve it.

The Electoral Reform Society believe STV is the best way to make every vote has equal value and minimise wasted votes. Essentially, they believe it's the fairest system.

[Stevenj214]

5unny said:

Stevenj214 said:

Puggit said:

BBC explains (with glee) why the Tories need 10% extra:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_20...

Thanks for that. It makes me think more that Proportional Representation/Single Transferable Vote is fairer for all.

PR would lead to even more seats for left wingers/socialists and greenies because together Labour and the Lib Dems will get more votes than the Tories.

If PR gives results which more accurately reflect the will of the people, what is the issue if the will of the people wants to be left wing/socialist?

[MX7]

Stevenj214 said:

MX7 said:

PR still has constituencies and boundaries, and if they are outdated, as ours are, I don't think it would improve it.

The Electoral Reform Society believe STV is the best way to make every vote has equal value and minimise wasted votes. Essentially, they believe it's the fairest system.

And the Jenkins Report thought that AV+ would be the fairest. It doesn't make any difference what system you have if your constituencies are so out of balance, as our are.

[Zod]

The boundaries need to be redrawn, radically and all seats should be approximately the same size in terms of population.