Tory & @UKLabour vote share*, 1918 - 2019.
Only THREE times since 1918, has a vote swing of over 9% been recorded: to a National Govt in 1931, & to Labour in 1945 & 2017.
*The UK's antiquated FPTP electoral system means seats are more important than either votes or vote share.
Only THREE times since 1918, has a vote swing of over 9% been recorded: to a National Govt in 1931, & to Labour in 1945 & 2017.
*The UK's antiquated FPTP electoral system means seats are more important than either votes or vote share.
On three occasions, the party with the most votes did not win the most seats.
In 1929 and in February 1974, Labour polled fewer votes than the Conservatives but had more MPs. In 1951 the Conservatives won the most seats, but received fewer votes than Labour.
In 1929 and in February 1974, Labour polled fewer votes than the Conservatives but had more MPs. In 1951 the Conservatives won the most seats, but received fewer votes than Labour.
Votes/seat #GE2019
SNP 26K
Tory 38K
Labour 51K
LibDems 336K
Greens 865K
#GE2017 resulted in a hung parliament.
At #GE2019, Johnson's Tories got just 329,767 more votes than in 2017, but an 80 seat majority., despite fewer than 3 in 10 of the electorate voting Tory.
SNP 26K
Tory 38K
Labour 51K
LibDems 336K
Greens 865K
#GE2017 resulted in a hung parliament.
At #GE2019, Johnson's Tories got just 329,767 more votes than in 2017, but an 80 seat majority., despite fewer than 3 in 10 of the electorate voting Tory.
At #GE2005, Labour took a majority of the seats with only 36% of the vote, & the largest two parties took 69% of the vote but 88% of the seats.
A fundamental requirement of an election system is to accurately represent the views of voters, but FPTP often fails in this respect.
A fundamental requirement of an election system is to accurately represent the views of voters, but FPTP often fails in this respect.
FPTP too often creates "false majorities" by over-representing larger parties (giving a majority of the parliamentary/legislative seats to a party that did not receive a majority of the votes) while under-representing smaller ones.
To a greater extent than many others, FPTP encourages "tactical voting". Voters have an incentive to vote for a candidate who they predict is more likely to win, as opposed to their preferred candidate who may be unlikely to win & for whom a vote could be considered as wasted.
Voter participation tends to be lower in countries with FPTP than elsewhere.
At #GE2005, 52% of votes were cast for losing candidates & 18% were excess votes—a total of 70% "wasted" votes, meaning a large majority of votes played no part in determining the outcome.
At #GE2005, 52% of votes were cast for losing candidates & 18% were excess votes—a total of 70% "wasted" votes, meaning a large majority of votes played no part in determining the outcome.
FPTP tends to deliver many 'safe seats', where MPs are sheltered from any but the most dramatic change in voting behaviour. In the UK, more than half the seats can be considered as safe. MPs involved in the 2009 expenses scandal were significantly more likely to hold a safe seat.
FPTP can create a powerful electoral incentive for large parties to all target similar segments of voters with similar policies, reducing political diversity in a country because the larger parties are incentivised to coalesce around similar policies.
The campaign to scrap FPTP has been ongoing since at least the 1970s in the UK, but reformers face the obstacle of large incumbent parties who control the legislature & who are incentivised to resist any attempts to replace the FPTP system that elected them on a minority vote.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
