Lib Dem got 3.5mil votes and have 71 seats, Sinn Fein have 210,000 and seven seats
In: Other
They won four constituencies. The United Kingdom has a first-past-the-post system, candidates stand for constituencies, if they win that they have a seat in Parliament.
Just like the U.S. and Canada, UK retained FPTP system that doesn’t employ proportionate representation but instead uses constituencies where there the person with the most votes (not majority, just the most) wins and all other votes are wasted.
There’s a good plain-language explainer on Al Jazeera answering this exact question about yesterday’s election https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/5/uk-general-election-2024-why-do-some-popular-parties-win-so-few-seats
The slightly absurd FPTP system.
Your total vote share doesn’t count for anything, just the individual who wins in each constituency.
Because it’s not based on total votes across the nation but in individual constituencies, of which they only won four.
Reform’s votes were spread across many constituencies, while the other parties had more concentrated support. Therefore, Reform failed to win any constituencies outright, while the other parties won more seats with fewer total votes.
Imagine four constituencies
1. Labour 51%, Reform 49%
2. Labour 51%, Reform 49%
3. Labour 51%, Reform 49%
4. Reform 99%, Labour 1%
Average vote share: Labour 38.5%, Reform 60.75%.
Labour win three seats, Reform win one.
An extreme example but that’s how it works. You can come a close second in every single seat and win nothing at all on the back of 10m votes.
Reform won in four of their seats but were nowhere near in hundreds, second in dozens.
The problem is winning the “most votes” not “some votes”. Reform contested in many areas where although they have support, it wasn’t sufficient to overcome the most popular candidate. If a party contexts 100 seats and gets an even 15% vote share in all 100 seats but in every one of those seats, the most popular candidate got 16% of the vote, then that party wins 0 seats.
Still it was a pretty strong showing for a new party to even win 4 seats and achieve a 14+% vote share overall. More established parties have their “strongholds” and generally can count on a few “near guaranteed” wins.
There are both pros and cons of this kind of system. It forces a majority party to at least try to win over a plurality of the voters and this usually moderates their position. On the other hand, it can feel disenfranchising to a minority who may have very strong convictions that are narrowly held in the broader populace.
You’re not electing a party but a person, each area picks their person via popular vote.
Lots of people spread across the country voted for people aligned with reform, but only in 4 areas were they the most popular person.
Because you win a seat by gaining the most votes in that constituency. And they only did that 4 times.
[In 98 constituencies the second place candidate was standing for the Reform party](https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1809111284341715035?s=46&t=r3TSyr9xBACSeEVuuzoX4Q).
That got them a LOT of votes and zero seats (in those 98 constituencies)
Latest Answers