That's the 'first past the post' system we use here in the UK.
The other way of looking at it, is if we had say Proportional Representation (as per the Euro Elections) we'd probably get a 'hung' parliament every time.
That's why Proportional Representation rules, and I'm a Labour supporter (for now)! I heavily believe in PR, as clearly the Lib Dems and Conservatives should have more seats than they ended up with (and the minor parties too, for that matter.. like the Greens).
However, using a map for comparison is not a good idea. The UK has a population heavily concentrated in several areas (London, North West, Birmingham, Tyneside) - basically all the 'red' areas - and clearly people in cities should not have a lesser vote than people in the country.. so that means cities get more of a say - therefore Labour win. The situation is even more marked in the USA.
The Democrats take the high population small areas and have barely 20% of 'land coverage' that the Republicans have.. yet still got almost half the vote. The UK is the same.. just replace Texas with Lincolnshire, say ;-) If we changed the UK system to apportion importance by land area, you'd have a handful of yokels in Scotland and rural England choosing the leaders.. not a good idea ;-)
Speaking as a yokel born, bred and residing in rural England, i.e. the South Suffolk constituency, I'd just like to ask why our opinions matter less than those of the people in the inner cities? Surely ignorance is not restricted to the country?
I'm just tired of this stereotype that those of us who live in the country lack intelligence, because I'm certainly don't. Ask Dave ;-) We have a bloody good Tory MP here in South Suffolk, Tim Yeo, who is a man who speaks up in Parliament and gets involved in local issues. Example: when my aunt was having difficulty getting respite care for my late cousin who was severely disabled, Mr Yeo came out to her home personally and discussed the issue with her then helped her to get the respite care she desperately needed for Jason.
I'm sorry if I've got on my soapbox here, and I know it was only a lighthearted jokey comment, but I get tired of hearing that one!
Speaking as a yokel born, bred and residing in rural England, i.e. the South Suffolk constituency, I'd just like to ask why our opinions matter less than those of the people in the inner cities?
It does not. My point was that each individual's vote should be of equal power. This means, of course, that the tens of millions who live in the cities tend to sway the vote more than the mere hundreds of thousands who live out in the countryside. This, however, is fair, but means that land mass/area has no relevance to voting whatsoever (which, of course, it shouldn't). :)
Cause the smaller (geographically) constituencies do not show up so large on that map ...Labour is stronger in the cities...
FPTP is not an ideal voting system but like democracy 'it is the worse form of government apart from all the others' ...FPTP is a leveraged system that provides a strong government from small percentage majorities.
Mind you would you prefer constant Lib-Lab/Lib-Con pact with a non constituency based proportional representation with national parties picking the priority of their candidates? (where the government policy is made and jobs allocated in a smoke filled room without any input from electorate).
I think constituency concept is good ...as otherwise you would have politicians who ONLY have input from lobby groups ...and funding would be a priority for them like senators are...
My own thoughts is there should be 'clumps' of small groups of constituencies, for example, 5 of the present constituencies with 5 MP's which are voted for as 1 proportionally. Would mean a lot more extremist candidates like most OPOV systems but tis a compromise and retains the constituency link.
Right workage ...(Personally thought Lab would get in with reduced majority ...next time is the 'real election')