In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 07/06/15 22:11, John Chance wrote:

Unlikely given the pathetic result UKIP got in the most recent elections,
just one MP elected, and that one a refugee from the Tories that who
wouldn€˜t even do what UKIP wanted him to do about putting his snout
in the HoC trough on staff. Nothing to be scared of there.


And yet:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

Ordered by share of the votes

Party Vote share Seats
Cons 36.9% 331
Lab 30.4% 232
UKIP 12.6% 1
LibDem 7.9% 8


And tell me again why we still used this broken arsed voting system?

And each time there is any form of vote to change, it loses.

And if you want somethings more based on the views of everyone, you'd need
to make sure everyone voted.

Strange the way the Tories want a clear majority of all when it comes to
strike action. But not for parliamentiary elections.

This old chestnut. You elect the candidate out of an indefinite list who
gets the most votes. Majority isn't relevant.
A strike ballot presents a yes/no option and the majority vote holds
sway. It's simply a question of deciding a majority of what union
members or union members who vote. I've never understood why so many
don't vote on such a critical issue.
--
bert