The voting system does not appear reasonable for a person who is not from the UK, how is it possible to get only 4 seats with 4.1 M votes if someone else gets 412 seats with 9.7 M votes , wtf ? Scratching my head here but how can this be possible ?
Maybe only one person from some district gets elected even if winning by only 1 vote and thus all other casted votes go to waste or something ?
Yesterday I discovered that in 2017, the borough of Kensington seat was won by Labour by a margin of only 20 seats, after having always been Conservative. It's the wealthiest constituency in the UK, and 6 days after that election was the Grenfell tower fire, in which some of the poorest people in London died... but that's probably just a coincidence
you meant 20 votes probably instead of 20 seats ? borough of Kensington seems to have around 150 000 population, so 20 votes sounds like its extremely well in the margin of error, something like ~0,013 % of total and even if only half vote which usually is the case i suspect, still ~0,026 %, as some countries have mandatory recounts if vote is won under 2,5 % difference.
20 vote difference is so miniscule that you could easily achieve it and more just using the simplest of the multiple democrat party cheat tactics from the US 2020 cheat , as in bribing voters to cast a vote certain way, and taking a photo of their vote - they would pay $ 100 to the voter when they showed the picture with correct voting ( ironically they also paid people to attend Biden's speeches - again $ 100 per attendee, one guy was caught on camera asking "so when do i get my hundred - do i have to stay here for the whole thing ?" :D :D )
Also using other even easier methods just to manipulate the votes, as in changing the number 7 to number 4 or number 1 to number 7 etc if the votes are written numbers (this has been known to have done in certain places where method of writing number on a vote card is used and officials corrupt) , harder to do if correct choice is circled from a selection for example.
Seems to me that if the difference is too small, they should just renew the election and do that again as long as it takes to achieve real difference in votes, or just change the candidates if that does not work.
Yes, I meant a margin of 20 votes. "A margin of 20 seats"... *facepalm*
The system sure is 'idiosyncratic', you could say. I'm sure they try all the same kind of tricks as in the US, but it's not something I have any personal experience of.
I added a section to the bottom of the post because that's a very good question, and I shouldn't assume that people would know how the UK election works
You're not the only person to be asking that question! Yes your example is correct. Each constituency is a unique contest with no prize for second place, so all the votes for the losing candidates count for nothing, in a way.
For example if Reform fielded candidates in 410 constituencies and each one got 10,000 votes, but in 406 of those constituencies there was another candidate who got more than 10,000 votes, that would account for them getting 4.1m votes but only 4 seats. Obviously that's not what happened (I don't have the statistics handy) but you can see how it goes.
I don't think there is even a margin by which the winning candidate has to win, so winning by 1 vote would actually be valid. Apparently in the 2017 general election there were 11 seats won by a margin of less than 100 votes.
The voting system does not appear reasonable for a person who is not from the UK, how is it possible to get only 4 seats with 4.1 M votes if someone else gets 412 seats with 9.7 M votes , wtf ? Scratching my head here but how can this be possible ?
Maybe only one person from some district gets elected even if winning by only 1 vote and thus all other casted votes go to waste or something ?
Yesterday I discovered that in 2017, the borough of Kensington seat was won by Labour by a margin of only 20 seats, after having always been Conservative. It's the wealthiest constituency in the UK, and 6 days after that election was the Grenfell tower fire, in which some of the poorest people in London died... but that's probably just a coincidence
you meant 20 votes probably instead of 20 seats ? borough of Kensington seems to have around 150 000 population, so 20 votes sounds like its extremely well in the margin of error, something like ~0,013 % of total and even if only half vote which usually is the case i suspect, still ~0,026 %, as some countries have mandatory recounts if vote is won under 2,5 % difference.
20 vote difference is so miniscule that you could easily achieve it and more just using the simplest of the multiple democrat party cheat tactics from the US 2020 cheat , as in bribing voters to cast a vote certain way, and taking a photo of their vote - they would pay $ 100 to the voter when they showed the picture with correct voting ( ironically they also paid people to attend Biden's speeches - again $ 100 per attendee, one guy was caught on camera asking "so when do i get my hundred - do i have to stay here for the whole thing ?" :D :D )
Also using other even easier methods just to manipulate the votes, as in changing the number 7 to number 4 or number 1 to number 7 etc if the votes are written numbers (this has been known to have done in certain places where method of writing number on a vote card is used and officials corrupt) , harder to do if correct choice is circled from a selection for example.
Seems to me that if the difference is too small, they should just renew the election and do that again as long as it takes to achieve real difference in votes, or just change the candidates if that does not work.
Yes, I meant a margin of 20 votes. "A margin of 20 seats"... *facepalm*
The system sure is 'idiosyncratic', you could say. I'm sure they try all the same kind of tricks as in the US, but it's not something I have any personal experience of.
I added a section to the bottom of the post because that's a very good question, and I shouldn't assume that people would know how the UK election works
You're not the only person to be asking that question! Yes your example is correct. Each constituency is a unique contest with no prize for second place, so all the votes for the losing candidates count for nothing, in a way.
For example if Reform fielded candidates in 410 constituencies and each one got 10,000 votes, but in 406 of those constituencies there was another candidate who got more than 10,000 votes, that would account for them getting 4.1m votes but only 4 seats. Obviously that's not what happened (I don't have the statistics handy) but you can see how it goes.
I don't think there is even a margin by which the winning candidate has to win, so winning by 1 vote would actually be valid. Apparently in the 2017 general election there were 11 seats won by a margin of less than 100 votes.