Reformers say too many votes are effectively
wasted in safe seats where either Labour or Conservatives have large, in - built majorities, and this depresses turnout.
Not exact matches
These disproportionalities aside, the unfairness of the system can be seen
in the 25.7 million people who we, at the Electoral Reform Society, estimated lived
in safe seats earlier this year It can also be seen
in the approximately three million people who felt they had to vote tactically, or the almost three quarters of votes which were
wasted in this election — i.e. they didn't contribute to electing an MP.
The constituency system combined with first - past - the - post voting brings other problems and grievances
in its train, especially the issue of «
wasted votes»
in safe seats.
Under the first past the post electoral system, many Labour votes were «
wasted» as part of large majorities for MPs
in safe seats rather than into holding onto marginal
seats.
Britain's first - past - the - post (FPTP) electoral system (
in) famously results
in marginal and
safe seats where many votes are considered «
wasted» — but the 2017 General Election has shown just what random results that can throw up.
This is a small improvement on our current system of first past the post, since it allows voters to rank candidates and reduces the need to vote tactically, but it does not address the crucial unfairness at the heart of our democracy which is that a party's share of
seats in parliament does reflect the number of votes it receives across the country - a situation which leads to millions of
wasted votes and a shameful system of «
safe seats» where a donkey could be elected so long as they were wearing the right coloured rosette.