[ SECRET POST #3189 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3189 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 045 secrets from Secret Submission Post #455.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Only 36% of the British public voted for the Tories last election. Unfortunately, because the Tories are extremely crafty in terms of moving constituency boundaries, that 36% translated to just over 50% of the seats. Additionally, their main opponent, Labour, was a shambles and so didn't pose a real opposition.

And so the most despicable, evil assortment of rich entitled scum to ever sit on the benches of Westminster returned.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, no, that's not an entirely accurate analysis, I don't think.

First, it's not really because of gerrymandering, although I'm sure that doesn't help. It's more the way that a multi-party parliamentary first past the post system is going to work. The Conservatives were the plurality choice. That's why they won the most seats. I mean, gerrymandering accentuated that advantage, without a doubt. But you would expect the party that wins a plurality of votes to win more seats than their share of the vote in the system that exists in the UK, simple because that's how the system works, and because at the end of the day someone needs to win the actual seats. If you want to look at why they were the plurality choice, then you want to talk about Labour being a shambles and the Tories running an extremely good campaign, really a brilliant campaign in a tactical sense.

Again, the Tories probably outperform those results because of gerrymandering, but not to that extent. The same way that parties outside of Labour and Conservatives will underperform their poll results in terms of seats. (Speaking of which...)

Second, if you want to talk about expressed preferences of UK voters in the voting booth, it's really not that much more cheerful of a story, because not only were the Conservatives the plurality choice - the third most popular party in the 2015 election in terms of votes was UKIP. They got 12% of the vote. They only got one seat, because again that's how the system works, but if you want to look purely at votes, over 49% of votes went to either the Tories or UKIP. An outright majority of votes went to the Tories, UKIP, or the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland.

tl;dr:

1) In the UK's election system, a parliamentary race is essentially a race to win a plurality, not a majority. The Conservatives accomplished this task. It was as legitimate an election victory as possible.

2) Looking at the pure votes, the outright majority of votes were cast for right-wing parties.

3) This is bad, because the people in charge of the Conservative party are fucking terrible.