>>74662881
We're cucked, we know. Please don't rub it in though, okay?

>>74662881
Why would the parties in power voluntarily change the system to accommodate their rivals and threats?

>>74662881
>What is a constituency based FPTP system

>>74662956
cucked and fucked

I agree, parliament systems need to have proportional representation, ie: if a party gets 5% of the vote they should have 5% representation in parliament.
Gee, wouldn't it be nice if representative democracies actually represented the people?

>>74662881

It's almost like FPTP only benefits large parties....

>>74662956
Why have you not fought back? It takes thirty police officers to deal with one nigger with a pocket knife. Grab a few cricket bats and a good breakfast and a few dozen lads could personally wipe out half of parliament.

PR-STV best system of democratic election.

>>74662881

So we can keep those nasty fascists out of parliament :^)

>>74662978

>What is fair representation by electoral democracy?

>>74663267

>Why have you not fought back? It takes thirty police officers to deal with one nigger with a pocket knife.

Why would we attack innocent people who are just do their job and probably share the same views as us to get back at the political elite?

>>74663138
No, it benefits localized movements. UKIP was a nation-wide movement, so the butter was spread thin. The SNP is localized to one place, so they dominate.

>>74663411

>The SNP is localized to one place

The SNP was a nation-wide movement.

FPTP benefits the political parties that play smart politics, and it's typically the larger parties that can afford to play smart politics.

The SNP won their majority because they split the Pro-Unionist voters between Labour, Conservatives, and the Lib Dems. Which left the door wide open for them to sweep a majority win in 56 of the 58 constituencies in Scotland. Hell even if you look at the votes in Scotland you'd see that more people voted against the SNP yet they still won 56 out of 58 seats.

FPTP will only ever benefit large parties. Even if it benefits localized movements it'll only ever give that party 1 or 2 seats which gives them no real say in any important matters and thus give their voters/followers no real representation. And like in Scotland and UKIPs case you have millions of people who aren't fairly represented.

The UK should have moved away from FPTP onto either STV or AMS decades ago, yet they won't because the Conservatives and Labour know it'll fuck them over in the future.

>>74662881
perhaps I can explain the rules

to start off with lets take an area of the UK
let say Norfolk

during an election for the MP who will represent Norfolk in parliament we have lots of party's and lone independent or non aligned mps

for example we have Mr Green representing the Circle party Mr Smith for the Square party
Miss Moss for the Triangle party Mrs Shepard for the Pentagon party and finally Mr grey who is an independent

now Norfolk has a population around 877,710 people and as with any other elections the potential MP is out there raising awareness on issues

come the day of the elections
Miss Moss has 80,000 votes
Mr grey has 9000 votes
Mr Smith has 64,004 votes
Mrs Shepard has 426008 votes
Mr Green has 298698 votes

which means Mrs Shepard has won and is now the MP for Norfolk

how ever the Pentagon party did not do so well in the rest of the Country it came a close 3rd

the Circle party came 2nd and the Square party came 1st

its not about the number of votes nationally its about seats if the Pentagon party had won in other areas perhaps it mite have come in 2nd or even 1st

I hope this has been informative

>>74665169
Yeah, but can you assure me that EVREY electoral district in your country has the same number of voters in it?

I mean, if
city A = 100,000 people = 1 MP
countryside = 10,000 people = 1 MP

Then you have a problem even with the first past the post system.