Less than 30% of the electorate voted labour. The problem is that the opposing party consistently ran as opposition but then executed on labour's policies instead so most people just didn't vote because they didn't see anyone running to vote for.

The electorate legitimately did not want these people or their policies, they effectively weren't given a choice. To call that democracy delegtimizes democratic elections.

▲

lawlessone 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

>The electorate legitimately did not want these people or their policies

> so most people just didn't vote because they didn't see anyone running to vote for.

Probably shoulda voted then

▲

Symbiote 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Everyone also had the choice to vote Green or Liberal Democrat. I believe both promise electoral reform.

▲

incone123 3 days ago | parent [-]

They can promise whatever they like knowing there's very little chance they will be put to the test.

The last time the Lib Dems got a taste of power in 2010 it was by going into coalition with the Tories at the cost of dumping key election pledges. Next election they were dumped by the public and their leader Nick Clegg was hired by Meta - presumably for his connections as he has no particular talent to sell.

	▲	Symbiote 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		The Lib Dems made a referendum on a fairer voting method a condition of the coalition, and they got their referendum. I see no reason to doubt they'd implement electoral reform if elected.

▲

4ndrewl 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's how our representative democracy works though. Even if just one person votes in each constituency.

I say that those who didn't vote knew it was a foregone conclusion and would have voted in the same proportion as those who did vote.

▲

4ndrewl 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You say they weren't given a choice, but there are now more parties represented in parliament now than before.

What percent of the electorate voting for the biggest party would be acceptable to you?