| ▲ | RobotToaster a day ago |
| > despite his party having a historic majority. 33% of the vote is a historically low majority, so I guess you're technically correct. |
|
| ▲ | dgroshev a day ago | parent [-] |
| As you're well aware, we have a first-past-the-post system and what matters in this system is the number of MPs. |
| |
| ▲ | RobotToaster a day ago | parent [-] | | A system where the government is chosen by 33% of voters has no legitimate claim to be democracy, that is, rule by the people. | | |
| ▲ | Analemma_ a day ago | parent | next [-] | | This is not an actionable claim. What are you supposed to do in a multi-party system if nobody wins a majority and voter turnout is 60%? Just have anarchy until someone wins an outright majority? | | | |
| ▲ | foldr a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's a substantially larger vote share than any other party: https://electionresults.parliament.uk/general-elections/6 The electoral college would throw up equally weird results if the US didn't have a fully two-party system. (How's that working out?) |
|
|
