Comment by RobotToaster
4 hours ago
> despite his party having a historic majority.
33% of the vote is a historically low majority, so I guess you're technically correct.
4 hours ago
> despite his party having a historic majority.
33% of the vote is a historically low majority, so I guess you're technically correct.
As you're well aware, we have a first-past-the-post system and what matters in this system is the number of MPs.
A system where the government is chosen by 33% of voters has no legitimate claim to be democracy, that is, rule by the people.
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?
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?)