“person may lose the election by getting the most votes” is this even a thing outside the US?
i know winning without a majority vote is a thing in multiparty systems where the winner will have plurality instead… but having the majority vote and losing is just fucking insane to me.
A good example is the 1981 election in New Zealand, where the Labour Party won more votes but the National Party won more seats and formed the government.
Whether it’s possible for a party to win a majority of votes but lose an election, in a first-past-the-post system, will depend on the how the electoral districts are drawn, the voter turnout in each district, and the geographical distribution of the majority. The system itself does allow this to happen.
i was talking about general elections. usually the popular vote determines it, no matter where the votes come from. you’re still talking about electoral college, not fptp.
I’m not familiar with how the US electoral college works. I am talking about FPTP electoral systems like those in the UK and Canada. One MP is elected per constituency, and if a party wins a majority of the seats (that is, if they have a majority of the MPs), they can form a government. In such a system it’s common for a party to win the majority of seats without having a majority of votes, and possible for a party with the majority of votes not to win a majority of seats.
It’s possible by using votes to mean a meaningless number that isn’t part of how a president is elected. It would be like complaining that getting the most roses on opening night should make someone the best actor.
“person may lose the election by getting the most votes” is this even a thing outside the US?
i know winning without a majority vote is a thing in multiparty systems where the winner will have plurality instead… but having the majority vote and losing is just fucking insane to me.
Unfortunately yes, it’s huge problem with first past the post systems.
how?
i was talking about electoral college. never heard a party receiving a majority vote losing in the first past the post system.
A good example is the 1981 election in New Zealand, where the Labour Party won more votes but the National Party won more seats and formed the government.
Whether it’s possible for a party to win a majority of votes but lose an election, in a first-past-the-post system, will depend on the how the electoral districts are drawn, the voter turnout in each district, and the geographical distribution of the majority. The system itself does allow this to happen.
i was talking about general elections. usually the popular vote determines it, no matter where the votes come from. you’re still talking about electoral college, not fptp.
I’m not familiar with how the US electoral college works. I am talking about FPTP electoral systems like those in the UK and Canada. One MP is elected per constituency, and if a party wins a majority of the seats (that is, if they have a majority of the MPs), they can form a government. In such a system it’s common for a party to win the majority of seats without having a majority of votes, and possible for a party with the majority of votes not to win a majority of seats.
It’s possible by using votes to mean a meaningless number that isn’t part of how a president is elected. It would be like complaining that getting the most roses on opening night should make someone the best actor.
what… that doesn’t make any sense. did autocorrect fuck up your entire comment?