John Curtice notes on Today that mayoral races could be won with as little as 25% of the vote.
But it's worse than that: if turnout in (eg) the West of England race is the same as in 2001 - 36% - a party might win with 9% of eligible votes.
First Past the Post is an absurdity in these conditions.
But it's worse than that: if turnout in (eg) the West of England race is the same as in 2001 - 36% - a party might win with 9% of eligible votes.
First Past the Post is an absurdity in these conditions.
Comments
I’m a lifelong supporter of PR.
Unless you're suggesting some sort of second preference voting?
That ensures that you get a candidate 50% of the electorate are ok with, rather than one that 75% of them would want to stop.
How is that fair?
FPTP was only ever marginally OK when we had just 2 major parties, now we have five, it's an absolutely awful way to decide elections.
https://bsky.app/profile/robertsaunders.bsky.social/post/3lnuc56f3c223
Part of the function of these locally elected executive mayors is to disguise who is really running things (mostly from Whitehall).
The myth of the heroic leader might be a myth, but being a myth doesn't reduce its power in some circumstances.