Probably the most famous incident was in Japan and caused by an episode of Pokemon. Made the news around the world and got parodied in an episode of the Simpsons.
Just running some quick numbers from the BBC website, if we assume that the percentages of the popular vote hold (given there are 11 undeclared seats at the moment) and we had full PR we’d see:
Conservatives - 235 seats
Labour - 189
Lib Dems - 150
UKIP - 20
BNP - 12
SNP - 11
Green - 6
DUP - 4
Plaid Cymru - 4
Sinn Fein - 3
SDLP - 2
Ulster Cons/Unionists - 2
Alliance Party - 1
English Democrats - 1
Respect - Unity Coalition - 1
Traditional Unionist Voice - 1
Christian Party - 0
Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition - 0
Scottish Socialists - 0
Other/Independent - 7
So UKIP and the BNP get a sizable presence in a hung parliament almost certainly run by a Lab-Lib coalition, with the Greens and SNP making significant gains as well. Would that be an improvement?
Of course if there were actual PR the voting patterns would likely change significantly as things like local tactical voting go out the window, so the above is purely an abstract exercise.
You are correct, and I’ve the natty mod yellow card to show for it.
Yeah, I was aware even as I selected those two numbers, that I was picking two parties with very quirky distribution patterns. I mean, Northern Ireland, man! 
I would consider it to be one. Yes, even with the BNP there.
This. I think for the first couple of parliaments after PR is introduced, we’d see bizarre showings like the small BNP faction you mention. By the third time round, at the latest, people would have a clearer idea who the BNP really are (yes, people can be quite dim), and they’d be lucky to get even two seats over the longer term.
Now, now, tut, tut.
So anyone else just woke up with the worst hangover ever? Just me?
I’ll concede this point, by any standards both US parties are pro-defense. IT’s just that the Republicans are also pro-attack :P.
Tosh! While the Tory base might be for the welfare state in principle, the level of welfare they would be happy with wouldn’t even be in the same league as Labour. The simple fact is that you cannot have a wide-ranging welfare system without ‘scroungers’ and left to their own devices the right would rather eliminate welfare than put up with the thought that somebody, somewhere was getting something for nothing. The Tory press is all the evidence you need for this conclusion.
I agree about the NHS though, it’s one of the sacred cows. OTOH, the only people who are for scrapping it are in the Conservative or right-fringe parties.
But The Conservative Party, the BNP and UKIP are also against LEGAL immigration.
What has been rehabilitated is their image. It remains to be seen whether Cameron (who I don’t think is really the old sort of Tory) can hold out against the less pleasant elements of his party if he gets power.
But it’s the desired scope that is different, plus the fact that the Tories always need a proportion of floating/centrally aligned voters to get elected. and so have to be a bit careful. There was a reason why the NHS and education system was so underfunded during the Tory years, it’s because they are ideologically opposed to public spending. It’s one of the defining principles of the party for christsake! And also the reason we may need them in power now…
I agree, the more radical element has split off. But I still think that in basic principles the Conservatives have more in common with the (pre-mentalist) Republicans than the Democrats. It’s not really a fair comparison now that the GOP has started eating its own faeces though 
I thought Lib Dem policy was just to include Trident in the next strategic review, not to say “no” to renewing the deterrant outright?
Sorry, I edited my post after realising I’d got the wrong end of the stick. I may also have been mistaken about their exact policy, but it certainly seemed to me to be one of their policies for reducing the deficit.
Doing some super alien number-crunching here while a work report runs quietly in the background…
I ran the numbers for Scotland (the first nation to publish full results) using the d’Hondt method of proportional representation. d’Hondt is the most likely method to be used in the UK, as it’s already used in Northern Ireland and London and not coincidentally would be more helpful to the Big Three parties. The actual results for for the 59 seats in Scotland were:
Labour 41 (42% of vote)
LibDem 11 (19%)
SNP 6 (20%)
Conservative 1 (17%)
UKIP 0 (1%)
Green 0 (1%)
Others 0 (1%)
And under d’Hondt, we would have:
Labour 26
SNP 12
LibDem 11
Conservative 10
UKIP 0
Green 0
Others 0
By the way, UKIP was still a long way from getting a seat. My calculations were that they needed at least 21,000 more votes to get a seat under d’Hondt, more than double the votes they actually received in Scotland.
More d’Hondt as I run more background reports.
The sound on my computer died just as Cameron began to set out his offer to Clegg. Fucking thing. Can anyone summarise what he did offer? I gather some sort of review of the voting system, but was that all?
In the 1998 Federal Election, One Nation, a misfit gaggle of redneck xenophobes, including some of my relatives, who collectively fantasised of Pauline Hanson in black leathers, whip and just a flash of nipple, won 8.4% of the national vote, 15% in Queensland and up to 35% of the primary vote in some electorates.
The magors all preferenced them last and they didn’t win a single seat.
Certainly wasn’t proportional representation, but it was preferential voting’s finest hour.
Seems like both Labour and Tories are dangling carrots to the Lib Dems, both offering the tasty treat of election reform.
Even with the Lib Dems Labour are still short of a majority government and would have to court the minor parties which would form a very shaky multi-party coalition.
And I sure as shit didn’t vote Lib Dem to help the Tories get in. They’re really between a rock and a hard place.
d’Hondt for Wales. It’s a long work report.
Actual:
Labour 28 (36% of vote)
Conservative 8 (26%)
LibDem 3 (20%)
Plaid Cymru 3 (11%)
UKIP 0 (2%)
BNP 0 (1%)
Others 0 (2%)
And under d’Hondt:
Labour 16
Conservative 11
LibDem 8
Plaid Cymru 4
UKIP 1
BNP, Others 0
UKIP just managed to shade a seat by 2,600 votes; I guess my theory that UKIP would not have won a seat under most forms of proportional rep was wrong.
Seat count in Scotland and Wales under d’Hondt:
Labour 42
Conservative 21
LibDem 19
SNP 12
Plaid Cymru 4
UKIP 1
England (the biggie) and NI as results come in.
Nice work, Duke. If we get PR out of this fairly unsatisfactory election it might be worthwhile after all, although the LDs might have do do a deal with the devil to get it.
True, I can’t see the Tories supporting PR anyway, plus they will cut deeper and for longer than the other parties.
As usual I suspect that the sciences will suffer and research budgets will be cut, I am due to finish my PhD in 11 months and suspect that there will not be a (worthwhile) job at the end of it. I’ll just have to do whatever it takes to make ends meet.
There’s some speculation that the Tories may offer a referendum on PR in return for a coalition with the LDs, but to be honest I think even that’s a hell of a stretch.
“But the Tory leader will have to tread carefully over any discussions about proportional representation (PR). Many Tory MPs would strongly oppose any deal that paves the way for PR. One possible option could be the promise of a referendum on PR, with the Tories reserving their right to oppose it.”
I think it’s odd that Labour would even consider offering PR to get the Lib. Dems on board.
Surely it would be more in their long term interest just to lose this election, particularly given the unpopular decisions that will have to be made. PR would screw them the hardest, they may never be able to form a majority govt. by themselves again.
Sorry - you are wrong. The post-war consensus is intact. The tories campaigned on consensus. There simply is not any constituency in the UK for anything like republican devil-take-the-hindmost social policies.
It’s certainly nice work, but misses the point - which has already been made - that under PR the voting would be substantially different.
I voted the way I did purely because of the First Past the Post system. I would have voted differently if it had been PR. And I know I’m not the only one.
In practice, I think PR would mean a big down turn in votes for Labour and the Tories.