And the last shall be first

[Gob]

If your party doesn’t do as well as you hoped in this year’s General Election, spare a thought for Godfrey Spickernell.

Mr Spickernell - who stood in Chelsea and Fulham for the Blue Environment Party - was the biggest loser in the entire country in 2010, polling just SEVENTEEN votes.

He campaigned on a platform including a new tube line in south London and replacing Heathrow Airport with an airport in the Thames Estuary.

But it didn’t stop Godfrey getting the lowest number of votes of any of the 4,151 candidates in the UK. Tory Greg Hands nabbed the seat from him - by a small 24,076 votes.

In joint second for the lowest number of votes were Leo Atreides, a thirty-something computer programmer who stood as an independent in Brighton Pavilion, and Brian Hammond, a millionaire chiropractor who stood for the Independents Federation UK in Sutton and Cheam. Both got 19 votes.

Others in the top 10 of biggest losers include Dr Jack Pope-de-Locksley, of the Magna Carta Party, who got 28 votes in Hackney North & Stoke Newington. He likes to be called ‘Dr Jack’ and claims to be descended from King Arthur and the Red Baron.

While standing for Parliament is relatively easy, winning a seat is incredibly hard.

Of the 4,151 candidates in 2010, some 1,893 - or nearly half - lost their deposit of £500 by failing to get 5% of the votes cast.

Parliament of losers

So what would a parliament of losers look like? What would the make-up of the Commons be if the last had in fact been first?

Well, Mr Spickernell would be Prime Minister, clearly. But the biggest individual group would be the independents, who finished last in 151 seats.

The official opposition would be UKIP - who lost in 102 seats.

The Greens would have 92, while two parties - the BNP and the Christian Party - would have 35 seats each.

The English Democrats, who campaign for an English parliament, would have 32.

The Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition would have 22 seats in a losers’ parliament, while Socialist Labour would have 16 and the Monster Raving Loony Party would have 13.

The Conservatives would have three seats, and the Liberal Democrats would also have three.

If nothing else, a parliament of losers would be an interesting place - with a much wider range of voices.

Mebyon Kernow, the Cornish nationalist party, would have three seats, while others to be represented would include the Equal Parenting Alliance (two seats); the Solihull and Meriden Residents’ Association (two seats); Animals Count (one seat); Basingstoke Common Man (one seat); Bus Pass Elvis (one seat); and Citizens for Undead Rights and Equality (one seat).

[Lord Jim]

The British Parliamentary system is interesting...

While it is nominally based on a "plurality" system, it is not based on a "national vote plurality"...

It is based on candidates winning a plurality in each individual constituency....

That is why the UKIP, that consistently polls with twice (or more) the national popularity of the Lib Dems, is also consistently projected to win far fewer seats...

In theory, under the British system, a party that won a consistent 35% in each constituency while the party opposite won 36%, the party with 36% would win 100% of the seats in Commons...

That's how both The Tories and Labour have won huge Parliamentary majorities in recent times (Thacher and Blair) with overall votes like 41% versus 37%...

And you call our system crazy...