Tony Blair's election win with 35.2% of the vote will spark a renewed debate about proportional representation in the UK. The same should happen in Australia. As Crikey has discussed previously, parties here have all too regularly won elections (both state and federal) with less than 50% of the vote. For the British Labour party to win a comfortable – albeit reduced – majority for the next five years when over 64% of the population voted for someone else, is just plain wrong. Most countries in Europe choose the fairer proportional representation model where parties gain the number of seats proportionate to the level of their support. As a result, many former eastern bloc countries now have a more democratic voting system than Britain and Australia.

Of course Australia’s major parties support keeping the current system which helps ensure their power duopoly. Eventually a string of "crooked" results, like this British one, will force a change just as it did in New Zealand. Anyone who genuinely believes in democracy should be at the forefront of advocating proportional representation rather than leaving history to take its course.

And Martin Gordon seems to agree:
The British prime minister should be congratulated on his third term, something that has proved difficult historically to achieve. However it is outrageous that Labour's 36% of the vote should convert to 55% of seats and give a majority over all other parties (with 64% of the vote). I understand this is the lowest ever percentage for the winning party, yet UK Labour could have won an overall majority with fewer votes than the Conservatives! The crowing about Labour's win and the absurd claims of a poor Conservative party result is really too much, when as the next largest party it had only 3% fewer votes but a huge 25% fewer seats, due to malapportionment and apparent gerrymandering. Britain needs to seriously rethink its electoral system; it's a farce of gigantic proportions.