o get say 70,000 constituents you would need to have a massive area of land in the constituency this is not considered sensible by the current government. It is worth noting that even if all boundaries were drawn up with equal populations of voters the equality would not last long as many houses are built in the years between elections.

There are however other problems withTo most people democracy is about living in a country where every (or nearly every) adult is allowed to have their say by casting votes. People take the equality of voters as a given most people would be angry if they were to find out their neighbour or colleague got five votes while they had but one. Yes most of us take it for granted that because every voter has one vote it follows that every voter is treated equal and that this is a good thing. Unfortunately it simply is not true that all voters are treated equally.

It is not difficult to understand why when you think about it in a constituency of 100 voters you decide how 1% of the total vote is cast in a constituency of 150 voters you get to cast a lower percentage of the total vote (about 0.7%). So voters in the smaller constituencies get far more of a say. This of course is not a problem if all constituencies have the same or very similar number of voters. In 2005 the Isle of Wight had 108,253 residents who were entitled to vote whereas Birmingham, Yardley had 51,414. That means that voters in Birmingham, Yardley had twice as much power in the 2005 General Election.

So you may be wondering why we don't we make all the constituencies the same size. Well efforts are made to make all the constituencies the same size but it never quite happens. The Isle of Wight is a good example, it just is not considered sensible to have part of the island in one constituency and part of it in another. Also rural areas have low population densities so to get say 70,000 constituents you would need to have a massive area of land in the constituency this is not considered sensible by the current government. It is worth noting that even if all boundaries were drawn up with equal populations of voters the equality would not last long as many houses are built in the years between elections.

There are however other problems with lows that every voter is treated equal and that this is a good thing. Unfortunately it simply is not true that all voters are treated equally.

It is not difficult to understand why when you think about it in a constituency of 100 voters you decide how 1% of the total vote is cast in a constituency of 150 voters you get to cast a lower percentage of the total vote (about 0.7%). So voters in the smaller constituencies get far more of a say. This of course is not a problem if all constituencies have the same or very similar number of voters. In 2005 the Isle of Wight had 108,253 residents who were entitled to vote whereas Birmingham, Yardley had 51,414. That means that voters in Birmingham, Yardley had twice as much power in the 2005 General Election.

So you may be wondering why we don't we make all the constituencies the same size. Well efforts are made to make all the constituencies the same size but it never quite happens. The Isle of Wight is a good example, it just is not considered sensible to have part of the island in one constituency and part of it in another. Also rural areas have low population densities so to get say 70,000 constituents you would need to have a massive area of land in the constituency this is not considered sensible by the current government. It is worth noting that even if all boundaries were drawn up with equal populations of voters the equality would not last long as many houses are built in the years between elections.

There are however other problems with%). So voters in the smaller constituencies get far more of a say. This of course is not a problem if all constituencies have the same or very similar number of voters. In 2005 the Isle of Wight had 108,253 residents who were entitled to vote whereas Birmingham, Yardley had 51,414. That means that voters in Birmingham, Yardley had twice as much power in the 2005 General Election.

So you may be wondering why we don't we make all the constituencies the same size. Well efforts are made to make all the constituencies the same size but it never quite happens. The Isle of Wight is a good example, it just is not considered sensible to have part of the island in one constituency and part of it in another. Also rural areas have low population densities so to get say 70,000 constituents you would need to have a massive area of land in the constituency this is not considered sensible by the current government. It is worth noting that even if all boundaries were drawn up with equal populations of voters the equality would not last long as many houses are built in the years between elections.

There are however other problems with

So you may be wondering why we don't we make all the constituencies the same size. Well efforts are made to make all the constituencies the same size but it never quite happens. The Isle of Wight is a good example, it just is not considered sensible to have part of the island in one constituency and part of it in another. Also rural areas have low population densities so to get say 70,000 constituents you would need to have a massive area of land in the constituency this is not considered sensible by the current government. It is worth noting that even if all boundaries were drawn up with equal populations of voters the equality would not last long as many houses are built in the years between elections.

There are however other problems witho get say 70,000 constituents you would need to have a massive area of land in the constituency this is not considered sensible by the current government. It is worth noting that even if all boundaries were drawn up with equal populations of voters the equality would not last long as many houses are built in the years between elections.

There are however other problems with the current voting system for UK General Elections. The system is called "First past the post" because the candidate with the most votes wins just as the horse which is first to cross the finishing post wins a race. One of the problems is that many people vote for candidates who are unlikely to be placed first or even second in the election and these people often feel that their vote is “wasted” or “ineffective”. A “non-effective” vote is one which does not help a voter a candidate which they support to be elected. They are to think this since only the voters who vote for the winning candidate are represented in Parliament. In fact many of the winning candidates votes may also be ineffective as he/she would still have won had some of their supporters not voted.

The proportion of “wasted votes” under the “first past the post” system varies but it is never lower than half, and can be substantially higher. In 2005 the proportion of “wasted votes” in Dundee East was over 62%. This causes yet more inequality voters in some constituencies are far more likely to have their vote wasted than others. Supporters of Independents and smaller political parties are almost certain to have their vote wasted. Even supporters the top three political parties are not treated equally the system currently discriminates against the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats and in favour of Labour Party supporters.

Supporters of the Green Party and UKIP are almost certain to be denied any representation in a Parliament wit