Look at the votes cast per party then compare it to the seats gained. It's a crazy system.

It don't make it right.

Proportional representation won't prevent piss poor turnout.

In 2005 Labour had a 35.3% share of the vote, Tories had a 32.3% share. But because FPTP counts seats won Labour won 55.2% of those available. In that election little more than 60% of people turned out.

Don't confuse the rabid reds with facts!

Or the rabid blues, who didn't manage to secure the amount of seats needed to get a working majority

Face facts Ripper, Cameron is one useless 'lovely lovely person', given the support & cash he was given during this election

Those are the facts, and Mr I is correct when he questions the sense of the system that allows them.
The interesting point to make though is in spite of these facts, which are blatantly unfair, the rabid right refuses to encourage any sort of electoral reform.
That is despite the fact that Cameron constantly bangs on about fairness and yet when a fairer system is presented, he rejects it.
We now have the scenario that, despite thirteen years of Labour, despite the unpopularity of Brown, despite the tons of money thrown by the Tories, the country still don't think that Cameron warrants a clear majority. That is some indictment of the Tory party.
The country have unequivocally rejected Labour's bid for a fourth term but they are still not sure about the Tories.
That is extremely worrying for the Tories and, more importantly, worrying for the country.

I think the first thing we should do is have a referendum on electoral reform, and any reform has got to include the way we go about conducting elections.

Do we also need a referendum on the proposed format of the referendum?

But of course............and then a further referendum to determine whether the first referendum is adequate or should it be enhanced further by a referendum on enhancement.