I'm going to have a stats rant now.
This is a fucking stupid way of using statistics, it's misleading and dangerous. Everything seems to be less than 1.00 which is rubbish because some votes do actually count more than others.
Plus it is only based on last years figures, there's nothing about by elections, new candidates, peoples opinions changing because of the expenses row. I could be fired for presenting stats like this.
AAaaaand weighting it as below 1 is going to make people less likely to vote.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 9 Apr 2010, 15:30, 3 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

and the website doesn't recognise Milton Keynes postcodes which is unforgivable.

(PsychoChomp, Fri 9 Apr 2010, 15:31, Reply)

that's the real cause for your anger

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Fri 9 Apr 2010, 15:31, Reply)

No-one recognises MK postcodes
Or they don't entertain thoughts of them anyway.

You're right though about the stats. If someone does this and gets a number of, say, 0.9, they may think it's low and not bother.
(PenguinOfDeath is Scottish, and most likely angry, Fri 9 Apr 2010, 15:35, Reply)

It's pretty much a site arguing for PR thought isn't it.
And as a case for PR, pointing out that in my constituency over 50% of the votes counted for nothing, is quite a good argument.
(Bazongaloid, Fri 9 Apr 2010, 15:39, Reply)

It couldn't even find my postcode
Or my constituency.

*cries*
(Mrs Ballunatic counting calories, not votes., Sat 10 Apr 2010, 10:03, Reply)