First past the post voting distorted British election

Isn&#x27;t it disingenuous to say that an election which proceeded according to the laws of the country, without any vote-counting scandal, is a &quot;distortion&quot;? This from the same people who like to say that the Electoral College is a distortion, as well?<p>If you don&#x27;t like the result, it doesn&#x27;t mean the system is broken. It might even mean that the system is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

Well, this is going to get flagged pretty quickly since this orange site will suppress all debate due to it being &#x27;off topic&#x27; and would most certainly keep the echo-chamber quiet of having an opinion.<p>In terms of this baseless claim from the New York Times about possible distortion in the election due to first past the post, there was a reason people were told to vote tactically to stop the one from getting a majority and the result was made clear regardless of that. Proportional Representation (PR) would still result in the Brexit Party winning anyway. So would that be a &#x27;distortion&#x27; even under a different system?<p>Do they believe that the previous elections were also distorted, given that they were under FPTP? I can sense that this was written by those who cannot accept the result of a democratic process.

Actual title of the linked article is &quot;The UK Election Explained, In One Number&quot;.