[AinderS]

For example, using proportional representation, in 2015 UKIP's 12.6% of the vote would have netted 82 out of the 650 seats in parliament. Instead they got only one seat [1]. But there's very little complaint about this form of gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement, at least from the usual suspects.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

[dane-pgp]

Gerrymandering is a term best used to refer to the drawing of electoral boundaries for partisan advantage, and thus isn't really relevant to UKIP's under-representation in 2015.

But yes, it is voter disenfranchisement, and UKIP would have been one of the biggest gainers from a fairer system.

I don't know how much complaint you were expecting to see about UKIP voters specifically being disenfranchised, as opposed to the general problem of seats not matching votes (and people not bothering to vote in safe seats, and voting "tactically" for parties they don't like as much).

For what it's worth, here's The Guardian highlighting the efforts of UKIP and the Greens in campaigning together for reform, explaining how the current system is particularly unfair to the former:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/18/green-party...