[_b8r0]

In the spirit of your most thorough pedantry, I thought I'd correct your correction to say that OP is right, David Cameron didn't win an election, he won a seat as an MP.

None of the parties achieved the 326 seats required for an overall majority under the First Past the Post system. The Conservatives won the largest number of votes and seats but under FPTP rules were 20 seats short.

[nailer]

Good point. Such a pity the conservatives elect their own leader with preferential voting but campaigned against the public doing the same.

[blueskin_]

Because it was designed to give undue influence to fringe parties. Real electoral reform would be proportional representation.

[nailer]

Do you have a reference for that? Is Australia trying to give undue influence to fringe parties? Are the conservatives trying to promote fringe candidates?

[blueskin_]

In a leadership election, it's in their interest to have a clear winner with a large majority. In a general election, it's in nobody's interest and indeed, counter to the national interest to have a huge majority.

[nailer]

In a general election, a leader that most people find acceptable is preferable to a leader that most people do not find acceptable.

[alexbilbie]

Or at least electoral boundaries that didn't unfairly benefit Labour