In your opinion this is what fairness means. In my opinion, this system leaves millions without a say in the direction of the country proportional to the support their opinions have in the populace.
Not only do I find it unfair, I find it offensive and undemocratic, and as a result I don't see a government elected under such a system as having any legitimacy.
It's worth pointing this out: It is not up to you to define what is fair. Nor is it up to a majority. It is up to everyone. When a system leaves a substantial number of people finding it unfair and feeling robbed of any opportunity to be represented, it is unfair, whether or not the majority thinks it's the most awesome system ever.
If you care about fairness, you need to care about gaining consensus, not about whether or not you're above or below 50%.
> Unfair? No - given that, at this election, voters did not give majority votes to a UKIP candidate except in that one instance.
First of all, it is not majority of a constituency but a plurality. This is a big deal. My seat was won with 43%: The majority of his constituents wanted to be represented by other people. We won't ever know who would have been preferred by a majority of constituents under one of the many systems intended to actually get to a majority choice.
Secondly, that the results matches the rules does not mean they're not unfair.
When peoples votes carry different value based on where they live, then that to me by definition is unfair.
"Voters in Britain do not elect a parliament", but shouldn't they?
Occasionally people vote for an outstanding personality who does not belong to a party they generally support. This is as it should be.