I'm very pleased to see the Lib Dems making gains at the expense of Labour, though I'm sad to see losses in the south to the Conservatives.
Some of the Liberal Democrats' successes must be due to people voting against Labour.
The Conservatives' tactic of targeting the marginal seats has paid off for them successfully.
But the voting system still favours Labour at the moment with many fewer votes being needed to elect a Labour MP than anyone else, whereas in the 1950s it favoured the Tories.
I would like to see a change in the voting system so that seats won had some link to votes cast.
If Labour complains about tactical voting, it has no one to blame but itself - it had eight years to change the system.
We vote with a proportional representation system for Europe, Wales and Scotland. Would it really hurt so much to change the current system altogether?
I still preferred the Liberal Democrats' campaign overall.
It featured serious plans and proposals and much less negativity than the other two main parties.
Although I wonder if Charles Kennedy would have done better had he not had the distraction of a newborn baby!
Michael, you've commented that Lib Dems made progress at Labour's expense. Actually in many seats Labour only won because they lost votes to the Lib Dems and not to the Tories. Three party politics, a low voter turnout and an unbalanced system have allowed a party in power that nearly 4 in 5 of those registered to vote, chose not to vote for.
Anthony Khan, Goudhurst, Kent, UK
The Lib Dems did not do as well as they expected, especially in London and the South East. The tax increases played a major part in this, especially the thought of local councils levying income tax. This is a vote looser in London and the South East.