Re: TW is right, but for the wrong reasons...
One third of the electorate didn't vote (unknown is how many did so in protest, and how many just didn't care either way).
One factor: Safe seats.
In the constituency in which I reside the incumbent was returned with seven times the number of votes of the candidate who recieved the second largest number of votes. Around 21 000 of us could have stayed in bed/gone out/done overtime - those votes do not count for anything. Not surprisingly, the turnout was 12% lower than the average turnout for the election as a whole.
UKIP did not have any safe seats. UKIP voters would have turned out in a gale/tornado/torrential rain/floods. The 'safe seat' effect tends to increase the proportion of the vote recorded for underdog parties, although I fully accept that the FPTP system acts as a barrier to such parties winning seats.
In the system used to elect the Scottish Assembly (roughly 3/4 constituency and 1/4 proportional representation based on regional lists) all the votes counted would have fed through to register a preference for regional MSPs, so a reason for turning out. Plus the underdog parties (UKIP/LIBDEM) would have been allocated some of the regional seats, so house slightly more representative. And an even smaller majority for David I think, I'm still puggling the R scripts.
Data presentation task: map constituencies to the nine government regions in England (each with roughly the population of Scotland) and then apply the same regional list system as in the Scottish Parliament. Not enough to change composition of Commons radically, but slightly more representation for underdog parties, and an even smaller majority for Conservatives.
Meeja note: Huge celebration and triumphal hurrahs for Consevatives on securing a majority in the Commons that is smaller than the one John Major had in 1992? Good heavens above.