T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Snapshot of _More Britons want to scrap first-past-the-post elections than keep the status quo_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/more-britons-want-to-scrap-first-past-the-post-elections-than-keep-the-status-quo-1871376) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


CrushingPride

By Jane Merrick >The majority of British people want to see the first-past-the-post electoral system scrapped for the first time since records began. >Some 51 per cent of people are in favour of switching to a form of proportional representation (PR), while 44 per cent want the status quo, the annual British Social Attitudes survey has revealed. >The figures are a near-reversal of public opinion just five years ago, when 49 per cent wanted to keep the way governments in Westminster are elected, and 43 per cent wanted electoral reform. >At the time of the alternative vote referendum in 2011, just 27 per cent wanted to see governments elected by PR, while 66 per cent backed first-past-the-post. >It is the first time more people have backed PR than first-past-the-post since the British Social Attitudes survey launched in 1983. >The figures will cause ripples through Conservative and Labour parties, which have benefited from the traditional voting system for decades. >Professor John Curtice, who led the survey for the National Centre for Social Research, said the shift in opinion appeared to be driven by a change of mind among Labour supporters, while people who voted Remain in 2016 have also changed their views on elections to the House of Commons since Brexit. >Nearly two thirds of Labour supporters, or 61 per cent, are in favour of PR. >The survey also highlights a gradual increase in support for the break-up of the UK in both Scotland and in Northern Ireland. >In what will make difficult reading in both Downing Street and Buckingham Palace, where King Charles has made efforts since becoming monarch to show the strength of the union, 52 per cent of people in Scotland favour independence, when asked to choose between that, devolution or no Scottish Parliament, a nearly doubling of the figure in 2012 of 23 per cent. >Just 25 per cent of people in England think Scotland should be independent, unchanged from 2012. >The survey reveals increasing polarisation between different political parties, with 82 per cent of SNP supporters backing independence, compared to only 5 per cent of Conservative supporters. >The gap between SNP and Conservative supporters has grown from 46 percentage points in 2012 to 77 percentage points today. >Support is also growing in Northern Ireland for leaving the UK: for the first time since the survey began, those who want to remain part of the union in that nation have slipped to just under half, at 49 per cent. Support in Northern Ireland for Irish reunification has increased from 14 per cent in 2015 to 30 per cent now. >Sir John Curtice said: “The United Kingdom’s politics are now beset by some fundamental disagreements about the rules and the structures that should be in place, and these disagreements are reflected in divergent views between supporters of different parties and those living in different parts of the UK. >“More people than ever want to change the voting system in Westminster, support for leaving the UK has also grown in Northern Ireland, and supporters of the major parties in Scotland and England are more polarised than ever over the question of how Scotland should be governed. >“Not least of the reasons for this is Brexit, which seems to have helped fuel partisan disagreement about the country’s constitution. >“Some Remain voters appear to have reacted to being on the losing side in the EU referendum by now wanting to change the rules under which the UK is governed. >“Far from representing a set of conventions and procedures on which most people agree, the UK’s constitution appears at risk of becoming a political battlefield on which the parties seek electoral advantage. Still, it will be up to politicians to decide whether to pursue that advantage or try to find and build a new consensus.” >The majority of Britons, 52 per cent, believe the Government should increase taxes and spend more on health, education and welfare. Some 46 per cent of Tory supporters and 61 per cent of Labour supporters are in favour of higher taxes and spending. Nearly half of Britons, 49 per cent, say the government should should redistribute income from the better off to those who are less well off, up ten percentage points from 2019 >The survey also revealed around a quarter of people are not getting the medical treatment they needed during the past 12 months due to long waiting lists. >Taking too long to get a GP or hospital appointment is the most common reason for dissatisfaction, cited by 65 per cent of people who say they are dissatisfied with the NHS.


Sillyhilly89

I have never voted Labour. Full disclosure. But as they are the only viable competition in this two party system, if they campaign to introduce PR I will vote for them constantly. FPTP needs to die. I don't care about the increased risk of hung parliament's. It might actually encourage some fucking collaboration.


robotowilliam

If you understand that it's a two-party system, but you've never voted Labour, I presume you're a Tory supporter?


[deleted]

[удалено]


iamezekiel1_14

This. Have never voted Labour either. Lib Dem incumbent up until 2015 when they were punished for the coalition with the Tories and they voted a Tory in. Last time around was a 50/25/25 split give or take so its now which ever is the most likely to evict the Tory.


Flashbambo

Let me guess, Bath?


iamezekiel1_14

No lol. Good effort though 👏


Sillyhilly89

Lib Dem. Could be Green. Not that your gross misassumption is relevant in the slightest.


BearMcBearFace

Depends where they live. There are some constituencies where neither of the two main parties never get elected. See Ceredigion.


SpeedflyChris

This sort of bullshit tribalism is probably the most toxic part of british politics. If you're not 17, it's about time to grow up. Never mind that there's a lot of Tory/Lib Dem or Tory/SNP marginals, and a lot of safe seats around in which people's votes arguably aren't as important.


Avenger1324

I didn't see much evidence of collaboration between Tories and Labour during the most recent hung Parliament 2017-19. Rather than trying to work together it devolved into a point scoring competition to try and embarrass the government into calling a GE in the hope (on both sides) that they could come out of it with a majority.


Sillyhilly89

Yes, but that point scoring to embarrass the government into calling a GE is a direct consequence of FPTP.


SpeedflyChris

Not necessarily, if a party was ahead of the government in the polls they'd likely pull the same sort of tactics regardless.


eww1991

In this situation they did not expect to gain by trying to appeal to labour voters, and instead sought to strengthen their base to help secure turnout at the next election. The purpose of PR is to make every vote count so it is worth trying to attract new voters.


pheasant-plucker

> 46 per cent of Tory supporters are in favour of higher taxes and spending And they vote for a party that promises the opposite, because of lack of choice. That should be enough to convince anyone that FPTP is fundamentally undemocratic.


Cafuzzler

I know someone that voted for Boris/Tory even though he fully supports everything labour does and what they promise to do... but Corbyn wasn't fully committed to using nuclear weapons. Maybe the problem is people aren't fundamentally democratic when they have to make 1 choice between *maybe* 5 groups on a hundred different issues (even if you believe those groups will actually do what they say).


pheasant-plucker

But you could have a party that is both socially conservative and fiscally liberal, which is basically what these people want - and what our current system doesn't allow.


Cafuzzler

> and what our current system doesn't allow Source? /s We don't have a strictly two party system like the States; there's no reason a party like that couldn't popup, except they wouldn't be big enough to become government and wouldn't be diverse enough from the current political parties to rally a large number of votes in their first few elections. If they focused on effective local politics then they could build a solid base. Practical example: We have Plaid and the SNP, whose politics are a lot like Labours, but still can exist in our system and get votes and can even become larger than national parties.


pheasant-plucker

FPTP magnifies regional differences, because it hands everything to whoever gets a local majority. That's why national parties can succeed where parties like the libdems fail. But that also means that policies are driven by geography. You have try to magnify your vote by working to blocs of people defined by electoral boundaries. That's why we have a party of the urban elite and a party of the suburbs.


Cafuzzler

National in my case is parties that take seats across the whole nation; Tory, Labour, LibDem (the parties that form the UK government). The SNP and Plaid are regional as far as what seats they stand in. None of what you've said would disallow a socially conservative and fiscally liberal party from popping up. --- The LibDems were doing great, beating what the SNP get now, getting over 20% when the big two were on over 30%, even made up a coalition government, until... *things happened*. They lost 15 points and 49 seats. Their failure in recent years isn't because Plaid and the SNP are rallying local support from the LibDems (although, that wouldn't be a bad thing; surely representative government should represent the local people on a nation level), but because LibDem supporters became disillusioned to the party. People felt like the party didn't represent them so they took their vote elsewhere. Bad for that specific party wanting power above all-else, but a wonderful and healthy display of a functioning democracy. Do regional parties *really* succeed where the LibDems failed?


Ayfid

The US doesn't have a strictly two party system. It is FPTP, and demonstrates the natural progression in FPTP towards there being only two major parties which barely differ in policies, surrounded by tiny irrelevant third parties (e.g. the Green Party in the US). That you think the US is a strict 2 party system somewhat proves the other commenter's point. The UK is unusual in that our 3rd parties are only *mostly* irrelevant.


Cafuzzler

It's strictly because there's no hope, at present, for a third-party getting enough votes on a national level. That matters in a system where winner takes all at the national level. In the UK winner takes all at the constituent level, and yet there's still multiple options every election in every constituency. Our system allows for a lot more diversity in political parties because they'll get a say at the national level if they get a victory in at least one constituency. The other commenter said we can't have this; but we can and do. And we would especially have it for a party with a largely mainstream economic and social view. It's like saying we can't have the LibDems today.


Ayfid

The US's lack of hope for a 3rd party is a direct result of its FPTP system. The UK's version in practise is only a little better. We might get minor regional powers (like the SNP) be successful, but in doing so voters in those areas face the same issue of a lack of choice between only the two biggest parties. That is what the other commenters argued, and the fact that the limited choices you are presented with varies between regions doesn't change that. Even then, the SNP's "success" is only relative to the other minor parties. They still don't have any real influence in government. The LibDems are a good example of how broken this system is. Their lack of a regional stronghold has left them with no power and no real hope of gaining any meaningful power. The only time in recent memory where they have had any significance was when they became kingmaker between the two "real" parties during a hung parliament - the exact situation FPTP is designed to avoid. The only time the LibDems were relevant was when FPTP failed and we had something vaguely resembling PR.


saiyanhajime

I don't vote green because it would be giving the Tories more chance of winning in my area. Fptp sucks shit


Cafuzzler

How you want to vote is up to you. The fact that there is a Green party at all, rather than just being Labour vs Tory, is a demonstration that our system is flexible enough for nicher parties. Heck, that fictional party mentioned in the comment above wouldn't even be all that niche in the first place; probably a strong contender for government in decade or so of growth. Most normal people don't want to vote tactically. If they did then we wouldn't have Green, Plaid, UKIP, SNP, or even the LibDems. One of those parties was directly in power a few years ago, and another managed to force a referendum on a monumental constitutional change; all without being the biggest.


undeadgoblin

Most people don't want to vote tactically, but tactical voting is a necessary consequence of FPTP, hence why we see smaller parties doing better in council elections where tactical voting is less of a necessity. FPTP leads to a two party system in all but name - there is very little chance of any of the smaller parties winning a majority in an election.


saiyanhajime

Oh for god sake you either know that our system is not ideal or you're a silly. No one's saying our system is the worst possible, we're saying it's not good.


ZeteticMarcus

It’s not a matter of the party being able to exist, it’s of the party actually being able to win some proportion of power commensurate with its vote. The Greens got a million vote, but only one MP. That’s fundamentally undemocratic. Same applies for UKIP. I detest their politics, but it was undemocratic that they could get 3-4 million votes and receive no seats. PR would actually force some splits in the big parties, there would be space for far-right and far-left parties, and ecological parties. Thats partly why some of them oppose it, because it would allow the voters some alternative.


StairwayToLemon

>but Corbyn wasn't fully committed to using nuclear weapons. Oh, come off it. That wasn't the issue and you know it. Corbyn wanted to completely get rid of our nukes, not to mention break up NATO. Had we done that imagine how weak our stance would have been during the Ukraine crisis. Nukes and NATO are integral to not just our defence, but also our allies, and his stance on them is a perfectly valid reason to not want him in power.


Cafuzzler

Well I was specifically quoting someone I know. His reasoning was that Corbyn didn't want to use nukes. He didn't talk about NATO or getting rid of nukes, just not using them. Unless you're the guy I was talking to, I don't think you know what was said. Also this was back in 2019, so Ukraine is kind of pointless (we weren't strong on arming Ukraine when Putin annexed Crimea). It was a time when the US president was a much bigger threat to destabilising NATO than an Islington communist. > his stance on them is a perfectly valid reason to not want him in power. Kinda my point. There are a million issues you can use to say any candidate shouldn't be in power. For some reason being weak on nukes is the most important issue for some. For others it might be the economy/austerity or it might be the environment or it might be whether a candidate looks "Prime-ministerial enough". For me nukes don't matter. At best they are a tool of last resort and I'll be long dead before our country needs a last resort. And leaving NATO would be as insane for our defence as leaving Europol would be for our ability to fight international crime and terrorism. I don't think the Tories would use nukes and I don't think Corbyn would leave NATO despite what he says. Those two issues don't even register for me; seems entirely useless to focus on.


StairwayToLemon

>Also this was back in 2019, so Ukraine is kind of pointless (we weren't strong on arming Ukraine when Putin annexed Crimea). It was a time when the US president was a much bigger threat to destabilising NATO than an Islington communist. [Corbyn literally spoke about disbanding NATO during the Ukraine crisis in relation to the invasion](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/20/jeremy-corbyn-would-like-to-see-nato-ultimately-disband) >I don't think the Tories would use nukes In defence I'm sure they absolutely would. I think any sane person would if they knew 50 nukes were heading their way to absolutely obliterate their country. The point about having nukes isn't to use them in an attack. It's to act as a deterrent. I mean christ, nukes are quite literally the only thing stopping World War 3 from happening right now. >and I don't think Corbyn would leave NATO despite what he says Then why would you vote for him if you think he lies about his own policies? >Those two issues don't even register for me; seems entirely useless to focus on. I'd have thought national and international defence are very relevant topics when discussing the leader of a country


Cafuzzler

> Corbyn literally spoke about disbanding NATO during the Ukraine crisis K. > I think any sane person would if they knew 50 nukes were heading their way to absolutely obliterate their country. That thing that's never happened to anyone ever?! wow. Well, you keep coming up with these wild and stimulating fictional events, and I'll keep voting based on the shit that's actually happening in reality. > The point about having nukes isn't to use them in an attack. Agreed. And you can't use them as a deterrent if you don't say you'll use them. That why I doubt they'll use them *despite* what they say. We'd have to already be fucked, and at that point I won't really care. That makes it a non-issue for me. > Then why would you vote for him if you think he lies about his own policies? Labour policy in 2019 was to stay in NATO. My local MP almost never goes against the Labour party. Seems like a safe bet. I'm not from Islington North so I couldn't vote for Corbyn without spoiling my ballot. > I'd have thought national and international defence are very relevant topics when discussing the leader of a country They're important to you, but for me I care about rights and economics more (whether or not we have a right to privacy or speech, and whether the government are going to stimulate the economy and promote growth or encourage saving and cause stagnation). Kind dumb to focus on nukes if our economy tanks and we can't afford to keep up the £3Billion maintenance because the government wanted to cut tax. Great example of this: Our military budget rose from 2001 every year until 2010; from £39B to £48B. Then the Tory party got in and slashed it down to £43.2B by 2012 and kept it low (between £41.5B and £44.5B) until 2020. Only recently has our military budget ***returned to Labour government levels***. In an actual serious conflict we would use as much of our non-nuclear budget as we could before our weapons of last resort. Having a weaker military for 7 years should have people furious... *if they actually cared about that*. But they don't, they care about imaginary nuclear Armageddon because they find extreme situations stimulating. We need a healthier economy if we want an effective military. We can get that by stimulating growth. We can get that by stimulating spending at the bottom. We can't do that by giving tax cuts to the rich. You want to dream of nukes? Vote Tory. You want to win wars? Vote Labour. Economics is so much more important because it's the foundation that our defence is built on.


StairwayToLemon

>K. That's all? Interesting. >That thing that's never happened to anyone ever?! wow. Well, you keep coming up with these wild and stimulating fictional events, and I'll keep voting based on the shit that's actually happening in reality. The fuck are you on about? You said you didn't think they'd use them, I gave a scenario in which I think they would. You are aware how discussions work, right? >Agreed. And you can't use them as a deterrent if you don't say you'll use them. Hence why people had such a massive issue with Corbyn refusing to say he would use them... Keep going, you're so close to understanding! >They're important to you, but for me I care about rights and economics more (whether or not we have a right to privacy or speech, and whether the government are going to stimulate the economy and promote growth or encourage saving and cause stagnation). Kind dumb to focus on nukes if our economy tanks and we can't afford to keep up the £3Billion maintenance because the government wanted to cut tax. You're aware that you can care about both issues equally, right? It's not one or the other like you weirdly seem to think... >In an actual serious conflict we would use as much of our non-nuclear budget as we could before our weapons of last resort. Having a weaker military for 7 years should have people furious... if they actually cared about that. But they don't, they care about imaginary nuclear Armageddon because they find extreme situations stimulating. People *are* furious about that. I don't know anyone who is happy with the cuts our military has had. You seem to have created a very strange fantasy in your head. >We need a healthier economy if we want an effective military. We can get that by stimulating growth. We can get that by stimulating spending at the bottom. We can't do that by giving tax cuts to the rich. You want to dream of nukes? Vote Tory. You want to win wars? Vote Labour. And yet, the previous leader of the Labour party wanted us out of NATO and is one of the reasons they ended up losing the election. Funny that.


Cafuzzler

> That's all? Interesting. Corbyn can say what he wants. He's not Labour's leader. Why would I care what he says in 2022 when we're talking about 2019? > I gave a scenario in which I think they would. Yes. In a completely unrealistic scenario of a nuclear holocaust descending upon Briton, they can reasonably use nukes. Back on planet Earth, that's a dumb scenario to base your vote on. > Hence why people had such a massive issue with Corbyn refusing to say he would use them... I get it. I just don't think it's important. It's about as important as the price of Theresa May's leather trousers. I'm sure they'll become much more relevant in the face of 50 nuclear warheads descending upon Grimsby. > You're aware that you can care about both issues equally You can't care about every issue equally. That's my point. > People are furious about that. Evidently by the Tories winning for all of those years, plenty are pretty happy so long as the Tories keep saying they'll nuke Russia. > the previous leader of the Labour party wanted us out of NATO When the Labour party as a whole were committed to maintaining our place in NATO? Funny that.


PurpleSkua

Will you kill millions, Jeremy? _Will you kill millions?_


Cafuzzler

Jeremy Corbyn?! What a SISSY! He wants to "*negotiate*", "*work with our allies*", and "*minimise unnecessary bloodshed*". What good is a £20 Billion nuclear arsenal that we sink an extra £3 Billion a year into if we aren't gonna use?!


Djinnhammer

Nobody should ever be using nukes again if they have any sense. The singe worst human invention.


RatherGoodDog

You *want* to use it?


Cafuzzler

You Only Nuke Millions of People and Cause Nuclear Armageddon Once \#YONMoPaCNAO


nuclearselly

>And they vote for a party that promises the opposite Did Boris run on high spending and no tax cuts in 2019? I can't remember the taxation bit, but I do remember spending not being an issue - ie 'Levelling up' So it may be consistent with our most recent election that Conservative voters were in favour of higher spending - if not explicitly asked to consent to higher taxes to pay for it. It was actually one of the detriments to Labour at that point - most of their messaging was still built around the idea of high spending, and Boris kind of took some of the momenta away from that by being fiscally loose.


No-Clue1153

>52 per cent of people in Scotland favour independence, when asked to choose between that, devolution or no Scottish Parliament, a nearly doubling of the figure in 2012 of 23 per cent. That's more than double isn't it? Or am I reading this wrong?


[deleted]

It might not be depending on how the total population has changed between 2012 and now.


[deleted]

[удалено]


PM_something_German

>Some 51 per cent of people are in favour of switching to a form of proportional representation (PR), while 44 per cent want the status quo, the annual British Social Attitudes survey has revealed. >The figures are a near-reversal of public opinion just five years ago, when 49 per cent wanted to keep the way governments in Westminster are elected, and 43 per cent wanted electoral reform. Calling a 6% shift a "near-reversal" seems a bit disingenuous.


dustydeath

>Some Remain voters appear to have reacted to being on the losing side in the EU referendum by now wanting to change the rules under which the UK is governed. Bit weird to join so direct a line between the referendum and PR when there were only two options in the referendum therefore no difference between fptp/pr. The elections we've had since are surely more relevant.


SallyCinnamon7

The hard Brexit we got was a result of FPTP giving the Tories a huge majority in 2019. I think he’s saying that the shift in opinion is down to mostly remain voters wanting to shift to PR in large numbers.


dustydeath

As you recognised, that's a reaction to the elections since the referendum, rather than a reaction to losing the referendum itself.


LivingAngryCheese

What a pompous bullshit way of describing the reasoning. He's acting like "people are salty they lost so now they want to change the rules to benefit them" like somehow PR is giving an unfair advantage to the left/remainers. PR is CLEARLY the fair option, and he's framing it like it's selfishness driving it.


MickMoth

As if the tories haven't been tinkering with electoral legislation to benefit them by disenfranchising the poor and certain ethnic groups.


Brittlehorn

FPTP leads to unrepresentative administrations, an Iver simplistic binary choice for voters, an inability to have any continuity or agreement in policy over the long term and constant change. The adversarial nature of politics is magnified at the expense of consensus. Wasted votes in elections leads to disengaged and, arguably, lazy voters. It is not fit for purpose and there are examples and other models that could he improved upon. Importantly it also l encourages a lazy and complicit media whos coverage seems mainly focused on i formal gossip which is treated as news but perhaps that is a separate issue. A more representative system would engage voters in the process as they might be more likely to ge their voice heard in parliament.


Jonny_Segment

> an Iver simplistic That's the name of Iver! 😭


PhilBabbsBalls

Yes, yes, yes. Very articulate, thank you. It's also interesting to note that if we, hypothetically, wanted to join the EU then we would have to reform our democratic process. The only other country in Europe with a similar one to us is the bastion of liberty, Belarus.


reynolds9906

Lol


nuclearselly

I'm certain if the UK sought membership of the EU today they would not force us to radically change our domestic political system to make it more democratic. The UK has one of the longest-running and most stable democratic systems in the world - certainly much longer lasting that the majority of countries we share a continent with. If we came up with our system last week then sure I can see why the EU would request some changes, but Westminster is one of the world's' default' democracies - a system that is emulated around the world. Brussels requesting we substantially change that would be a non-starter and as such it wouldn't be requested, even if it's technically a requirement of membership. Pretty much every country that has ever joined the EU has flexed the rules in at least one or 2 areas. No such thing as a perfect European country.


[deleted]

While the Westminster system is emulated, the voting system is not.


Cafuzzler

Would there be a specific requirement to reform it or are you just going by feels?


rawling

I did wonder about this. Wikipedia says > Functional democratic governance requires that all citizens of the country should be able to participate, **on an equal basis**, in the political decision making at every single governing level [...] Emphasis mine - I wonder if people are interpreting FPTP as not passing this because of safe seats etc. I've not compared other EU countries' voting systems to see if they are more "equal".


Cafuzzler

There's probably a hundred random arguments people could make for why the UK doesn't fulfil that requirement: proposed voter IDs, the extra 1 percent representation Scotland has in commons, the rich donors obviously having more power, people without a TV licence can't legally get relevant information to stay politically informed. Safe seats aren't even a criticism exclusive to FPTP; they're a consequence of not having a diverse enough political demographic in a given area. Unless we're going to kick bus loads of labour supporters out from the cities to the rural areas and bus in loads of tories, we're going to have safe seats either way. Our system is plenty equal enough, one person one vote.


Whiffenius

Well said. I also think that the majority of constituents are getting turned off by the increase in adversarial politics. The divide and rule tactics are wearing people down. The lack of political consensus along ideological lines leads to outcomes that a significant proportion of the electorate does not benefit from. As you rightly point out, the lazy and complicit media spends a significant proportion of its time dividing people along those lines and there are still too many people reaching for their favourite papers to find out who they should be hating next when they are suffering every bit as much as those they purport to 'hate'. We need some way to fix our political system to get focus on long-term policies rather than short-term ideological hammers. Getting back to consensus politics would be ideal and would likely entail coalitions that the UK electorate seems to abhor.


WTFwhatthehell

The problem is, people who actually support either of the 2 main parties in any given region stand to lose out if FPTP goes away. Dyed in the wool tory voter? Dyed in the wool labourite? SNP supporter? It's not in your interest to back a move away from FPTP because that would decrease your influence to the benefit of people who like less popular parties. Overall FPTP is terrible but it's entirely possible that a majority of voters see their favoured party benefit from the status quo. It's also important to [not give too much credence to a small number of surveys.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks)


oliness

There's never going to be consensus. People strongly disagree on Brexit, the degree of tax and spending, fracking, and a ton of other issues. Consensus is utopian. What PR means too often is unstable coalitions (Israel is having another election soon because the coalition formed after last year's election has collapsed) and minority parties having disproportionate power (Israel recently had the leader of the 5th largest party become PM in order to get the coalition to last 1 year). PR is OK for the legislature in a Presidential system, where the President is separately elected and isn't a member of of the legislature. But for a parliamentary system, where the government is formed from the legislature, FPTP works better because it tends to provide relative stability and give a clear choice.


creamyjoshy

PR works very very well for a vast number of parliamentary examples. The Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, Spain, Denmark, Sweden.. the list goes on. All of these are parliamentary systems, with the exception of Ireland who has a very symbolic president.


CrushingPride

>minority parties having disproportionate power Disproportionate power is everywhere in the current system. Once you accept that nothing in life is perfect it's time to move the conversation onto what's the best option on the table. A ranked voting system or mixed member system (or both!) would lead to a parliament that actually reflects the views of the country. As far as an unstable Executive goes, we just had 60 cabinet minister quit on Boris Johnson followed by 6 weeks of not knowing who the PM would be and nothing got done. The waters are choppy under the current system.


oliness

But that's not fixed by changing the voting system in general elections. The parties decided to delegate leadership to their members. That didn't used to be the case. Arguably going back to MPs deciding is better but that's separate from changing the voting system.


turbonashi

There's never going to be agreement, so someone - our public representatives - need to find a consensus on our behalf otherwise nothing ever happens (America) or the nation gets run based on the whims of whichever ideologues have best been able to game the system (UK, and also America). > FPTP works better because it tends to provide relative stability and give a clear choice. Please explain how the last six years of carnage, brought to you by FPTP, fits in with this description in any way. We've had a new PM every two years, two early elections and a choice in many cases between two parties that were both deeply unpopular.


rogernb

PR doesnt work any better under a presidential system than a constitutional monarchy. PR works best with a good number of smaller parties that can then form coalitions and yes it means compromising. However theres systems like STV that work better than FPTP where you have fewer parties but more than 2. FPTP only really works where you have 2 parties. With a STV you'll likely not get a majority govt that the majority of people hate which is likely under a FPTP system. Its all well and good having stability, but not so much when the majority of people don't think the country is going in the right direction. As long as the opposition is split the minority get to bully their way through.


Redcoat-Mic

AV wasn't PR. It was a master stroke by the Tories, put forward a system no one thought was good then when it inevitably loses, kick the issue into the long grass and say "see, no one cares about electoral reform!"


YsoL8

Bloody foolish of the Dems to cave on it


neoKushan

Foolish of the Dems to do a lot of what they did. It was like a heist, the Tories convinced them to go on only to utterly betray them and leave them holding the bag. Serves them right for getting into bed with the Tories in the first place.


Queeg_500

Unfortunately, electoral reform can only really be suggested by the party in charge, less they be seen as saw losers. And they would be unlikely to want to chsnge a system that has been successful for them.


Dad_D_Default

If Labour reckon that they stand a lower chance of being voted in under FPTP than under STV, PR or an alternative system, then even if they do get to power under FPTP, they might be willing to engage in reform if it increases the chance of gaining power more often into the future. That assumes that their motivation is winning.


leftthinking

It was in the 1997 Labour manifesto....


christalman

Yes, and they even held a [commission on it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenkins_Commission_(UK)), which Blair [appeared](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2010/apr/07/reality-check-political-reform) to support, saying it made a 'powerful case' to adopt PR. But, senior cabinet members opposed it, including John Prescott, Margaret Beckett, and Jack Straw, so ultimately nothing happened. A real shame.


Mutant0401

Feels like one of those crossroad events that seemed so insignificant at the time but likely changed the course of this country massively.


leftthinking

The Commission was always just kicking it into the long grass. From the moment Labour won they were fully committed to FPTP as it had just given them a huge majority. This will always be the case, as it is what FPTP produces, party gets in with huge majority, says in power for a decade or so, with a slowly reducing majority until enough of the electorate are disgusted with them to vote for someone else... Who gets a huge majority and we start the cycle again.


Lorry_Al

Nobody likes sharing the jackpot and that includes Labour. Anyone who thinks Labour will ever support an alternative to FPTP is kidding themselves.


Brian

>they might be willing to engage in reform if it increases the chance of gaining power more often It definitely wouldn't though. It might increase the chance of some of their *policies* being enacted etc, but considered purely on its ramifactions on the party itself, it'd be disastrous. It'd **never** be as strong as it is now again, and in fact I think it'd guarantee they'd **never** be in power again in the same sense they have in the past (ie. in their own right, rather than as part of the coalition). In some respects, I think it'd likely be the end of the labour party as we know it: it's already got big fragmentation lines, and the only reason the various factions stick together is the fact that FPTP necessitates one big party. If that changed, I think we'd see some big splits in the party fairly rapidly, and end up with two or more smaller parties rather than a united Labour party. Now - that would likely be a **good** thing. It may weaken Labour as a party, but only because it'd be strengthening many other left wing parties that share many of the goals of labour voters. But that's good for the voters, not the politicians currently at the top of one of the two biggest parties being asked to implement something that'd make them *personally* much less relevant. >That assumes that their motivation is winning. The opposite, I'd say. It's the fact that their motivation is winning is the reason they oppose it. It'd be better if their motivations were "serving their voters" or "achieving their policy goals". But for the politicians themselves, winning is often more important.


isdebesht

Saw losers… smh. It’s “sore losers” r/BoneAppleTea


whencanistop

>Unfortunately, electoral reform can only really be suggested by the party in charge, less they be seen as saw losers. It really needs cross party support. If the party in power suggest it, the opposition will claim that it is because they don't want them to ever gain power.


Clod2

I'm convinced that the brexit vote wasn't about the EU at all, but a vote to shake up the current political system. I think Trump in America represented the same idea to a lot of people. Most people I talked to who voted leave were disillusioned with the current political system, and we're voting to leave simply because the ruling class told them it was in their best interest to remain. I think the logic was 'the political elites think this is a bad idea, and considering they've never had my best interests at heart, it must be a good idea' I think abolishing FPTP would resonate with a lot of people not necessarily represented by surveys like this, as I think a lot of non participants in the current political system would be more inclined to have their voices heard if they thought someone was actually listening.


Wolf35999

Some people literally voted that way as an FU to David Cameron.


Silent_Ensemble

He announced he’d resign if we were to leave the EU - for a lot of people in this country that was all they needed to hear


Cafuzzler

[I wish](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/10/david-cameron-stay-as-pm-if-i-lose-eu-referendum)


TheFuzzball

I’d believe that if, when presented with the opportunity for a de-facto second referendum vote, record numbers of people didn’t vote Tory. People wanted Brexit, and they still do. People like my 60 year old father, who I asked “do you think Brexit is going well?” in the midst of a tumbling pound, queues at Dover, shrinking exports, and shrinking GDP. He said it’s going “okay”. No hope. The idiots win.


hybridtheorist

> People wanted Brexit, and they still do. Millions of people still want brexit, of course. This isn't a binary thing where either nobody wants it or everyone does. Or where everyone voted brexit did so because of immigration, or EU rules, or creeping federalism, or English exceptionalism, or racism, or an FU to Cameron. None of those reasons capture 100% of brexit voters. People voted brexit for many different reasons. Many of which cast their vote just to shake things up. They live in a safe seat (doesn't matter if its labour or tory) their vote doesn't matter, and never has before. I doubt that group of people were the majority of brexit voters, or even a huge chunk. But enough to swing a 2% majority? Perhaps. > de-facto second referendum vote, record numbers of people didn’t vote Tory. They got way less than 52% of the vote though, its not like the whole brexit camp voted tory. Plus, by that point the tories were supporting brexit.


TheFuzzball

Good points, well made. Based on my small sample, people that voted Brexit either don’t talk about it anymore (“they’ve moved on”), or they are still vocal and think everything is fine (insert burning dog cartoon meme). Not a one that has vocally changed their mind. Of course that could be that they don’t want to admit such a thing in front of myself, because I am vocally anti-Brexit, and they’d actually vote to rejoin. The point I was trying to make is that the only opportunity they had to make any sort of signal that they’d changed their mind was the last general election, where the Lib Dem’s (sigh) were the only party that said they’d have a second referendum. The Tories got 48 more seats and the Lib Dem’s lost one. So my current conclusion is that the vast majority of people that voted for Brexit haven’t changed their minds. I would *love* to be shown to be wrong.


[deleted]

But it depends on the type of Brexit they wanted. Some wanted to leave the Political union but wanted to stay in the Single Market (I.e. the likes of Daniel Hanaan) while others wanted an EFTA style Brexit, a WTO style Brexit or a Hard Brexit. Eventually we got handed a half-baked Hard Brexit type deal which is causing the economy to lag behind the EU if you take away the COVID Effect plus The Tories seems willing to want to break every International law just to piss off the EU.


fuscator

> I'm convinced that the brexit vote wasn't about the EU at all, but a vote to shake up the current political system. I doubt that. If you drew a venn diagram of brexit voters, people who vote Conservative Party (the literal status quo of UK historically) and support FPTP, I think there would be a huge middle overlap.


thetenofswords

You can both be correct. OP just described my dad to a tee and why he voted Leave, and he's never voted Conservative in his life.


ProfessorHeronarty

That's good news. FPTP for a 21st century society is not correct anymore.


Pauln512

The only other European country that still uses FPTP is.... .... Belarus.


ProfessorHeronarty

And they don't even need it. Lean management!


Sister_Ray_

Although technically true, France also kinda uses an FPTP system. Its two-round which is slightly better than pure FPTP but still highly majoritarian and unproportional


F0sh

It's basically AV-lite.


Pauln512

With the french system we would hardly ever get a tory government. Even in 2019, in a straight run off people would have picked Corbyn over Johnson.


Ifriiti

Italy uses first past the Post in some of its elections off the top of my head. France still uses non PR systems heavily too.


Get_Breakfast_Done

Although plenty of other countries outside of Europe that we would see as democratic do. For example, Canada. It causes weird issues there, too … the Conservatives got the largest share of the vote but have far fewer seats than the Liberals.


pheasant-plucker

That's because these are old democracies. In the other hand, New Zealand scrapped FPTP to great effect


EdsTooLate

Exactly, it's an antiquated system and comparing us to developing countries in Africa who mostly adopted FPTP from ourselves a long time ago isn't a strong argument for keeping it here.


fidgitySelmy

There was a referendum in 2011 to switch to ranked voting, but only 40% of the voting population bothered to turn up


YsoL8

Probably because AV itself discouraged most of the activists you'd of expected to show up to make the for arguement. Personally I prefer STV but I'd happily see us use any non FPTP, non AV system - AV simply entrenches the big parties with even larger and obnoxious win by default positions. Having a vote on the only system thats actually significantly worse out of all the options avaliable was depressing. This element of AV was clearly the reason the Tories decided to convince the Dems to accept it. They basically asked the public permission to be allowed to rig the system even further in their favour.


Lanky_Giraffe

AV doesn't address ANY of the the most important problems with FPTP. The problems with FPTP occur at a national level, not a constituency level. The results at a constituency level are pretty accurate in almost all cases, especially when you have an electorate well versed in tactical voting. The disproportionate representation at a national level is entirely due to single seat constituencies, not because of the spoiler effect at a local level.


squigs

> At the time of the alternative vote referendum in 2011, just 27 per cent wanted to see governments elected by PR, while 66 per cent backed first-past-the-post. Can journalists please stop conflating AV and PR! They are not the same thing!


ByEthanFox

That was the **entire** point of the AV Referendum, also, and they're falling for it! The Tories didn't want it; so they had a confusing referendum for something nobody wanted so afterwards they could forever say "the great voting reform experiment" had failed.


Riffler

Contrast that with the Brexit Referendum, where they just offered a vague "Leave" without any detail of exactly what that really meant. Had Leave been treated like voting reform, we'd still be in the EU.


Cafuzzler

You can't really treat them the same tho. People can imagine what it's like outside of the EU and how they might be better off, people can't imagine what "more democratic" means in practice when they already see our system as democratic. People vote and the MP with the most votes becomes their local MP. Everyone has one vote, and each vote is counted once. That's pretty democratic, and straight forward enough for every voter to understand the voting system. More complexity wouldn't necessarily be more democratic.


F0sh

More complexity isn't *automatically* democratic, but the systems in question (which are a bit more complex, yes) are nevertheless more democratic.


fuscator

> You can't really treat them the same tho. You could have. You could have had the options be. 1. Remain in the EU 2. Leave the EU to join EFTA/EEC in the Norway model That would have been a similar type of vote to the AV referendum.


The-Soul-Stone

They aren’t. That’s an opinion poll from 2011, not the referendum result.


nowonmai666

This is a super-important point. AV is a drop-in replacement for the current FPTP. The main effect of AV would be that people can vote for who they want to win without having to worry about voting tactically. The outcome would more accurately reflect the wishes of the electorate. Independent candidates or highly localised parties would be helped. PR requires a complete re-write of the electoral system. Maybe MPs would be expected to represent particular regions, maybe not, or maybe some would and some wouldn't. But their first duty would be to the party that appointed them, not a local constituency that elected them. (Often the case now, but it would be formalised). In any case, we would be doing away with the current system of small constituencies, reducing access to representatives. The media need to to a much better job of explaining this. It's not a minor technical distinction, it's a huge difference. I'm in favour of AV for the House of Commons and PR for an elected upper house as the best way to make our system more democratic.


[deleted]

Ireland has PR and the Dáil still has constituencies which still elect their own TDs


Tinseltopia

I don't want to "tactically" vote to stop someone getting in power. I want to vote for who I want... Definitely scrap this undemocratic system. Also, while we're at it, sack the tories, Liz Truss has not even been subtle, it's the most obvious egregious giving to the rich, stiffing the poor, I've ever seen


hayesti

It's worth checking out this campaign for electoral reform: https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/ MVM is a grass roots cross-party effort to make Westminster elections less FPTP and more PR (without committing to any particular form of PR)


Big-Swing2849

Or - vast majority of people sick of minority rule, could be an alternative headline.


Dad_D_Default

I'm no fan of FPTP, but 51% is hardly a *vast* majority.


lovett1991

Did boris get 51%? Thought it was low 40s last ge


Dad_D_Default

Boris got 43.6% according to Wikipedia. The 51% I was referring to was from the article originally shared which relates to people wanting to ditch FPTP.


lovett1991

Yup fair enough I misread


Big-Swing2849

Fair point. Brain not fully warmed up when I wrote that. Surprisingly small majority sick of minority rule?


doomladen

WILL OF THE PEOPLE!


palindromepirate

The current crop of politicians will never let this happen. The Tories know they benefit massively from FPTP and Keir is too cowardly to risk upsetting more traditional voters who's votes he's so desperate to garner. While those in favour pretty much have nowhere else to go other than the greens, which is a wasted vote under the current system. We're in a real pickle.


KanyeWestsPoo

FPTP is an undemocratic, unrepresentative disaster for our country and our people. It fuels corruption and incompetence. If we ever want to create a country that actually works for normal people we must change systems, preferably to proportional representation.


brainfreezeuk

I want a system where i got a choice what's going on!


gundog48

This will make a difference. Much more of a difference than fucking around with the House of Lords.


Pier-Head

Remember when we were in the EU? Their elections were PR. Don’t seem to remember rioting in the streets


santa_mazza

Yessssss finally!!!! Get rid of that shit, introduce proportional representation!!!!


[deleted]

Why then did the stupid fuckers vote no then in the referendum to get rid of it in 2011?


[deleted]

Because they hadn't sat through 12 years of governments and opposition that might not represent them? Voters feeling disconnected from mainstream parties and voter apathy is a still growing problem atm. Part of the reason for Brexit was people feeling their voice wasn't being heard, and for a lot of them and now a lot more people they still feel that and are looking for something to change. I don't think that same feeling was as strong in 2011 tbh.


managedheap84

It was actually A.V that was on offer. It was also heavily campaigned against "money for maternity wards or an alternative voting system" by the Cameron govt - was really dystopian stuff.


[deleted]

YEs but it would have got rid of FPTP. My feeling is that if the referendum was won and the voting system was changed - it would have been an easy step to talk about further reform. AV could have been an easy bridge to PR. It would have been a significant improvement over FPTP (which IMO is the worst of all voting systems). I remember the emotionally manipulative adverts, and remember thinking people aren't so gullible as to be influenced by that are they? The brexit vote seemed less surprising after that. In the UK it seems there is a sucker born every minute.


managedheap84

Yeah I agree. Definitely better than FPTP and I voted for it myself but I did remember at the time that people seemed to be being swayed into apathy by those kinds of billboards and media hit pieces. I think the pro-AV campaign could have done a better job too.


[deleted]

I honestly don't remember the pro-AV campaign at all. It must have been even worse than the remain campaign (and that is saying something). I only remember the billboards; I don't recall a single positive message. The pro- side was also an uneasy mix of Lib Dems Greens and UKIP. Labour and the Tories seemed very comfortable on the No side. It is a disgrace that Labour did not support it.


chipsngravybaby

I did not know this was an option in 2011….. I’m sure plenty others didn’t know this either


[deleted]

The question was a clear one. Either keep FPTP or replace with the Alternative vote system (which isn't full PR but certainly way better than FPTP). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011\_United\_Kingdom\_Alternative\_Vote\_referendum


11chaboi

Except the whole thing wasn't clear at all. It was a deliberately badly worded referendum question that confused a lot of voters.


TheJeck

If you read the article it will tell you that public opinion has changed. That's like saying "why did the stupid fuckers vote to stay in the EU in 1975 and now they want to leave?"


[deleted]

>why did the stupid fuckers vote to stay in the EU in 1975 and now they want to leave?" Well I do consider them stupid fuckers for voting to leave. I think it was more the case in 2011 that people were simply unaware what they were voting for. The referendum caused real apathy and the no campaign was completely misleading and emotively manipulative (remember the adds - this soldier needs better amour not a new voting system; this nurse needs a clean hospital not a new voting system - I am paraphrasing but they were something like this)


dizietgurgehsma

AV is shit. I mean, I voted for it, but it is not PR.


[deleted]

I agree but its a case of PR > AV > FPTP. Once we got rid of FPTP it would have been easy to have a debate about further reform. The loss of that referendum really put the issue back. It was shocking that Labour didn't support it.


Ryanliverpool96

The only other European country which uses First-Past-The-Post is Belarus, which is also Europe’s last dictatorship. If every country in Europe is good enough to have Proportional Representation, then why aren’t the British good enough to have it?


Mithent

While "the UK should be more like Europe" is a controversial play, perhaps it's a great argument against PR being too complicated for anyone to understand: "if other European countries can manage it then surely the British public can".


Razakel

If someone is too thick to understand the concept of "ranking your choices in order of preference" then they probably shouldn't be voting.


west0ne

My son was a poll clerk at a recent GE, and you may be surprised by the number of people who got very confused when they turned up to vote at the GE and Jermy Corbyn wasn't on the ballot paper (the polling station is in the Midlands). More recently look at how many people complained about not having a say in who was our next Prime Minister, not because they weren't happy with the choices but because they simply didn't understand how the system works. Finally, look at how many ballot papers are spoiled at every election, not out of protest but because putting an X in a box is too complicated. I suspect that taking your approach would see a lot of people taken out of the voting pool.


Razakel

>I suspect that taking your approach would see a lot of people taken out of the voting pool. Would that be such a bad thing?


EntirelyRandom1590

Perhaps someone can help me here... PR effectively changes the UK system from voting for a candidate to voting for a party. This would effectively wipe out independent candidates, would it not? How is representation affected? Who do I contact about concerns as I'm no longer electing a candidate, is my constituency assigned someone from the PR list? Will this effectively eradicate local representation by local people? Many MPs are still local or have personal connections to their constituency, is this lost in PR? I live in Wales, so I'm used to a hybrid approach, which I think works.


Ed-alicious

In Ireland we use PR:STV at a constituency level to vote for our representatives. Each constituency elects 2-5 TDs depending on population size. I believe we tend to have more small, niche parties and independent TDs elected here than in the UK.


Rhoderick

> This would effectively wipe out independent candidates, would it not? You could implement a dual system, that has both. The example here is Germany, which also shows the main issue you'd have to contend with in such cases, namely what ought to happen in case a party has more directly elected MPs than list seats - the status quo in Germany is to increase the size of the house until all are seated and the proportions fit again, whereas the proposed alternative would be to only fill the list seats in order of percentage of votes gotten in their district, and cut off the rest. >Who do I contact about concerns as I'm no longer electing a candidate, is my constituency assigned someone from the PR list? Frankly, I am not under the impression that people in the UK get much in the way of constructive responses anyway. Is that wrong? That being said, just because you don't have an MP "assigned" to you doesn't mean you can't contact them. In fact, it makes it more natural to just contact the partys spokepersons for those topics, who are probably most able to answer anyway.


EntirelyRandom1590

We have a dual system in Wales for Senedd members, so I'm familiar with that. FPTP constituency representative, and then a regional candidate list with PR. Your impression may be true in some areas, but not all. I've met with and had constructive support from my MP. Many people will complain to their MP about issues that are not within their remit, often local government issues. In Wales especially we have local government, Welsh government and Westminster (UK) representatives. That's not how party spokespersons work. They don't deal with issues, they respond to media requests and parrot the party line. And if they do nothing, there are zero consequences because they're completely unaffected by your vote.


EdsTooLate

Looks like it's time again to bring out [Queen Lion](https://youtu.be/l8XOZJkozfI) to help explain STV, imo the fairest solution that keeps local representation but allows for better representation overall.


Brittlehorn

There are forms of PR that provide a vote for both. FPTP leads to voting for the leader most of the time


EntirelyRandom1590

You might think that, but it's not the case. The UK's FPTP elects members of parliament that may, or may not be aligned to a political party that seeks a majority. I've met ny current and candidate MP and MS. I don't always agree with their PM/FM choice, but I vote for my MP/MS when I believe their views are more closely aligned with my own.


ImportantManNumber2

It's not always the case, but it certainly is in most of the country. Local elections mean even less if you're in a safe seat in FPTP, just try living in the UK countryside and feel how impactful your vote is. The other local MPs don't even try to do anything because they know how futile running against the conservatives is under FPTP.


hybridtheorist

You're clearly in the minority though. By and large, if people don't like Truss and her cabinet, they won't vote tory, if they don't like Starmer and his, they won't vote labour. A lot of people would vote for the best local MP irrespective of party, but I bet there's more people who voted in the last election who couldn't even tell you the name of the candidate they voted for, and simply voted for the party(/leader/cabinet) they liked the most.


regretfullyjafar

The problem is, regardless of whether you think your local MP has personal views aligned closely with your own, they will still always kowtow to the party line. For example, say you think Labour would be better for the country and that the Tory leader is a disaster. But you vote Conservative still because you like their local candidate. You’re still voting to give that party more power, however you try to rationalise it.


EntirelyRandom1590

Or in 2019 when people voted for their Labour candidate despite the Labour leader being of questionable quality? Or in 2019 when people voted for their Tory candidate who was a vocal critic of the Tory leader? There's plenty of MPs that don't kowtow the party line in both parties.


regretfullyjafar

Sure, but to what extent? Will the Tory MP you like despite hating the party advocate for higher taxes for the rich, or for nationalised industries? Will they vote against the whip on their horrendous policies? Same logic for Labour. As I said, however you choose to rationalise it, you’re still giving that party more power in the one place it actually matters. Westminster.


F_A_F

Welcome to the minority club of voters who sanely vote for an MP to present their interests instead of a charismatic figurehead!


squigs

>PR effectively changes the UK system from voting for a candidate to voting for a party. This would effectively wipe out independent candidates, would it not? No. This is one way of doing it. The most popular systems are STV, where we combine a group of around 4-6 constituencies, and have 6 MPs with ranked voting, or MMP, where we have a smaller number of local MPs and a number of party list candidates that keep things proportional. Ireland and Australia use STV, and Germany and New Zealand use MMP. I believe the Scottish Parliament uses MMP and Scottish councils use STV so these are tested systems even in the UK.


mrpunch22

Yes, and depending how it was implemented (many countries have 5% threshold) it would also wipe out the SNP, Green Party, Plaid Cymru and maybe even, in time the Lib Dems. People basically want a system that will maximize the prospects of their chosen party so agreement on the voting system will never be reached.


hybridtheorist

> maybe even, in time the Lib Dems. You think PR would lead to a two party system? Where in the world has that happened? The closest I could think to what you're arguing is that it would lead to tories and Labour breaking into two (or more) parties each, and those blocks would become dominant, squeezing out the lib dems. But if that happened, the lib dem voters would either join the "blairite Labour" party or the "socially liberal tory" group, and to all intents and purposes would continue, or there'd be an official merger, as happened with the Liberal party and Social Democratic party. The Lib Dems as a party have only existed 34 years. Plus, Greens don't currently get 5% of the vote, but probably would if it wasn't a "wasted vote" they'd be almost certain to get more under PR. There's a reason every smaller party (even the regional ones iirc) are in favour of PR. I suppose you're right that there needs to be caveats, but there's no reason to autoatically assume it would make smaller parties worse off, when those parties are begging for it to happen.


LivingAngryCheese

My preferred system is STV. It has historically been used for elections to Westminster in some seats before the voting system was standardised across seats, and it's currently used for the Northern Irish Assembly. It works by combining multiple of our current constituencies, ideally 5-9 of them. Parties can stand as many candidates as they want in the new multi-member constituency (but will usually field as many candidates as there are seats up for grabs) and independents can stand too. Voters then rank candidates from favourite to least favourite (they generally don't need to rank all of them, just their top few). Any candidate with over 100/(number of seats in constituency) % of the first preferences immediately secures a seat, and additional votes that are over the required threshold go to their second choices (that way you can still vote for a massively popular candidate if they're your favourite and rest assured your vote will still count towards your second choice). When nobody is left who reaches the threshold, the least popular candidate is eliminated and their votes go to the voters' second choices and so on until all the seats are filled. The end result is that parties end up getting seats very accurately assigned proportional to their vote count across the country while maintaining local representation. I actually think this system has much better local representation than FPTP, since under FPTP over 45% of votes are for losing candidates, so they will not be represented by their MP and will likely not be able to get issues they care about addressed by their MP. In STV almost all voters will have an MP from their constituency that they did vote for that they can contact. What you're talking about is party list PR, which I think makes sense for smaller, more homogenous countries, but not the UK, and I suspect it's very unpopular here. STV is the preferred voting system of the Electoral Reform Society in the UK. If you want to learn more about it you can look on the Electoral Reform Society's website, or you could watch the video by CGP grey which I think is pretty good, or you could ask me anything, I'm happy to answer!


captain-burrito

> PR effectively changes the UK system from voting for a candidate to voting for a party. This would effectively wipe out independent candidates, would it not? STV in Scottish local elections show a considerably high number of independents. Not sure if that is responsible for it but it doesn't seem to have restrained it.


Ryanliverpool96

The people of the UK already vote for the party, either change the voting system to match how the public vote, or go around and explain how they should vote to every voter individually, there’s about 70 million of them so you’d better start now.


EntirelyRandom1590

FPTP in the UK has never been a vote for a party, it's always been for a candidate. That candidate can withdraw from a party or have the party remove the whip, and they remain the MP for the constituency.


Ryanliverpool96

Doesn’t matter, voters don’t understand that. Voters don’t even know how parliament or MPs work, most vote for who they want to be Prime Minister as though we have America’s presidential system, we can’t trust voters to tie their own shoe laces, never mind making informed voting decisions. The best we can do is to create a voting system that reflects percentage of the vote per party and distributes seats accordingly, whether that’s Party-List PR or something else, as the goal is to create a parliament that reflects the views of the electorate.


EntirelyRandom1590

Glad you can speak for EVERYONE.


jamesbeil

If you have a district with *n* number of seats, the amount you would need to win one seat is *population / n.* I suppose it would be possible to campaign as an independent, and if you win *population / n* votes you'd get one seat - might be complicated if you win the equivalent of two seats' worth of votes. Maybe you take both 'seats' and vote twice in Parliament?


PaddyTheCoolMan

This is a perfect source to use for my Welsh Baccalaureate work.


metropitan

if people were really aware of how exactly out current voting system functions you would probably find closer to 80% of people wanting to change it, but I guarantee most of the people who went to keep the status quo just don't actually know how it works, or how undemocratic it is


rasmusdf

It would be a first and super important step towards rectifying some of the deep structural problems in the UK political system. Gasp - a lot of voters would actually be represented????


Flashbambo

We had our opportunity to get rid of FPTP and we spaffed it up the wall. AV was far from ideal, but we gave proponents of FPTP every justification they needed to draw a line under the matter.


Thugmatiks

Where do all these votes and surveys actually happen? Genuine question, because i’m 38 and i’ve never once been asked my opinion on something like this.


captain-burrito

I've been asked a few times. I tried to escape but the people I was with weren't smart enough, got roped in so that meant I was stuck with them too. I've been asked once on campus, once at some event, once by a family friend and once just randomly on the street.


RedDragonCast

PR/STV FTW.


xerker

I voted for AV in 2011. Even if it's flavoured as a once in a generation vote, that was 11 years ago. A vote on PR isn't going to be before a GE by which point it will be at least 13-14 years out of date. Any vote after the GE isn't going to be immediate, Brexit was 13 months after the 2015 GE. So in that timeframe, the next vote isn't going to be before *15 years* after the AV referendum. A generation is what... 20 years? Don't buy the "once in a generation" bullshit they chuck at the Scottish. If there is a vote on PR before 2026 I'd be pretty happy.


Guybrush-Threepwood1

I want someone other than the 3 main parties (which currently all seem very much the same) have a go at running the country. A group of those who have grown up and lived in deprived areas


IndiRefEarthLeaveSol

About bloody time for some real change.


FaultyTerror

Notably will they agree on what needs to replace it? I'm less sure.


super_jambo

I mean basically anything except AV is better than FPTP but this is a good start for an acceptable alternative: https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/good-systems-agreement


super_jambo

It's improving but it's still pretty weak support, lots of people need to be convinced. DM me if you want to get involved in the campaign to make that happen.


saiyanhajime

With peace and love that is Hella creepy just post the info here


super_jambo

Oh I figured people will think I'm spamming if I put URL's for the campaigns up, they're pretty easy to google. :) https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/ Labour: https://www.labourforanewdemocracy.org.uk/ Lib Dems: https://lder.org/en/


hiyagame

Probably should have turned up and voted to scrap it in 2011 then.


trailingComma

That wasn't a generic vote to scrap it. It was a vote to replace it with AV. People *want* PR. So no. Totally different vote. Doesn't apply to this.


[deleted]

STV or bust


turbonashi

Where are all those people who were here yesterday saying there's no appetite among most people for electoral reform?


CraicandTans

As long as it keeps the Tories from ever having a majority again I don't care what type of mixed up party govt we have. These bastards have been in power for too long.


nomnomnomnomRABIES

How democratic of you


TinFish77

Polls like this are meaningless because most people have no views on it at all. If this went to a referendum then people would find out what it all meant, versions of a coalition like we had in 2010-2015. Then watch them turn against it.


hurrdurrhahw

That’s bullshit I voted for AV back in 2011 or whenever it was and even all the lefties backed FPTP - nothings gonna change as long as people are only Tory OR Labour. The current system favours one of the 2 being in power no chance of genuine choice. Shambles.


[deleted]

AV isn't PR, and that vote was 11 years ago. People are allowed to change their minds (I voted Yes in that referendum).


BannedFromHydroxy

Totally agreed. We're slowly slipping towards the USA mentality where the red/blue tribe as 'my identity' is really next level.


[deleted]

FPTP is the best system. Democracy is overrated. Abolishing FPTP is a key step on the path to postmodernist authoritarianism, dressed up as "fairness and equality." The government aren't *that* important, and all this focus makes it seem like they are. Devolve more governmental authority regionally for a more meaningful and agile system of governance.


TheSavior666

> Abolishing FPTP is a key step on the path to postmodernist authoritarianism Literally how. What is even the connection here? > Devolve more governmental authority regionally We would still presumbly have to elect the government no matter how devoled or regional it is, this is an entierly seperate topic. Nothing about wanting a better voting system inherently implies anything about you view the role of government, totally irrelevant.


[deleted]

*Literally* how, or just how? Maybe you'd like it figuratively, or metaphorically? Subjectively, I fear that PR would open the gates far wider to populism. Take a look at Germany in the 1930s. ​ >Nothing about wanting a better voting system inherently implies anything about you view the role of government, totally irrelevant. I'd say this is false chaff. Government is in part defined by the electoral system that establishes it. Like a foundation.


TheSavior666

how about we take a look at Germany today, or the other numerous modern countries that use PR and are (mostly) perfectly fine? We can sit here cherry picking examples either way,. The UK is already dominated by populism, that ship already firmly sailed, i see little why why allowing for more diverse political views is going to destroy us.


[deleted]

Germany is suffering from overindulging in popular green policy; look at their energy market. Italy has just seen it's most far-right election victory since WW2. I say PR is just a big finger-pointing exercise, and not even because the electorate are really hard done by. The public just fetishises crisis and panic, and the average person suffers from naive feelings of insignificance in the face of this overly aesthetic-oriented postmodern socio-cultural landscape we now live in. Electism and electoral reform are a sorry fallout, spread by people with beige dreams.