Why 2024 Was the Least Proportional Election Result Ever
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 фев 2025
- Buy a copy of Too Long: www.toolong.news
Learn more about Too Long: • Too Long Q&A
Despite only winning 34% of the vote, Labour claimed a huge majority in the General Election which could lead to questions regarding over the UK's First Past the Post system. So was this really the least democratic vote in British political history?
🎞 TikTok: / tldrnews
💡 Got a Topic Suggestion? - forms.gle/mahE...
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk...
Our mission is to explain news and politics in an impartial, efficient, and accessible way, balancing import and interest while fostering independent thought.
TLDR is a completely independent & privately owned media company that's not afraid to tackle the issues we think are most important. The channel is run by a small group of young people, with us hoping to pass on our enthusiasm for politics to other young people. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, engaging and sharing. Thanks!
I don't like Farage, Reform, their candidates or their politics - in fact I'm on the opposite end of the political spectrum - but getting just 5 seats for 4 million votes is crazy.
It's grossly immoral too.
Honestly it’s terrifying that he has a legitimate chance of winning the next election
Yes I’m such a leftie but the fact that some of us would argue that FPTP is good just so that it keeps out ‘extremists’ like Reform (who mind you 14.7% ppl voted for) is ridiculous, we should all accept the fact that FPTP is just not a viable method of voting anymore and cannot accurately represent the people (yk like how a democracy is supposed to work)
My favourite part of this election is that now the few anti-electoral reform people I know can't just make the "you're only saying that because Labour loses under FPTP". Labour won, and I still want electoral reform. Reform lost out massively under FPTP, and I still want electoral reform. Because it's not about making my 'side' perform better in elections, it's about making democracy matter, and making sure everybody has their voices heard, even if they use their voice exclusively to say homophobic and racial slurs.
What about when Corbyn lost even though he won a huge share of the vote?
voters: "no, you can't just maintain a system that benefits you at the cost of democracy"
labour and tories: "womp womp"
It's screwed over labour for years in Scotland without which they had slim to nil chance of winning, so it comes and goes.
But on the other hand same voters vote primarily for those same 2 parties.
@@soundscape26 yeah because of tactical voting, had we had a proportional system or even multiple member constituences, it may be different
@@soundscape26Because they hate the other and would rather vote for the most popular party that disagrees with the one they hate, then the less popular party that they like the most.
Womp not word
Reminds me of, here in Canada, our current government had promised to get rid of FPTP but when they only got a majority thanks to FPTP, they magically stopped talking about it.
Trudeau appeared to favour ranked ballots, but the Special Committee on Electoral Reform came down on the side of PR which was... awkward... since it meant the chance of another Liberal majority in the foreseeable future was remote. So he backtracked. If he hadn't, and had gone with some form of PR, the Liberals would be in a lot better position than they find themselves now.
Thats because all the Liberals do is talk about fairness and representation and the majority of Canadians, all while doing everything they can to not be fair, represent every day Canadians and the will of the people. They are too busy giving money to friends, raising taxes and virtue signaling to ever care about democracy.
I like our system in Canada. No system is perfect and I like having an MP.
@@Ironguy-gm6vfMy friend there are systems like mixed-member proportional that allows local representation whilst still having proportional partisan representation.
@@zahzuhzay6533 All PR does is break down the members of the party into different parties, nothing changes. All it does is encourage partisanship and no compromise because if you disagree on some minor issue you make a new party. The less parties the better
Every Reform MP represents 822,857 voters while every DUP MP represents only 34,410 voters. Seems like a difference that is a bit too big.
I do think a system like AMS would probably be a better solution than PR, since we do need the Northern Irish, Scots and Welsh to have their own regional representation [as well as the different parts of England ofc] on top of a more proportional representation.
@@henrrryyyyi agree henryyyyy
Maybe Reform MPs should cast 822,857 votes in the division lobby and DUP members cast 34,410 - like card votes at the TUC, or shareholders' votes. Then it's less important how many MOs there are, the voters still get represented. And it would keep the constituency link.
No. Reform MP doesn't represent 822k votes.
The Reform MP represents their own constituency and that it. No one else.
FPTP is a devolved voting system where MPs aren't elected per total votes in a country but per votes in a given constituency.
It prevents extremist shifts on a national level.
@@AlecBradyGet rid of the house of lords and instead the upper chamber is represented by a proportional vote. That way the house of commons represents constituencies while the house of lords represents the nationwide proportional vote.
Unfortunately Labour and the Conservatives have no plans on doing away with FPTP the entire time it benefits them.
Exactly, and even if a party like reform or the lib Dems won an election in this system, they will soon change their mind about implementing PR.
Exactly, and even if a party like reform or the lib Dems won an election in this system, they will soon change their mind about implementing PR.
Exactly, and even if a party like reform or the lib Dems won an election in this system, they will soon change their mind about implementing PR.
Fortunately Lib Dems and greens (and reform unfortunately) are gaining more power and they are all in favour of pr
Wrong There was a referendum on this in 2011. The people voted to keep this existing system.
Everyone is so focused on the Labour vs Torie fight they have ignored how much of a monumental blow this has been for the SNP.
They got less votes mainly becuade of the controversy around Nicola Stugeon and the subsequent changing of their leader
@@Davefacestation Think people in Scotland just desperate to get Tory's out can't blame them think be closer in Scottish only election.
@@markcassidy17 I mean no, if it weren't for the fact that the SNP just went through kind of a huge shift in leadership from Nicola Sturgeon to Humza Yousaf to John Swinney then the SNP would've had no reason to worry about their seats. But since they did go through the wringer over the last year or so, faith in the SNP has been lost allowing their seats to be won by other parties. Only at that point did strategic voting for Labour come into it.
First Past the Post also exaggerated the seat change in Scotland. SNP actually won 30% of Scottish votes compared to only 35% for Labour. This weirdly resulted in Labour taking 80% of Scottish Seats
Look at Alba
The thing I find the most hilarious is that CGP Grey made a video that came out 9 years ago about how the UK’s electoral system, in the aftermath of the 2015 general election, during which the Tories got a majority of seats. The Tories didn’t fix anything during those 9 years, and now their opposition, labour have a vast majority.
The system is DESIGNED to benefit Tories. The fact that today benefited Labor is a huge neon sign of how bad shape Tories are in... so of course they would never in your dreams change it! It's like asking the Republicans to change it or the EC in the USA...
That's why I think Labour should change the system now that they got the rare chance... they are normally the victims of it.
@@TheAlchaemist LOL no they aren't Labour was in charge from 1997 to 2010 that's 13 years. Then 14 years of Conservatives.
the conservatives have been in power for something like 75 of the last 100 years @@Ushio01
@@pinkblake 63 years to 37 years. And? Labour gets in makes everything far, far worse then get voted out.
There is a reason Labour was kicked to the curb for 14 years after 13 years of Labour and that was mild new Labour not the leftist nutters that were the leaders before and after Harold Wilson and James Callaghan.
Of the last 25 general elections excluding this years that go back to 1924 it's 10 for Labour and 15 for the Conservatives.
Both have called early elections due to issues of lack of faith by the public with Labour having them more often.
It's crazy that reform got half of the votes that labour did and only got FIVE SEATS
cus they didnt win many areas. having a bunch of dumb people in every area vote for you doesn't mean you should rule an area, they need to win it
They actually only got 41% of Labour's vote. But your point is still valid in my opinion.
@@True_Heretic dude you know what i mean
@@True_Heretic akshualy ☝🤓
@@kostas0352 41 vs 50 makes a big difference over millions
Really funny how Labour blames their lower vote share on voter apathy due to uncompetitive seats and tactical voting, but won't listen to a solution that would solve that very issue.
In the welsh assembly, Labour twice convened electoral reform commissions. Both times they suggested switching from AMS to STV and both times Labour ignored it. They are now switching to regional party list as that gives the party more control.
We'll never escape this two party nightmare unless there is electoral reform
The two party system will never allow for electoral reform.
Oy vey! Stop noticing things!
Vote lib dem next time. If labour is forced into coalition with the lib dems then the lib dems would be fools to not make electoral reform a prerequisite for coalition.
@@dars1961 The closest (and probably once-in-a-lifetime) chance the UK had, was the 2011 referendum after the 2010 election resulted in a coalition with the Pro-electoral reform LibDems (extremely unlikely with FPTP as is). Sure, that wasn't exactly on proportional representation, but a step in the right direction. Sadly, the voters fumbled it.
@@ripvanwinkle6557 oh God im gonna nooootice ahhhhhh!!!!!!!
you should have pointed out that reform got 14percent of the vote, while lib dems got 12, and reform got 4 seats but lib dems got 71...... couldn't be any more undemocratic
Yeah. We should probably switch to a system like STV so we get to keep our constituencies, but don’t have to worry about parties coming in 2nd place in a lot of areas but getting no seats.
areas chose that way
Doesn't mattah, reform ah bayud.
Sho dey should nut win
Yeah but areas actually wanted a lib dem to represent them, I wouldn't want a toff millionaire crying about boats to represent my area, because they are just in it for themselves to score cheap points and increase the value of their company.
The Lib dems received 12.2% of the votes and ended up with 11% of the seats. As a matter of fact, they were the party with the most reflective seat count of the vote share.
If it was really "country first, party second", they'd push electoral reform immediately
No, because then reform would get more seats and that’s bad for party and country
@@Racing_Fox In PR Reform would get more seats but so would other parties, only Labour and the Conservatives would really suffer.
@@CNC-ih8cc yeah but reform would have just under half what Labour have. Its not good
@@Racing_Fox So what you're saying is you tentatively support democracy when you stand to benefit. If you do not benefit you do not support it
@@danuk500 if it creates a system where local issues aren’t represented but a dangerous extremist party is then no I don’t support it
Should.
But won't.
That's exactly it.
Depends on what you want to replace it with. Straight PR is even less democratic in practice, no matter how much small parties want to gaslight us into thinking otherwise. There are other systems that are probably better, but it isn't anything like as clear-cut as 'FPTP bad, PR good' as some would like to make it out. The details of how the systems are set up make a HUGE difference.
Probably won't, but they might make some moves in that direction. Keir Starmer will be aware that a large majority (like the one gained by Boris Johnson) doesn't mean you can't be thrashed at the next election, so reaching out to the Lib Dems and/or Greens by reforming the system could prove to be in Labour's interests in the longer term. It's certainly not a given, but I wouldn't rule it out.
@@johnpotts8308 Seems unlikely. Coalition governments historically aren't very popular with voters, and if PR were implemented, the Labour Party would probably be at serious risk of breaking up. It was only the political realities of our FPTP system that really kept it together in the latter part of the Corbyn era.
Muslims will now swarm into the UK after assurances from their man Starmer.
The whole "people only care now it's affecting Reform" take I've seen from a bunch of Labour people is so gross. FPTP has negatively affected the Greens, Lib Dems, UKIP, SDLP and Alliance in election after election. I myself only voted Labour because I knew the Lib Dems had no chance of winning in my constituency. Some Labour politicians attacking independents after cynically booting them out of the party is also really gross. I remember when they used to somewhat believe in democratic principles
Same I voted Labour this year but if the system was more representative I'd have gone Greens or Lib Dem
I've not seen any Labour people saying this though? Not saying they haven't, just that even Labour voters seem uneasy with how skewed the results are.
@@joshuacampbell1625 It was said on Question Time yesterday, on the New Statesman podcast and by a Labour member of the House of Lords in BBC Sounds' election coverage
It has always benefited the Tories and Labor, of course they don't want it to change
@@joshuacampbell1625you’d be surprised… Twitter for one is filled with of these nasty Labour supporters
Think about this. _Only one in six Brit voted for labour._
They got one out of three votes, but with turnout of around 50%, that means that roughly speaking only one out of six people in Britain voted labour.
it looks bad when you include the turnout but it isn’t really fair to include it
think about this. 1 in every 2 brits dont care.
@@breazfreind402 I think a lot of them do care, but they don't see a viable option due to the two party system. Parliaments with more proportional representation always have better turnout.
@@PGATProductions I think it is somewhat fair to included because the low turnout is caused by a lot of people not liking either candidates, and not seeing the point in voting on a smaller party that doesn't stand a chance anyway. Some aren't voting because they don't care, but a lot aren't voting because they can't find anyone they could stand behind.
Only one in 3 votes for Brexit...give or take
I think its important to note that winning 50%+1 of the seats can effectively mean 100% of the seats power wise since the UK doesn’t have super majority rules.
EDIT:
Alright I’ve edited the comment because I feel like some people are missing the point. My point is that 326 seats can ignore the other 324 seats. This in theory isn’t bad, its a majority of the vote. But it can be bad if those 324 seats represent 66.2% of voters. And the reality is much worse because 66.2% of voters are actually only being represented by 238 seats. My comment has nothing to do with the internal politics of the Labour Party. And even if you want to argue about rebellious MPs, their leader still becomes Prime Minister, as in the head of Government. Someone who can do a lot of damage in very little time.
Not necessarily, since backbenchers on both sides don't always obey the whips
@@monkeymox2544 Sure, the bigger the majority the safer it is. But that goes for every democracy - it's just slightly more common to happen in the UK, that's all. Not something I would stake my democracy on.
Yes but it makes it far easier to rule with a big majority because it means u don’t have to whip as strongly. U can afford to have a few mps rebel against a vote, which means the whips don’t have to be as harsh which then again makes it much easier to get the votes when u do need them.
That presumes the party is in complete agreement or under complete control.
The more seats. The weaker the wings in the party.
That's absolutely not true, and it's bizarre it has so many upvotes. Having a majority of one is seen as almost worthless, because MPs often rebel against their own party. In fact Theresa May struggled so much with a working majority of 17 that she called a general election in 2017- which backfired as she lost her majority altogether, and had to make a deal with the DUP.
FPTP is in my opinion really bad system for voting because as Jay Foreman once said "It's the system that makes you vote for the party with a chance to win that we least don't un-hate the most" . If nothing else at least have 2 round system like French.
Because if it was proportional system, results would be approximately like this:
Labour: 221 seats
Tory: 156 seats
Libdem: 78 seats
Reform: 91 seats
Greens: ~46 seats
ID/rest: ~58 seats
Using Alternative Vote essentially simulates a multi round system (removing the party with the least votes each time).
It’s still got all the other flaws of FPTP and wouldn’t be representational. But it does get rid of tactical voting which will benefit smaller parties.
People would vote differently in a proportional system, so it may not look like that.
Thats if labour and tories didn't split as a result, because they will.
Wow, if it was MMP, I think the coalition negotiations would be diabolical. Could end up with very short term governments (France and Italy style). Lots of fun.
@@Kelvinpaul4And then there's Ireland, which has been doing perfectly fine with STV for a century and hasn't had a single party majority government since the '50s.
The horse-trading needed to form coalitions is a feature, not a bug. It forces compromise and tempers extremes.
The unfortunate reality of FPTP is that the more people support smaller parties the more big parties win
Not to mention that like what happened in France election systems with more than 2 parties can result in establishment parties closing ranks and coordinating to block out any outsiders from governance completely destroying the whole point of a democratic election system.
@@dominuslogik484That doesn’t destroy the point of a democratic election system.
I mean, how did they even block anyone out in France?
France’s system is more proportional and better for smaller parties than the UK system is.
@@MJW238 two existing parties closed ranks to remove competition in many areas resulting in very disproportionate results, despite getting more votes than either of the two leading parties the national rally party made third overall in seats despite having around significantly more votes total than that of either Macron or the far left coalition.
Surprisingly, Reform UK had a better voter per seat ratio than UKIP. 3.5 million votes and one seat.
forgot they existed lol
forgot they existed lol
@@SuhbanIoThis was in 2015. UKIP today are a minor party.
@@dertery8724 I know
Labor just got the biggest reason in the History of UK election cycles not to abolish FPTP.
No, this is the biggest reason why Labour should seriously consider PR.
A self-serving reason. It should be reasonable to demand they serve their voters, not themselves.
@@joefortey4 lol they get almost 2x as many seats as their votes should have given and you think they are incentivised to abolish this system that is serving them so well? Why would they voluntarily give away such a huge advantage? What is the incentive?
1 election where it actually benefitted them (almost entirely because of Reform splitting the Tory vote - without Reform the Tories could have won) - compared to most of history where it has absolutely screwed them over and grossly over benefitted the tories to rule with majority after majority and ruin the country.
If Labour sees the long game and has learnt anything from history, they should abolish FPTP - At least in time for the 2034 election when the Tories probably otherwise will make a comeback with FPTP rules
@@VanderWollsyou realise we already had a referendum on getting rid of FPTP and the voters decisively chose to keep it.
We need PR, I have voted tactically for the last 20-ish years because of how our system works, not for the party I believed the most in.
This😢
Same here i am a reform voter as was my mum but in her area it was between torys and lib dems and the whole point was to get torys out so libdem won her area
Tactical voting was very organised. Stop the Tories was very successful
Now we need stop Labour and give the Lib Dems a chance
@@LOLE_Editz No we don't. Labour and the lib dems need to work together.
@@moomin7461 you miss the point. With the current system, the ruling party doesn't need to work together with anyone.
@@dodgechance4564 True. Unless, of course, they want to get re-elected.
Labour was going to win regardless tories backstabbed their entire voter base. Don't pat yourself on the back too hard there
The UK election system is not broken, it's doing exactly what it was always intended to do. Give the people enough of a feeling of democracy that they don't revolt, while retaining as much of the power as possible within the aristocracy.
So, about that "don't revolt" thought...
I love your perspective 😂
TELL me you don't understand anything about FPTP without telling me.
@DaDARKPass
Both Tory and Labour mps are notoriously pro-establishment rich kids who were raised to rule in oxford/cambridge. So no it’s not a “conspiracy theory” at all, merely an uncomfortable fact.
The aristocracy needs more power. Particularly the King. But the House of Lords too.
Commons has gotten too uppity over the centuries...
Yes it is. Winning a seat with 27% is crazy…
It's not right that so many people in this country feel their vote doesn't matter, or, that they must vote tactically.
It's not right that Labour automatically get into power because the "other party" destroyed themselves.
It's not right that so much support doesn't lead to actual representation in parliament.
It's not right that the UK is almost the only country in Europe still with this system.
It's not right, it's time we got it rid of it.
from what I understand, we have basically the same thing here in France, except without first-past-the-post retardation
Voters and representatives shouldn't have to keep being tactical to win while the extremists benefit from having one candidate.
In America the parties choose before hand the one we want so as to avoid such problems. If thar system were done in America, democrats would win all the time as Republicans enjoy choices while the left dictate a single person. The minority would win every time. And being tactical would raise concerns about right to run freely.
This dissatisfaction you and others have is the same America jad when they were colonies. So many people, no representation, and taxed loke crazy. Yet a small area that is sparsely populated in England could have multiple representatives in parliament and not pay as much taxes because of low population.
@@duphasdan I thought this was about France for one second and I was about to go insane on you LOL
(we have a virtually infinite amount of left candidates for Prime Minister)
Remember that the only other country in Europe that has FPTP is Belarus.
Says something about the UK
Elections in Belarus mean nothing 😅
Yes we have a much older democracy
@@davidellis1355get with the time then
@@davidellis1355 I don't buy that argument at all. People can rattle on about the Magna Carta all they like but ordinary working class people didn't get a vote until 1918 and even then with heavy caveats for women
@@ИльяВинский-д5ш that's the point
Everyone just voted Labour, and they won because their entire reasoning was “We’re not the Tories.”
@eljay5009Frix is right. Only 5% of the people who voted for ‘Labour’ only voted for them for their manifesto.
@eljay5009 also a lot of Tories did not vote at all
@@graveperil2169I didn’t vote myself
Labour vote was extremely low also
The Labour vote didn't skyrocket, it largely was similar throughout the years. What happened was that the Tory vote was split with a portion of it going to Reform. So Labour won by virtue of Tories being divided, it's incredibly fascinating.
The LibDems and Reform should make some kind of pressure group for ditching FPTP.
Why would the LibDems want to? They got 71 seats with less votes than Reform. It massively benefits them to keep the system the same.
You must know nothing about the UK political system! The Liberal Democrats would eat fcuking razor blades before they worked with fascists like Reform!
@@hendy643True, but PR is part of their platform, like Reform
Granted, this pressure group would involve a coalition between the right and left wings and I can’t imagine the lib dems would want to work with Farage, even if they want the same things
Why? LibDems got 12% of votes and seats.
Yeah, together with other small parties
imagine getting 13% of the vote and 5 seats, whilst lib dem gets less than u but 76 seats. Love muh democracy
Seats aren't based on % of vote share
Well, just win your constituencies.
no point complaining about the % of the votes, the game isn't about getting loads of votes its about getting enough to win seats and then getting as many seats as possible across the country.
@@FRIDGEYTHEGOAT But wouldn't it be better to change the game so that it actually does become about getting as many people on your side as possible?
@@alvedonarenof course IT would be there is 0 Argument against
Respect for posting this. Fair reporting.
Well Starmer was in favour of PR and not first past the post, lets see how he looks at it now when Farage comes after him in parliament.
Fun fact: in the 1918 general election the uk government made Ireland use proportional representation voting while at the same time Britain used fptp. Their reason for doing this was to prevent a sinn féin majority in Ireland. Sein féin still got a vast majority anyway.
The time to start the campaign for electoral form is NOW. People must demand electoral reform. Make your voices heard folks. It's critical we demand this now.
We've only just been round that loop and had a referendum on it where 68% voted in favour of FPTP.
You won't though it will be forgotten in a week
@@ditch3827 There are other countries/localities where they fought centuries for electoral reform and got it. Sometimes it didn't take as long. Some failed but persisted and succeeded.
Examples are canadian provinces where they had similar results to the UK referendum on AV. They kept trying and pushing till they got over 50%.
The fight for ER in the UK started at least in the 19th century. In the past few decades we've actually made progress outside the house of commons eg house of lords, devolved assemblies, local elections in Scotland, Wales, NI, former european elections, mayoral and police commissioner elections etc.
If the right events and momentum / support is there the issue can move relatively fast.
Its ridiculous. As much as I detest Reform UK and their policies, the fact that they got only 5 seats with 4 million votes is absurd. They still deserve fair, democratic representation like everyone else.
To my mind Reform UK’s role in this election was to reduce the local Conservative majorities and it worked almost perfectly.
Better than voting “conservative”. Basically a party of lies at this point.
@@nigelanscombe8658 The tories getting a taste of their own medicine since they have relied more and more on their opponents being split between Labour, Lib dems and Greens. I think a PR system would encourage more people to vote, as they could vote for whom they wanted, which especially important in the case of young people.
Reform and the Greens are completely screwed over with this archaic FPP bollocks. Labour and the Tories are happy to collude and retain this utterly non-representitive system of voting.
100%. And I detest them too. Hehe!
* Starmer wins fewer votes than Corbyn *
Media: *Historic Landslide!!*
But it will always be relative to how other parties perform. Starmer won an election, Corbyn didn't.
its not a landslide in votes, its a landslide in seats, which at the end of the day is what matters in gaining power and having a say in parliament
I mean it was a landslide victory but the point being is our political system shows how wrong that landslide is
@@soundscape26 But that's the whole point. We have a system that rewards cynical microtargeting and punishes actual popular support. It's undemocratic and needs to go.
Tactical voting was really encourage this time.
The video thumbnail doesn't go far enough - 412 seats from 34% of the vote is bad enough but then you realize that only 60% of the people with a vote actually used it. Broken system.
Low vote count doesn't necessarily mean the system is broken, just as high voter participation doesn't mean the system is good. The UK could easily pass a law requiring people to vote like Australia does, but it wouldn't fix the system. There are a number of reasons people don't vote. One could be that they don't feel represented by any of the options (that *could* be a sign that the electoral system needs changed, but could also just mean the parties running aren't representative of all the views of the country). One could be that they just aren't politically minded and don't really care what the results are.
Don't get me wrong, the system is clearly broken, but low the vote count isn't the proof of that.
@@Chr0n0s38 More people would vote if there were PR because many votes are effectively wasted currently.
We can fix it next election if the right wing get back in. Remember there was no outcry about proportional voting when Corbyn narrowly missed out in hundreds of seats... Corbyn got millions more votes than Reform got in this election.... will of the people and all that....
I lived 25 years in Switzerland where they have proportional voting and more than 20 years in Canada and the UK where they have first past the post. The major parties in Canada and the UK always argue if you go to proportional voting it will be near impossible for one party to form a majority and there will be chaos and it will be impossible to govern. Arguably Switzerland has a much better economy than both Canada and the UK. Their currency has been rising constantly since I first moved there in 1996. Homelessness, unlike the UK where it is impossible to avoid running into people sleeping on the street in cities like London, is non existent as the state looks after people who are down on their luck. The trains run on time, there are no pot holes and taxes are low. It really works well. The far right has consistently had the largest vote getting roughly 30% of the seats but because they don’t have a majority their policies have been tempered. Politicians are forced to negotiate and convince others that their policies are a benefit which means better less impulsive policies are passed. And Switzerland has a safety valve in the form of regular referendums so if something unpopular is passed the people can vote it down. People are far more motivated to vote because their vote counts. I have to admit in the recent UK election I voted strategically for the least worst party which had the greatest hope of winning. Had we had proportional representation I would have considered the other parties more carefully and I am not sure I would have voted the same way.
Switzerland is not the UK, the political culture is radically different, there is a reason they only accept new citizens under rare circumstances. You can't change the technical structure of a political system and expect the entire culture to change overnight. Giving democracy to Iraq was a disaster for this reason; it immediately devolved into tribalism and tyranny of the majority, because tribalism and tyranny is baked into their political culture. Likewise I think direct democracy would be a disaster in the UK because people do not think through their political positions very much here, and certainly wouldn't take responsibility for any consequences of their vote.
Trudeau promised in his first campaign to implement pp but he lied
Try comparing it to New Zealand. Proportional voting since 1993. Current government is made up of a coalition of 3 rightwing parties. Their goal is to run the country into the ground extracting as much money out for their own pockets as they can before it all crumbles. But proportional voting didn't cause this. "Vote Labour out at all costs" did. It would have happened under FPP too.
@@alex29443 Immigration to Switzerland is not significantly different than the UK. You need to speak one of the four languages fluently, you need to pass a test to show you know Swiss history and you need to do an interview with the local government. I know many friends who obtained Swiss citizenship. You need to live a bit longer in Switzerland on a residence permit before you can apply but apart from that it is no harder and they do not appear to be any more selective. Plus Switzerland is part of Schengen which means European Union citizens are allowed to live and work in Switzerland without a visa. So it is a misconception to think Switzerland accepts new citizens under rare circumstances.
I agree it takes time for people to adapt to new political systems and Switzerland was created as a pure democracy rebelling from Austrian rule. So they have never had a monarchy and have always had a democratic form of government from their inception so are more used to direct democracy. Still I think the fact that the chance of any party getting a majority is extremely low helps temper extremism which is much more likely to occur under first past the post. Plus the Swiss check that citizens opposing new legislation can raise a vote in the next referendum if they can get enough signatures mostly prevents poor legislation from standing. I don’t think the British should be afraid of more democracy.
@@alex29443 So you think think people should be denied the right to decide their own destiny just because you think they would not make a decision you'd agree with.... and yet the Irish who are the only other country to have a system of government similar to Switzerland seem to have figured it out....
Well done on pointing out that Labour only got 20% of the eligible vote. It's not exactly a strong mandate for anything is it. 80% either voted for something else, or felt they had nothing to vote for.
...or had more pressing things to do and were happy to go with what their fellow-citizens wanted.
Labour won because most people voted for them. That's just the way it is. Certainly many voted Labour to get rid of the Tories, but most saw Labour as better suited to running the government than the Tories. If you look at the last few years that's understandable.
Stronger mandate than the Brexit vote and that had a larger impact.
How do you work that out? Brexit won with 52% of a larger number of voters than in this election. Labour won with 34% of a smaller number of voters than voted in the EU referendum.
@@danielskelton1145 because only 17 of 46.5million voted for it. Thats barely 36% when the was only two options. Considering there are 10+ options on the election ballot, that’s a lot stronger representation. If you’re saying this election proves labour shouldn’t be in charge, then how was the marginal brexit vote so conclusive as to rip up the country’s future?
7:06 Labour won in 1950, albeit with a much smaller majority. Atlee thought he could get it back to something resembling the ‘45 landslide by calling a snap election in ‘51, but that backfired.
What a dogshit system 😂
It’s like the school system
Numbers that don’t amount to anything
Oh yeah, PR is much better, as we can see in Israel and the EU…
@@ivanexell-uz4mv And how would you reform it?
@@harrypmayyes it is that’s why they use it
I think this is missing the point a bit. 2019 Corbyn had a higher vote share, but stacked up massive majorities in labour safe seats. To win in the first past the post you need 1 more vote than the guy in second place. This election was a masterclass by Labour and the Lib Dems in voter efficiency. Taking full advantage of the first past the post system. They didn't choose the system, they just got very good at using it to their advantage
And they will do everything in their power to keep it in place until they lose, when suddenly they'll demand electoral reform to get elected again and once more do nothing about it.
It's almost like it's a cycle...
The Lib Dems yes but calling the Labour strategy of just sit tight and wait for the Tories to lose so we win by default a masterclass is a bit of a stretch
Yeah, they and Farage really did their job. Usually, the Tories had an advantage in the system, as they have a slight advantage due to the until 2019 missing contesting party (libdem).
And this is exactly the problem. We shouldn't have to vote tactically - we should be able to vote for the party that most closely represents our views. Governments should not work from a single isolated viewpoint. Our society is diverse - why should we expect any different from our parliament and government?
Yeah that still just proves the antidemocratic nature of this election. It was won by those most adept at gaming the system. Not those most able to appeal to the public. In my view it’s only one step short of gerrymandering. Im glad it was labour and the Lib Dem’s who really figured this trick out first. But it doesn’t make it any less antidemocratic. And the system needs to be changed before the facists figure out how the trick works too
Labour "We did it!"
No, you just got lucky to be sat in the seat at the right time. Truth be told, if reform hadn't appeared and split the blue votes we'd have another 4 years of Tories.
Nope, Labour would have still won.
There are a couple of things I dislike about the general explanation of our ‘majoritarian’ system.
1. The use of the term ‘majoritarian’. I know it is correct but it leads people to believe that it is majority rule, when in fact it is plurality rule (and sometimes it’s not even plurality rule).
2. The voting system wasn’t really designed how we think it was, it was designed to give shires and boroughs some representation nationally, and that evolved into the unfit system we have now. It’s ok if each area elects an independent to parliament (although even then a runoff round would make the election better locally) and they just represent local interests but that isn’t how it works, people vote for MPs that belong to parties that have whips and national policies so we should have a system that is more proportional. I prefer STV because it avoids vote splitting, is fairly proportional, keeps a local constituency link, and allows independent candidates not only to run but actually to win.
Majoritarian means more than just the way things are elected
@@napoleonfeanor I understand, and the term is correct, but if an MP can win in a constituency with 35% of the vote (like in my constituency) then they didn’t even win their own seat by a majority, rather a plurality.
You might prefer STV, but when the matter was put to a referendum in 2011, the British people voted overwhelmingly (68%) for FPTP.
@@ditch3827this is true, but this is likely because both labour and the Tories told everyone it would be bad for them because they want to protect the status quo of being the two main parties
@@ditch3827 there was a massive campaign against it and you only had one specific other option. You should have first have had a referendum with several systems and then run that against fptp.
You can also make a bicameral system where each parliament has one method
The turn out needs to be addressed. 20,000 people in EACH constituency who wete eligible to vote did not vote.
Yes! Turn out was truly awful, and is the largest factor in results skewing. Nearly half of the voting population just couldn't be bothered and that should be ringing alarm bells in Westminster.
The Australians *technically* have compulsory voting. But the fine for not voting is only about 10 quid and they accept any lame excuse to get out of paying the fine. However it means that people feel vaguely obliged to vote, so they get about 95% turn out. Therefore the composition of their parliament represents the will of the people.
One of the issues for that is that there is a lot of apathy in voters. Many don't believe in Labour or Tories and see them both as effectively the same thing. I personally don't believe they are the same thing, one party is significantly worse in my eyes than the other and I will always vote against them, but nor do I really believe in all of the policies of the other and honestly some of the major things I want addressed will never be addressed while both parties hold all of the power (taking it in turns obviously).
If First Past the Post was done away with and people's votes were not held hostage for threat of "the other side winning", I truly believe that people's faith in politics would start being repaired. I also strongly believe that people should be properly educated on what the parties truly stand for along with the critical thinking skills needed to allow them to see past the lies each tells. Finally the Media needs to be made independent of the political factions and report on news objectively, providing facts and correcting people when mistakes or outright falsehoods are made. These steps are honestly the only way to truly fix British Politics from what I can see, but the likelihood of this happening is near impossible without the people pushing for it, and even with people pushing for it I am not very optimistic.
We *have* to get away from our voting system now or we are going to end up like the US
@@CountScarlioniits not that we couldn't be bothered. Some people weren't born yesterday, are you really under the impression that voting makes a difference at all?
As an Australian myself I will give my observations about mandatory voting. It helps the two major parties way more, you really don't want mandatory voting if you want electoral change to even be viable. The vast majority of voters will just vote for whoever their parents did.
The worst part is that there is nothing anyone can do about it. There's no way to complain or vote otherwise. Democracy of the people should mean that if you don't like something or someone, then take it to the ballot box, but that doesn't work either, as shown.
And when every avenue of action has been cut off, where does all the steam go? It goes boom.
In New Zealand we went from FPP to MMP. It has been successful and a similar system could work in the UK. Proportional representation means people can vote regardless of where they live and their vote counts. It generally leads to coalitions. If the UK did have it then get rid of the coat-tails rule and set the minimum party vote higher than 5% and that would give you greater stability. 5% is still pretty fringe and the coattails is just plain dumb.
it kills the meaning of parties like Plaid Cymru and SNP, as they got only about 1%, regional parties are not a bad thing
We don't have regional parties but we have Māori seats. In the UK you would have a minimum number for Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland. So it wouldn't kill them in the way it doesn't kill them now. Party lists top up electorates so the overall parliament is proportional so when smaller groups get in it would lead to some overhang seats that's all.
@eljay5009 no they shouldn't all have equal strength because we vote for our constituent to represent us, not the party. What you have is the dumbest % of people in each place voting reform, that shouldn't equal more seats
@@picklearts2678 IMO as Wales and Scotland are separate countries (people tend to forget that) they should have their own separate elections - Scotland effectively does as its a weird system designed to mess the Scots over
Successful? It didn't change a damn thing. The vast majority of voters are terrified of voting for minority parties because "they don't want to waste their vote" if the minority party gets less than 5% of the vote. Since 1993 we've just swung back and forth between National and Labour over and over as the voters every time vote "to get rid of the other Party" and "give the other side a turn".
A lot of people in America raise the issue about the electoral college but to be honest I think the UK has just as bad, if not a worse system in place. There needs to be a change to that but as long as the Tories and Labour benefit they'll never allow it.
Edit: To clarify why it's so bad, the first past the post system means that each constituency elects one MP, that MP is elected based on the most votes, however when there are 4 parties of significant power and many smaller ones, you never need a majority of voters to decide on an MP, so MPs all the way through to national government are being elected by the minority. Of course you need to play the system, tactically vote, but the system is still inheritantly wrong
People will always complain they didn't get what they personally voted for. It still happens under PR systems and then additionally the party you voted for will do things you don't like when it forms a coalition with others and drop some of their policies and adopts some of the other parties. National PR systems are also awful for regional democracy as everyone just has to accept what one or two big cities want. People will always constantly cry about not getting exactly what they voted for but its not actually a fault of the system. Democracy doesn't mean getting exactly what you personally voted for it just means that government by the people is somehow achieved normally by making sure no one group or person is in ultimate control.
The electoral college isn't even that bad. If it was not for the electoral college presidents would only need to campaign in three states to outright win. America is huge and people in different states don't want to be ruled by one state that just has a higher population. States on their own are almost different countries with different ideals and cultural attitudes.
@@condorb7756no they are not they are basically the same
Why is it worse?
@@condorb7756 Not if it was one person one vote. Because you aren't going to have everyone in a single state vote the same way.
New Zealand did change its election system 32 years ago.
And as much as it gave Winston Peters way too much power, it has overall been pretty ok
And Australia way back in 1918. Ironically it was a conservative government which did it to prevent splitting their votes with other conservative parties and allowing the Labor party to take otherwise conservative seats.
NZ took 2 parties to sleepwalk into it as they thought they could use the issue to get elected and not implement it. Had they both did what the UK and Canada did, there'd have been no reform.
the turnout was terrible, i am glad the tories arnt in power but come on people wheres yall votes?
i didnt want labour or tories, but i had to vote someone to get rid of tories
Voting Labour just to "get rid of tories" is a very very low IQ voting decision.
Tell me how my vote counts when you've just seen how it doesn't count...4 million people went and voted for about 4 seats
@@Googleaccount-xp8cp 4 million dummies
Oh no… not reform
@@Googleaccount-xp8cpOften the seats that each party didn’t win were by rather thin margins so more people voting could have tipped dozens of results in different parties‘ favours. This election‘s details have highlighted how important individual votes really are.
There is zero incentive for Starmer to change the voting system.
A switch to something closer to Australia's system is desperately needed.
Australia's preferential voting system may not be perfect but it is light years ahead of Britain's First Past the Post dumpster fire.
I approve
I am hopeful given that there are way more voices calling for electoral reform inside Labour than there were under Blair. "The Labour campaign for electoral reform" has expanding membership and is better organised, plus unions who previously opposed it have come out in support. There's going to be plenty of external pressure now reform is so openly calling for it, who unlike the Lib Dems, the media won't just ignore. Maybe next election it will be real talking point?
Minus the forced voting, you shouldn't be compelled to vote.
Better yet, New Zealand’s system.
The tories would never get rid of FPTP.
Labour won't do it either.
FPTP makes life simple for both those parties. That way, the only enemy for them to focus on is each other.
We need a revolt to force Labour to change the system.
The last time we had a democratic election, where a majority of seats was the result of a majority of votes, was about 90 years ago.
Labour Conference 2022 overwhelmingly backed PR for general elections - with 83% of party members supporting it.
you should know Parliamentary Labour never listens to it's members ever.
But in the 2011 referendum when we were given the chance to change it, the British nation voted overwhelmingly to keep FPTP.
@@ditch3827 The referendum was about the Alternative Vote system, not PR, and the Tories campaigned to reject. Now we have so many parties the case for PR is ineluctable.
@@frogandspanner It was about PR, there was a lot of debate and consultation about alternatives systems and AV was chosen as the frontrunner to be put to the people. The people chose (and, like Brexit, it was not how I voted) and we need to respect that decision for a generation
@@ditch3827 AV is not PR
The problem with calling this the most undemocratic election ever is that the electorate KNOWS the system and there has been an incredible amount of tactical voting on the left. FPTP sucks but this is a result of the electors and parties playing by the rules of the game.
Yeah if you were watching the results on electio night you could see just how heavy tactical voting was, especially between labour and the lib dems.
You give the electorate more credit than they deserve.
yeah but that only means it's EVEN LESS democratic
Cope
I doubt that most people will vote the same if FPTP wasn't a thing
I was really expecting an explanation of how getting such a large seat share happens, instead of just stating that it happened
I didn't bother voting for this exact reason. Even if I voted, it wouldn't have meaningfully influenced the governance of the country since I wouldn't vote for either of the big parties. Especially considering the constituency where I live is an ironclad labour stronghold. Changing our electoral system is, by far, the single most important thing in politics. A proportional representation system will reinvigorate our democracy and make every vote matter.
There will never be meaningful change in this nation unless the two ruling parties actually feel the fear of losing their hegemony, and this can only realistically occur once the FPTP system has been replaced. Otherwise, we will only indefinitely continue the labour conservative cycle where nothing of note ever really improves.
You seem to forget we had a referendum on this not so long back and the British People voted overwhelmingly for FPTP.
You should always vote even if system is against you
@@ditch3827 Yes, one I was too young to vote in. Others voted for it, good for them, my opinion is that FPTP is an abysmal electoral system.
Not voting is the very worst thing you can do to solve this problem
First Past the Post can only approach being democratic if you have a French-style two-round election. OR you could use the Australian 'preferential' (AKA 'instant runoff') system. To be more democratic, while still retaining geographical constituencies, you could try Mixed Member Proportional - as used in Germany and New Zealand. BTW, Australia has a simple solution to low voter turnout: voting here has been compulsory here for about a century. Note: Australia also conducts elections on Saturdays, making a work/voting clash less likely.
We also get democracy sausages, which is the main reason I participate in our democracy.
It still wouldn't approach being democratic with a two-round election. You are still voting for the lesser evils, not who you actually want. You just get two rounds of voting for the lesser evil. That's much better(!)
MMP/AMS is a reasonable compromise. If we do that we should have now more than half the seats elected through FPTP constituencies, as MMP/AMS still sometimes produces relatively undemocratic outcomes.
The French two-round system is just IRV with extra steps.
There is no reason to do any of those when a single ballot with ranking is more democratic.
@@Y2B123 But rejected by the people in the 2011 referendum when 68% voted to keep FPTP as it is.
Broken ????
It’s corrupt !
Why is it corrupt when it was put to the nation in the 2011 referendum and it was the British people that voted overwhelmingly to keep FPTP.
I really like PR, and Labour said they'd at least give a referendum for it. However, with this result, the benefit in FPTP for Labour might sway their policy, meaning no PR, which would, in my opinion, be quite bad for democracy.
Simple. Proportional representation. How we don't have it is beyond me.
It is because in the 2011 referendum the British people overwhelmingly rejected it.
@@ditch3827 rejected alternative voting not proportional do your research fella
@@michael_burry_burner I remember it clearly and it was very much about PR. There was considerable debate and consultation and AV emerge as the frontrunner to be put to the people.
@@ditch3827 yeah because tory didn’t want proportional representation even tho Lib Dem did, probs just look it up before talking about it next time
Reform voter here who has always cheered when Green wins seats. Not because i agree with their politics, but because at least SOMEONE ELSE has a voice. A small one, but something at least
30% of the vote > 70% of voting population voted for something different > 30% party gets to form biggest majority government since the 19th century, dictate laws and set the corse for the entire country... somehow this is a fair democratic system that represents the will of the people?
It represents the will of the people because in the 2011 referendum the people willed to keep the FPTP system.
@ditch3827 that was then, this is now. look at the results and try to argue that this system is fair and democratic, when millions of people don't get what they vote for. effectively a dictatorship when only 2 parties ever get to rule even without the support of the general public.
@@ditch3827 Had the 2011 referendum succeeded, the difference might not be huge. 95% of the time, AV gives the same result as FPTP. In simulations, typically it restrains the party with most seats a bit and gives them to Lib Dems.
AUS uses AV for the lower house and STV for the upper house. The results are drastically different. The lower house has similar number of parties with seats as the UK lower house and is largely 2 party plus like the UK. The upper house is a multi party system.
The system is always unfair… until it benefits your side.
👍Sopt on. Well said.
No it’s just undemocratic
Labour never postulated for proportional representation. Should've voted for lib dems
yep, and it seems like hardly anyone brings it up until Labour gets in. THEN suddenly it's a problem
The same thing happened in NZ. When Labour were elected suddenly the media is blaring with 'should we rethink our MMP system?' and we have freakin MMP man, one of the best systems out there, but still not good enough for some people
Don't get me wrong, UK Labour sucks, but it's just funny how the media looooves to make an issue of it only when Labour gets in
@@DougWIngate tf you're saying, people have been complaining about this since forever. Proportional representation or sth like France or US has. UK simply has flawed electoral system.
This is by design, its not broken, its working as intended.
The reality is if we have PR Labour and the Tories would cease to exist in a decade, after all why vote Labour if you're a real leftie when you can vote green and actually get seats? If you're actually right wing why vote Tory when you could vote reform an actually get seats and if you're in the middle why not vote lib dem etc.
You mean seat share to vote share ratio, not vote to seat ratio.
Without a doubt, yes. Neither democratic nor representative. Something has to change.
Why when the British people overwhelmingly voted to keep the current system in the referendum? Do you not respect the will of the people?
@@ditch3827
14% of the votes gets 5 seats.
12% of the votes gets 72 seats.
Does that respect the will of the people?
In fact the referendum was to go to an AV system, not a PR or any other system.
@@hughjohns9110 Absolutely as it was the British people (though not me) who voted to keep FPTP.
@@ditch3827 we voted to keep fptp rather than go to av, not pr. I thought my previous comment was perfectly clear on that point. We have never been offered pr.
Having every seat you gained go on the "probable loss" list immediately after election is not indicative of a strong public mandate.
Can I see this list?
Reform is the biggest issue here. 1 seat to represent 1 million people.
Disgusting.
No. Reform are disgusting. Party of racists.
I agree, Reform UK are disgusting.
They lost 645 out of 650 elections.
That is how you look at it in FPTP.
Same system should have been applied to other parties - by giving them 1 seat for 1 million votes. Not a fair & equal rules & system when it comes to party seats in UK's Parliament. What democracy in UK?
@@CountScarlioni 5 people to represent 4 million people in actual terms
There are pros and cons to all systems. As with everything, it depends on implementation.
If not implemented correctly, places like London will have significant power in the vote due to their much higher population so London politics becomes UK politics.
A nationwide Proportional Representation based on the number of votes would help areas with higher populations, and mean areas are represented by a local MP who they didn’t vote for (unless they got rid of local MPs entirely, which would also cause issues).
AV has most of the disadvantages as FPTP but you don’t have to worry about tactical voting. (And AV doesn’t have any disadvantages that FPTP doesn’t).
But STV probably has the least issues out of all the systems (you still vote for a local MP, you don’t have to worry about tactical voting, votes are more representative to seats as multiple MPs are elected to every area. The only problem would be deciding where to draw the boundary lines- which could be susceptible to Gerrymandering (but it’s not like our current system doesn’t have that issue. And it’s harder to do with STV than a lot of other systems)).
Edit: and I’ve been told that there are even ways to make STV resistant to Gerrymandering, which is just another benefit of this system.
Surely if there are more people there there is nothing wrong with them having more influence. 1 person 1 vote. Sure makes more sense than basing voter power on land area or whatever else you are thinking…
And yet FPTP is still the worst system. It has the sole virtue of being simple, but that isn't much use when the result deviates so strongly from the vote. You'd almost be better off with sortition at that point.
The bare minimum change the UK should make is switching to IRV, which would at least allow people to express their preferences and lead to a more representative parliament (even if the results are only semi-proportional).
@@BananaWasTakenSTV is resistant to gerrymandering so long as the number of seats per constituency is four or more. While three seat constituencies aren't great, they're only a problem if they're common: that would be a sign of gerrymandering. Even with three seaters, it's harder to gerrymander in STV than most other systems.
@@alonncastle3518 But the problem is that it can lead to minority rule. If in 1 constituency 45% of people voted Conservative, 40% of people voted Labour and 15% of people voted Lib Dems then that constituency would be represented by a Conservative MP despite the fact they didn’t win the majority of the votes.
But if all the Lib Dem voters would’ve rather had a Labour MP than a Conservative MP then that means that the MP doesn’t represent the majority of the voters. If we used AV then there wouldn’t be this issue.
But if we used AV or if the theoretical Lib Dem voters voted tactically then conservatives would have 45% of the vote and Labour would have 55%. The constituency would have a Labour MP which is slightly better since at least the MP represents the majority. But it’s still a bad system because 45% of the population isn’t represented, which is undemocratic.
It’s why I think Single Transferrable Vote would be best. (Although I do agree that I like the constituency system and don’t like how nationwide Proportional Representation could lead to a constituency being represented by an MP they didn’t elect)
TL;DR: The problem is that MPs often win with a minority of the vote, and almost always leave a large proportion of the constituency unrepresented. There are definitely better systems, including ones that don’t “base voter power on land area”.
Labour voters too young to remember Tony Blair think things are about to change in the UK. Maybe when they see what (doesn't) happen, they'll be less happy about this system.
The introduction of the Minimum wage, tripling spending on hospitals, new hospitals, new schools, improved workers rights, properly maintained roads, no putting Russian spies into the House of Lords and no prime ministers getting criminal convictions in office……..Yeah I remember the last Labour government.
@@sid35gbyou forgot the aiding regime change in the middle resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands (and millions in the aftermath) of innocent civilians, all under the false pretense of upholding peace, by lying to public about the existence of weapons of mass destruction
Ok but admit it, the way he said “we did it” was just hilarious. Congrats fr tho
Voting polls are problematic in the modern Big Data era. Politicians use it to adjust their narrative, what they talk about, what they say about it. They give politicians a better idea of how to manipulate the electorate. And it influences how people actually vote, and as the video states, even whether or not people they do. Talking about your political views is a good thing, telling a big data institution how you will vote is not.
We need proportional representation like in Scotland
Is proportional representation the best option? The Swiss use a 'direct democracy' system, or the additional-member system tries to strike a balance between local representation and PR. Would make an interesting video to look into the alternatives.
Best system is like Germany, half MPs elected through local constituencies and the other half through proportional representation party lists.
Personally I’d think STV would work best. But everyone’s got a different take so it’s difficult to know what would be best.
But most people can agree that FPTP is an awful system.
@@BananaWasTaken all i know is that whatever system is chosen for PR it needs to be simple for the voters...some seem too complicated.I mean we have dimwits struggling to even provide ID etc
@@skyblazeeterno To be fair most systems seem to just be: number the candidates, with 1 being the one you want most, 2 as your 2nd choice, etc. (And you can leave some blank and don’t need to number them all)
Switzerland is not a direct democracy. It just has a few more referendums than other countries, but not nearly enough to be called a direct democracy
AV/IRV was put to the vote by Lib Dems and it failed. The UK people had their chance back then. FPTP is here to stay, for better or for worse.
In 2011. A full 13 years ago
At this point I’m just glad the tories are gone
[but electoral and media reform are the biggest musts required. And eventually rejoining europe]
I think that was the biggest objective of the electorate this time round
ah media reform - tell me how exactly do you reform the media without it being censorship?
You think Labour will be much different from the Tories?
@@skyblazeeterno Defund the BBC
@@simeonkostov3962 NO, THEY WON'T same 💩different coloured tie.
I find it convenient that they left out that a referendum was held in 2011 to review how the UK vote system worked. The first past the post system was the UK voted to keep because it suited everyone. Now that the country is divided, suddenly everyone changed their minds because the system they wanted was used against them and they didn't the result THEY wanted.
People were offered a ninary choice between FPTP and AV in 2011. It was not an actual referendum on fundamentally changing the voting system.
If people had been actually offered PR in that referendum they may have voted for it.
In my view we could hold a multiple choice electoral reform referendum; AV, PR, FPTP, any other systems that can be considered. Top two advance to a second round and the issue would then be settled for a generation.
No, it's because the proposed alternative, AV+, was overly complicated and poorly explained. The vote against AV+ wasn't a vote for FPTP.
A more sensible choice would've been to go with a proven, established system such as IRV or MMP, but a combination of the UK not knowing how to run referendums and needing to be special lead to the absolute confused mess that was the AV+ referendum.
... What can I say, Britains are has shortsighted as americans, which makes sense considering their common ancestors.
I voted Green along with 1.9 million other voters but the Green Party only won 4 seats while Labour got 9 million votes and over 400 seats this is totally corrupt.
I also suspect with PR turnout would go up. I know people who lived in safe Labour seats who said they knew what the result was going to be so didn't bother voting, a system that disenfranchises voters needs to be Changed.
Agreed, PR would also force political rivals to compromise with each other, and kneejerk changes to people’s quality of life could be more reasonable to stomach.
@@mtrhodesy Agreed. In Countries where there's a PR system political Parties don't have the same adversarial approach as they know after the next election they might have to be in Government together, unlike the UK system where people are behaving like they're in the playground at PMQS.
I think mixed proportional would be even better. We have normal constiuncies but can add more seats to ensure proportion to the popular vote @@garykelly6669
@@garykelly6669 Absolutely, it forces them to work with political rivals. Even the ones they don’t agree with like reform who got just under 5 million votes and 5 MPs. I voted Green to, and even if I don’t agree with some Reform, Labour, Tory policies, I’m at least able see that they all have points, and a compromise somewhere in the middle is more likely with PR.
@mtrhodesy I suspect the only party that would Prop up a Reform UK coalition Government would be the Tories but I take your point about PR. I'm sure that the Greens would continue to campaign for PR, they may do this alone or might look to jointly campaign with the Lib Dems SNP and Plaid Cymru but I can't imagine those parties campaigning alongside Reform UK, however just as in the case of the EU referendum, Reform UK would be free to launch their own campaign. I think whatever party the electorate vote the vote share should be represented in Parliament. I think that fixing the electoral system to keep parties locked out of power is undemocratic and the best way to turn the public away from them is through debate, exposing their lies . But that's only my opinion
To all those complaining about the "unfairness" of FPTP: You had the chance to change the voting system in the 2011 referendum. But 68 % didn't want to.
yeah its amazing that we must set that in stone according to you
We only had one choice. We voted to reject Alternative Vote. That doesn’t mean we want to continue with FPTP.
We were given the terrible option of Alternative Vote, we were not given proportional representation as an option.
@@superchilledbru and you cannot have just 1 vote every few decades
@@superchilledbru whats wrong with that? We have general elections every 4 or 5 years or less
It was time to ditch FPTP decades ago. However, the answer isn't necessarily proportional representation. Other options include top-two runoffs in each constituency (my recommendation), and instant runoff voting.
You're better off with IRV than having a second run-off. Mathematically, they're pretty much identical, but IRV is less disruptive and encourages local cooperation around transfer management between candidates, which encourages them to consider the wishes of those they're getting transfers from. Seeing how transfers flow between candidates through the counts is useful feedback.
Also, it avoids situations like the current headless chicken situation that's happening in France with their two-round run-offs.
@eljay5009 Stupidest decision this country has ever made.
Including Brexit.
@MinimmalmythicistPR isn't one system. IRV isn't a proportional system, but it's at least closer to giving proportionality than FPTP is and avoids "wasted" votes because you can give your preferences freely. For actual proportionality, you need multi-member constituencies of some kind, either by making them multiseat like in STV, a mixed-member system, a system of levelling seats, &c.
Or add-in Weighted Voting in the division lobby. It makes power directly proportional to votes, in a way that proportioning _seats_ can only palely imitate - while still maintaining the constituency link.
You can have proportional representation this way (very clear for the voters):
You have a primary election by each party, and all of their members vote (writing down a ranking for each of the candidates of the party), and then using the ranked choice instant-runoff system to create a linear ordering of those candidates.
In the general election, each voter is given a couple pages of information on each party just to give the voter that official ordered list of candidates for each party and the personal statements of those candidates. The ballot the voter is given then just has “pick one” and the voter chooses which party to vote for.
The parties then get a proportional of seats equal to their proportion of the votes, and the party fills their seats following the party list agreed to by the ranked choice primary election they did with their members.
Before you start extolling the virtues of proportional representation, take a good, hard look at the countries which use it, and how many of them suffer from chronic divided government and dysfunction. PR removes all incentive to compromise, and magnifies the power and relevance of political extremists. Sure, if a majority of people vote for Reform UK, then yes, UK should be part of government, but the situation PR can create is to give a small party like them to become Kingmaker, at which point they can extort the majority to meet specific demands.
Which, even without PR, is exactly what UKIP used to force a referrendum on Brexit to begin with. Cameron needed them to form a coalition, and the price was the 2016 referrendum.
Being able to cobble together a handful of kooks in every constituency should not be sufficient to justify the ability to make or break major national policy, and that's exactly the situation which proportional representation will produce.
The fact that you even have to ask this question is bewildering to a non-Brit. What's even more bewildering is that it seems to hardly ever be talked about, because so many Brits are under the illusion that this undemocratic system leads to "strong government".
Illusion? It just did! Can't be an illusion if it just worked as intended.
I'm not a fan of FPTP but that's a truly garbage argument against it.
@@CountScarlioni QED. Your definition of "strong government" is a single party holding power, while in reality this leads to factions within the ruling party infighting (as evidenced by the past many years of Tory infighting and constant shifting in political agenda and objectives), instead of differences being out on display by multiple parties forming transparent coalitions. That, in fact, is strong government. As a fitting example, Labour is currently fighting within itself whether to pursue PR or not, so the voter won't know what he or she is voting for, and this destabilizes.
@@sardendibs The definition of "strong government" in the UK context for FPTP IS a large single party powerblock. That's all it was ever meant to mean. There's no ifs or buts beyond it as it's just a way to articulate the system's inherent fear of coalition government.
The day after a party (rightly or wrongly) wins a 100+ majority is the waaaay wrong time to doubt the system can create such circumstances.
Yes, the Tories being an undisciplined sh!tshow showed how flawed that reasoning is, but then we're on to why I don't like FPTP.
My concern is how many are making poor arguments against FPTP, as this was the crux of the problem when we had the electoral reform referendum last decade and I was one of the few poor buggers to vote in favour of it.
To want electoral reform in the UK is to want coalitions, and you probably don't realise how much of an uphill battle that is to convince people it's in their interests. Hell, the left wing in the UK use the Lib-Con coalition of 2010 as an argument against voter reform by saying "fear more of this!"
Incidentally I think you're over egging the "Labour is currently fighting within itself" line. By Labour standards, no that's not a fight at all. It's just the usual routine of the Labour membership asking for all the cake at once, and the PLP offering only an occasional slice. It's how they've always behaved. But then I'm a Lib Dem with an ingrained distrust of Labour as 2011 wasn't the only time they screwed us over vote reform.
@@CountScarlioni Now you're playing with semantics. "Strong government" and "single party power block" is not the same. Yes, FPTP is designed to create the latter (as well as being a relic from the days of sending someone from "the shire" to London) but my whole point is that this does not produce "strong government", and that this is but an illusion that the British generally accept as being the truth. So you don't get to say that they are the same thing 🙂. They are not.
Both the Tories and Labour like to talk about being "broad churches" which illustrates the point very well. From Corbynism to 'Conservatism Light' in Labour. From slightly right leaning centrists to Libertarianism or deregulated neo-capitalism in the Conservatives. Parties shouldn't be this broad as it goes against a core principle of democracy: that you should know what you are voting for.
I agree it will be hard to persuade the British population that coalitions is the way forward, but looking in from the outside this seems quite mad. The latest election result should make it very clear to everybody - from Reform to the Greens - exactly how unjust the current electoral system is, and how disenfranchised millions of people are. I suspect this is partly why only 60% even bother to vote, and that an "Island mentality", and the inherent inertia in a country that likes to think it has the "world's oldest parliament", plays a part in so few seemingly wanting to reform.
@@CountScarlioni That's just playing with semantics. "Strong government" and "single party power block" are two different things. Yes, FPTP is designed to create the latter (as well as being a relic from the days of sending someone from "the shire" to London) but my whole point is that this does not actually produce "strong government", and that this is a mere illusion that the British seem to accept as being the truth. So you don't get to say that they are in fact the same thing in a UK context. They are not.
Both the Tories and Labour like to talk about being "broad churches" which illustrates the point well. From Corbynism to 'Conservatism Light' in Labour. From slightly right leaning centrists to Libertarianism or deregulated neo-capitalism in the Conservatives. Parties shouldn't be this broad as it goes against a core principle of democracy: that the voter should know what he or she is voting for.
I agree it will be hard to persuade the British public that coalitions is the way forward, but looking in from the outside this is the oddity. The latest election result should make it very clear to across the spectrum - from Reform to the Greens - exactly how unjust the current electoral system is, and how disenfranchised millions of people are because of it. I suspect this is partly why only 60% even bother to vote.
Under proportional voting, and these results, we'd almost certainly have a Labour-Liberal Democrat-Green coalition government, which might be stable combination even over multiple parliments and PV rules.
If labour had pledged to be in a coalition with the liberal or greens before the election they would have not won
Called the election *" MOST UNDEMOCRATIC "* 2 - 3 time before calling it *" MOST UNREPRESENTATIVE/UNDER REPRESENTATIVE"*
Lol.... I see what you did with the words, the emphasis and the arrangement. Others see it too. You don't have to learn from experience all the time you know, CNN's fall [alone] should be enough to learn from for generations.
I could see Starmer trying to change to an Alternative Vote system rather than a Proportional vote system, first to appease those who have begun to dislike FPTP, second because Proportional vote would put him at a disadvantage, and third that Labour is more likely to be a 2nd or 3rd choice in the alternative vote system for a lot of Lib Dems and other more left leaning voters than their biggest competition, the tories.
Proportional would be better but if Labour wanted to keep their advantage while looking to appease those complaining about FPTP, changing it to a slightly more fairer system while keeping their advantage is in their best interest.
If he tries to fob us off with that he will get a big backlash.
I think we can't really make this criticism without acknowledging that the parties would have had completely different strategies under PR. There is no need to get individual communities' broad consent to have you as their MP -- in a proportional system, you can just appeal to your own supporters with divisive rhetoric like Reform.
Have fun with the refugees
But even under FPTP there is no need to get broad community consent to become MP. There are plenty of constituencies where MPs win with a minority of the vote already.
@@superchilledbru But your local MP doesn't have to win a majority to get into parliament. He just has to get more votes than any one other candidate. You very regularly get MPs who were rejected by the majority of voters. No broad consent needed.
We have MPs being first past the "post" on 25% of the cast votes!
PR isn't just one system. There are many systems of PR. Under STV and IRV (single-seat STV), you have to hit a quota, which means you have to rely on transfers coming from those voting for your opponents, which means you're forced to have broad community appeal.
FPTP just requires you to service a sufficient plurality that outstrips your opponents. It also prevents people from exercising their voting preferences to avoid "wasting" their vote, which means that even that plurality might not be properly represented.
Loved your comment - "soundly beaten in 2019". Starmer may have a mandate to govern based on FPTP seats but has he a mandate from the people of the UK. Most UK governments are elected with approx 30% of the those entitled to vote. As people became disenchanted from 2001 onwards (with good reasons) that fell to the mid 20s. Then the 2017 May "Brexit" versus Corbyn "For the Many" fight and the 2019 Johnson "Get Brexit Done" versus Starmer's "Keep Brexit Undone" again hit 30%. Starmer's 2024 20.1% share of those entitled to vote is the lowest for any election winner EVER. And even lower than the 2019 Corbyn losing share of 21.6%. And actually the EXACT same as Michael Foot's 1983 disastrous 20.1%. Makes one think, despite the massive seat majority, how the next 5 years, indeed the 5 years after, will go.
I'm an American idiot who won't pretend to understand the intricacies of your system, but in trying to learn about it I'm struck by how both US and UK voters seem compelled to vote for whichever party or person they find comparatively less horrid rather than one whom they enthusiastically support. I'm also thinking that this 'first past the post' is comparable to our antiquated yet still utilized electoral college, but I may well be wrong?! In any case, despite all the legitimate grievances against Rishi Sunak and his party, many of us Americans looked on with envy as he graciously conceded the election results without baselessly declaring it had been "stolen" or threatening a coup...what a concept! ;)
"First past the post" basically just means "whoever has the most votes wins". The U.S. votes for the House of Representatives in much the same way; but our two major political parties are so domineering that the winner of the most votes usually also gets the majority of votes (read: more than half), so it doesn't usually pose an issue.
The key difference in the U.K. is that third-party candidates actually have a chance at winning, so the person with the most votes doesn't necessarily have a majority. For example, take the results in this election from the Dumfries and Galloway constituency in Scotland: 29.6% for the Conservatives, 27.5% for the Scottish National Party, and 25.7% for Labour (the rest went to other candidates). Any of those three could have won, and none had a majority; but because the Conservatives had slightly more votes, they were able to hold onto that seat.
Under a different system - say, a runoff vote - the candidates with the least votes would be eliminated, and the people who voted for them would re-cast their vote for someone else, repeating until one candidate has more than 50% (an "instant runoff" lets the voters pick their second choices ahead of time). If this happened in Dumfries and Galloway, votes for the Greens and Liberal Democrats might go to Labour (putting them ahead of SNP), and the Reform vote would go to the Conservatives (a more comfortable lead, but still not a majority). Finally the SNP would be eliminated, and their votes would likely go to Labour, giving them the majority and flipping the seat.
CGP Grey has an excellent series of videos on the subject; check his playlist "Adventures In Voting" to get a more thorough explanation. Hope you found this helpful.
@@d.b.4671 EXTREMELY helpful---I can't tell you how much I appreciate you taking the time to explain that so clearly!
Democracy is when you have a uniparty who can't be voted out.
We don’t really
I’d imagine if the system was a proportionate system there would need to have been some alliance between Labor, the Liberals, and the Greens to form a government.
I think people underestimated the vote share Labour got. Remember that their party got their worst defeat last general election, so its olny natural that most seats that they got had huge swings to cover.
They got less votes than "their worst defeat"!!!!!!
They got less than 34% of votes and barely more vote share than 2019.
Labour got 12 million votes in 2017 and 10.2 million in 2019, Labour got 9.7 million in this election. In other words they performed worse than in their "worst defeat".
Tactical voting.
Shouldn't be required.
Worked out well for UKIP voting tactically for Conservatives in 2019.
Worked out badly for Reform UK voting tactically against the Conservatives in 2024.
@@nigelanscombe8658 and very badly for the brexit party the election before last
I'm sure Farage would have preferred the vastly more democratic PR system the EU employs than the UKs FPTP XD
I'd rather a massive Labour majority and having direct access to my MP to seek redress that FPTP provides than have 14% of parliament full of Reform lunatics and no direct link. The PM needs to form a friendly relationship with the Lib Dems and even the outgoing Tories to stifle those discount fascists. Britain said no to Mosley, Britain needs to say no to Farage.
STV- Proportional, yet still maintains a constituency link and direct election of candidates.
Why is this suddenly a massive story and an issue, but when it was the tories..it’s a non story
Tbf this isn't exactly a fair comparison. People were upset with it even under the Tories, but at the same the Tories never won nearly twice the number of seats as they had votes. This video itself shows just how unprecedented this result is. Most people can accept a party that got 45% of the vote getting a little over 50% of seats. It's not a big jump. The reason people are upset about this is that Labour only got about 1/3 of the vote, yet got nearly 2/3s of the seats. That's just absurd.
Both parties do the same replacement policy so who cares
Yup a non-story since it was put to the nation in once-in-a-generation referendum in 2011 and the nation voted overwhelmingly for the current system
no mention of how the Tories losing a significant amount of the right to Reform is responsible for most of Labours overperformance in seats? A fractured opposition will always benefit a more unified party under FPTP
Can we congratulate the WEF for this "electorial landslide" please? and stop noticing things!!!
Why criticizse actual systems when your complain about fictional shadow ones?
Am I the only one remembering that Rishi Sunak called a surprise (to most) GE in summer while many more voters are on the move or overseas as compared to spring, autumn or winter?
Tbf 4th of July is only really the start of summer and most people would go on holiday after that. I was still in school with a few weeks left on the 4th July
Bring back the single transferable vote, replace the house of lords with a total vote percentage based house and give them the same power too. That way we keep constituency values but also benefit from knowing what the country wants more widely. I say this as someone who does not appreciate the reform party at all but thinks that our democracy is weak af.
You only now figured this out that the UK/US system is beyond broken? It took the conservatives to lose for people to whine? Wow. Womp womp, "how dare the system not work in my favour this time"!
If the Tory’s were like a woman with a credit card, Labor is going to be like Brewsters millions the musical.