Any democratic system that can allow for a party to get fewer votes than another party, and still have a solid majority in parliament is completely broken.
I Will say, as an Irish person, I genuinely think that Proportional Representation via a Single Transferable vote is one of the best voting systems in the world, and definitely superior to FPTP, I don’t think I’ve heard a single person in Ireland complain about the voting system, compared to many from the UK complaining about FPTP
Its interesting that it doesn't seem to work all to well in the UK and US, but in NZ, it kinda does? I suppose the total malrepresentation the is somewhat mitigated by the list candidates (which works on a proportional system).
@@draco84oz Are you from New Zealand and older than 15? If no you have an excuse, if yes, you should know the system better. In the 1990s New Zealand had a successfull referendum changing FPTP to the current MMP system. It was narrowly passed (luckily) and then confirmed in another referendum in the 2010s. MMP in NZ is very proportional (except for the 5%-threshold), but proportional systems don't mean you can't have regional representatives. Another oddity ACT NZs leader has confirmed in a article that he took the parties yellow-cyan-purple branding from the German FDP party.
If we want to live in a better democracy we need to ditch fptp. We will stay stuck in a stagnant two party system with incompetent career politicians if we never move beyond fptp.
@@abitmorerationalNot in Switzerland. In Switzerland career politicans are not really a thing and most politicans have a full time job outside of politics.
@@abitmorerationalcynicism is cool and all, but what's your actual position? Politicians can't be trusted so let's not bother having a representative election? I agree that most politicians we have today are slimy and self interest, but apathy is just going to make that worse.
The preferential system did just help break apart the two party system in Australia, which means it's fantastic. It gives people the knowledge that they can really vote for the party they want to, rather than only voting for the party most likely to win.
Problem is it still produces the mathematical inevitability of two party dominance, even if it stays it somewhat. Proportional representation is really the only way to really guarantee everyone can vote in a way in which their vote is truly and fairly reflected in Parliament, and prevent two party dominance
well... eh. it allows people to vote third party without fear of vote splitting (though there are a few weird hairy cases - eg if liberal party gets 3rd in Prahran, Labour would likely win rather than greens), but the duopoly has still remained pretty strong since the 1980's/ The senate is much better in that aspect (malapportionment aside)
@@aidancollins1591pity that all parties and political viewpoints are shite, because all people in groups tend to be pro themselves and anti dissolving themselves.
I was writing dissertations about this back in 97. I was so hopeful as New Labour swept in and it was the first Labour govt in my memory. While they didn't do PR for general elections they introduced PR for the regional assemblies, EU elections, SV for mayoral elections. Then we got STV for local elections in Scotland in 2007 via the Scottish parliament. Then there was nothing other than the AV referendum which was doomed and would have been barely an improvement. I fear I might never see PR for general elections.
@@theuglykwan Scots get STV and then vote by majority for parties that support the union, then they get a referendum on independence. What a wonderful thing STV is...
I'm moved here from Canada where we also have the same conversation about moving from FPTP to PR. The way our governments keep PR off the table is incredibly frustrating. Even when they promise to do it, as Trudeau did in 2015, they'll renege on it when they get majorities through FPTP. If they do decide to try for PR, instead of just doing it per what they campaigned on, they'll make it a referendum. These votes always fail because it gives the people who already benefit from FPTP the opportunity to run massive anti-PR campaigns to discourage voters from changing the system. The party putting it forward won't advocate for PR or do a good job of explaining the system they're changing to either, because they benefit from things staying under FPTP. They actually want these referendums to fail. The problem is making people vote for this kind of structural change is a waste of time. Many voters can't be bothered to care that much about the mechanics of the voting system. They just live with it. If a country is to switch the voting system, the party putting it forward needs to do it when they enter office. No referendum. The referendum was the general election. In Canada, we desperately need to get rid of FPTP. The Conservatives or Liberals regularly get majorities with between 30-40 per cent of the vote. Rural safe seats are uncompetitive ridings that usually favour only one party (usually the Conservatives). Smaller parties like the NDP and Greens get sometimes 20 per cent of the vote but see a fraction of that in actual seats. In the last election, the NDP got 17 per cent of the vote, but only five per cent of seats in the house. Also the Bloc, the Quebec separatist party that only runs in Quebec, gets a disproportionate number of seats despite only running candidates in the province of Quebec. Unfortunately, it looks like it's never going to happen in Canada. After Trudeau killed it in 2016 when PR wouldn't give the Liberals what they wanted electorally, it's unlikely to be on the table in the future.
The only possibility I can see of it happening is if it looks like the Tories will win in the upcoming election, and Singh turns to Trudeau and says, "Institute proportional representation now, or else." Generally speaking, it would tend to keep progressives (which most Canadians are, with their votes split across three parties) in charge of the country moving forward. Without it, another minority-elected majority could get in, and next time, a bunch who look south to Trump and don't necessarily see things they don't like...
Canadians can do it at the provincial level. There's been attempts there and support in some places got quite high. One place it got to just under 60% and but the threshold for it to succeed was 60%. In Quebec I think they elected a premier / governor that pledged PR referendum but reneged. In some places it was voted down but not by that much. I think Canadians should do it at local and provincial level first to build momentum. Some incumbent govts do enact it eg. Western Australian govt had multi member districts but no PR so they've now enacted ranked voting and equalized district populations despite it not being in their self interest. In NZ, it took a few referendums to get MMP. It's not impossible for PR to win via referendum but it needs a decent educational campaign plus some notable election that has unfair results and the media to push it so it enters the minds of voters. I think it will be a long journey for UK and Canada to get more PR at the higher levels.
The Bloc in Quebec has exactly the same result as the Scottish national party. The SNP only has candidates in Scotland and wins the majority of the constituencies in Scotland therefore winning far more seats than they should. Probably why I don't think they support PR as they are one of the biggest beneficiaries of FPTP.
Probably true, but the SNP supports PR even though it would win fewer Westminster MPs in Scotland under PR than under FPTP. Despite that the SNP is pro-PR because it believes that it would be good for democracy, which is a very principled stance for the party to take. If you believe in PR because you believe that it would be good for democracy then you've got to believe in it regardless of whether your party would be better off or worse off.
@@theuglykwanas a politically homeless Canadian citizen in the current FPTP nightmare, I can not in good conscious call Canada a democracy but an oligarchy.
If Kier Starmer is not clearly for PR, then we need to vote for other parties like the Greens and Lib Dem. This is essential to restoring a functioning democracy for the UK.
Sorry no FPTP essentially makes that impossible. Voting for anyone but the two main parties in a constituancy makes the main party you actively dislike more likely to win; so other parties arent an option Its good that there's a more grassroots movement for PR within Labour because to me Starmer seems swayable on the issue; in the same way that David Cameron wasnt in favour but was swayable towards starting Brexit Except you know, PR isnt the equivillent of driving your car into a lake
@@frankkobold Yes, tactical voting is key. But we also want to ensure electoral reforms - so really critical to vote in enough greens and Lib dems. Otherwise, we are stuck with the tories or the tory lite.
@@sashasscribbles I am in a formerly blue wall seat that voted overwhelmingly for the Lib Dems recently. Lets vote tactically and ensure there are enough Greens and Lib Dems to push for electoral reforms...
I think the UK should really adapt the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system. We use it here in the Republic of Ireland for both local and general elections. It’s a more fairer system of voting because you have more representation. 🗳️👍
Only a hung parliament gives voting reform a chance to be discussed. It's why many voters are not completely turning over to Labour, because they know that if FPTP is ever going to be replaced, a hung parliament is the only way to force the issue to happen.
It didn't work in the 2011 Referendum on AV. And like back then, even if a PR Referendum is put to the UK public, there's still a very high chance they'll vote no. Outside political anorak circles, I find voter understanding of electoral reform to be pretty terrible. It's hard to convince people to vote in favour of something if they don't know what for or why.
Agreed, a citizens' assembly would be a better way of getting PR than a referendum, or else there could be a citizens' assembly followed by a referendum because at least then it would be a vote on a system devised by the people rather than by the politicians. Ireland had citizens' assemblies and then referendums on its recent changes to its laws on abortion and gay rights.
@@stephjsinclair It was a stepping stone - a show of willingness to change. The trouble with many reformists is they're idealistic clods who want their utopia or nothing at all.
STV is probably my favorite voting system. You still get local representatives, can back the candidates you truly like without worrying about handing a win to your least favorite, and it means you don't have to worry about what happened in Belfast South, where one candidate won with less than a quarter of all the votes.
Other issues with FPTP: 1) The spoiler effect, where voting for a 3rd party causes the big party you least prefer to win 2) Due to this, by threatening to put up candidates in very tight maginal seats, a new small party can gain a lot of influence over a big party e.g. Brexit party in 2019. 3) To avoid the spoiler effect, voters turn to tactical voting for a big party which distorts the true level of support for all parties, and makes polling difficult (voting intention vs true support) 4) Knowledge of very local polling is required to figure out how to correctly tactical vote (e.g. seats which are Lib Dem vs Conservative with low Labour support, people may tactical vote for Labour and cause the Conservative to win) 5) Small parties cannot grow over multiple election cycles, as people know voting for a small party would be a waste of a vote and they are crushed at every election, losing support 6) Safe seats are bad for voter choice but also bad for Parliament / Government as safe seat MPs can be e.g. lazy, ignore concerns of voters etc and still win over and over again and be part of a winning government 7) Small shifts in vote share (or just vote distribution changes between seats) can cause huge swings in seats won by each party; unstable government. The vote/seat changes can also be nonsensical, e.g. from 2015 to 2017 Theresa May increased the Conservative vote share from 37% to 42%, but their seats won dropped from 331 (51%) to 318 (49%), famously causing 2 more years of chaos 8) A party can lose the election (another party gets more votes than them) but still win the election (get a majority of available seats) 9) Because it is hyper-local to each constituency, regional parties have an inherent advantage over UK-wide parties e.g. SNP taking almost every Scottish seat, with only around half of Scottish votes 10) In most general elections, both big parties (the only two real options) are mostly trying to target the same tiny group: swing voters in swing seats, as they largely decide the election outcome. This voter group will see a lot of manipulative targeted advertising and such, while the concerns of everyone else can be ignored. (The next election is unusual here as Conservative support has fallen off a cliff, turning large swathes of previously safe seats which would be ignored, into marginals / likely Labour gains)
Money is an issue that every one has for a better and luxurious life, irrespective of the challenges we all face,it would be nice you setup a portfolio of yours rather than waiting upon the goverment for assitance, was hard for me until I started investing in Bitcoin trading and am now earning $56,435 per week with an initial capital of $13,000, since I met Mrs Nancy Edith, God bless you dear, my family really appreciates.
I have also been trading with her, The profits are secured and over a 80% return on investment directly sent to your wallet. I made up to $70,560 in 2months trading with her.
Any system that allows for a majority to result from fewer than half the votes cast is functionally undemocratic with no incentive for the victorious party to represent the majority of voters. How different would the last thirteen years have been with PR?
There's projections of the results of 2019 under various PR systems and Cons typically need outside support to get a majority. It's not insta Labour coalition as it would be close under some systems and need practically everyone else for a bare majority. So it restrains undeserved majorities but would probably still have led to weak Cons govts like under May even after another general election that Boris called.
@@theuglykwan No one can really say for certain what would've happened under any other voting system, because all these projections are based on the assumption that everyone would've voted the same way as they did under the current one, which they may well not have done!
NZ - where I live - moved to PR some time ago. I moved from the UK to NZ at about the same time. PR has been a great success here. Not perfect - what is? But certainly a better system.
I support STV a lot. I don't agree with any list systems (whether partial or whole) because candidates near the top of a party list are basically guaranteed to be elected no matter how unsuitable the electorate finds them. Democracy requires voters to have the power to throw out members who they feel are doing a bad job or would be unsuitable for the role. STV is a brilliant balance between having more proportion in elections while keeping the ability to vote for or against individuals (rather than party lists). Also STV maintains a loose constitutency list, unlike electorial systems that use party lists. STV also allows and in fact might encourage independent candidates, whereas list systems essential block independents from having a fair chance
If you have a well-informed electorate who care about individual MPs rather than parties, then, yes, the ability to vote for/against individuals rather than parties is important. If you have a relatively uninformed electorate that votes along party lines regardless of who the individual MP would be, then people are already voting for parties rather than for individuals, and the inability to vote for/against individuals under full PR systems is much less important. On the other side of things, how far individuals follow the party whip also matters. If a given MP always follows the party line, then votes for them are effectively votes for the party, regardless of who they are as an individual. It's only if someone votes independently of their party (even if they happen to align with them most of the time) that it matters which individual holds that seat rather than which party. I happen to think there's enough value in having a specific person to represent a given constituency (meaning individual citizens have a clear point of contact to bring their concerns and ideas to) that I'd be reluctant to go full PR, but arguing that the average citizen cares enough about politics to pick an individual rather than a party doesn't seem a compelling argument.
@@rmsgreyI think most people usually vote for a party, but they vould very well vote against an individual if they've done something wrong. Eg Boris's seat is a safe Tory one, but if he stood in the next election he would almost certainly be voted out by people voting against him specifically. So I think it's import for that threat to be there even if it is rarely used, to keep them on their toes. Also, even if MPs always vote with the party whip, they can have an influence on what the whipped position is, and they can speak in the house to put forward the interests of their constituents.
@@adrianthoroughgood1191Yep, definitely happens. You also end up with independents who specifically run against an unpopular main party candidate, and win.
i honestly think this is one of the most pressing political issues of our generation and yet no one talks about it enough. it's a complete travesty that the consensus is that it would be better for our democracy to move to a proportional system, yet the people who are in or able to take power benefit from the current system so the system will never change. i really think electoral issues should be a power administered outside of parliament - they have far too much skin in the game of maintaining the status quo. not sure how that could effectively function but some sort of judicial body or system of referenda would be more democratic.
It's sad that in the early 19th century we almost got PR. The house of commons wanted ranked voting while the lords wanted STV. They compromised on FPTP as they wanted to get other vital reforms thru so they wouldn't be left with nothing. There was limited STV for the university seats for 8 cycles before they were scrapped. The thing is back then there were some multi member districts, so even ranked voting would have meant defacto STV for some areas. Other european countries managed reforms even with contentious debates and compromise but our attempts to revisit it were never as strong as back then.
PR is THE most pressing issue. We must have this change for future generations because, without PR, no other meaningful change is possible. We all have our shopping list of political changes. Any party can claim to have the right policies, but they get to choose whether or not to honour their promises. Increased voter power is the only way to keep the changes we want on track.
The quota in Ireland is NOT just a division of available votes by seats. The quota is worked out as the number of available votes divided by the number of candidates PLUS ONE. Then the result of that sum is also given a plus one. So multi seat constituency with 100k voters and 9 candidates breaks down as 100k divided by 9 plus one, 10 and this gives 10k, plus 1, the quota is 10, 001.
"The quota is worked out as the number of available votes divided by the number of candidates PLUS ONE" No. ...divided by the number of 'seats' plus one.
As a person who made a big university assignment about electoral systems, I pretty amazed by Mixed Member Propetional system. In the UK it is used in Scotland and London, and New Zealand chose it when they ditched fptp in the 1980s. It makes parliament almost absolutely proportional while retaining normal constituency representation. And electoral expert like this system the most.
The UK assemblies use AMS which is similar to MMP but without the overhang seats. It's prone to rigging, they can reduce the % of party list seats to blunt their effect without outright ditching the system. The party list seats also enable swamp creatures who are not easily removed by voters. Once corruption is high and norms are disgarded this system is vulnerable. STV is better imo.
@@theuglykwan "The UK assemblies use AMS" Only a couple of them do. The NI Assembly uses PR/STV. It doesn't completely eliminate the swamp creatures (great term, that) that are inevitable from party list systems, but it does give the electorate a meaningful choice in most constituencies.
When you ignore the problems that if only helps the leftist, so its bad for the country and it makes bigger parlaments and the politcians dont care about their voters anymore
He's talking about proportional representation, which is what is used in the Senate. But I agree, if they elected both houses by proportional representation it would be way too expensive and time consuming
I was surprised that you didn't mention the referendum on the Alternative Vote 12 years ago, which would have led to more proportional representation. I felt at the time, a smear campaign by politicians and media outlet put the general public off voting something which ultimately would have given them greater power and choice.
Yes it does show their biases doesn't it. I think part of it is that it takes 5x longer to explain PR than FPTP and since most people can't be bothered to read the manifesto of the people who they are currently voting for, what chance do they have to read multiple and understand PR on top?
@@lllluka In the UK, from the AV projections of various general elections, here it tends to restrain conservative majorities a bit and Lib Dems get a few more seats. So typically it would help us be more proportional in some elections. It really depends on the cycle though.
@@SaintGerbilUK just a fact. Even when Ed Milliband stood for PM it's a statistical fact if you add votes for all the parties together. UK generally votes left wing and gets right wing. Not relevant but if we won PR during the lib dem/cons era, there would have been no Brexit vote (I voted leave but whatever).
I bloody well hope so. It'll be better for everyone, and I say that as one of those Labour members. The two main parties may suffer a bit, but the benefits to fair representation will be phenomenal
The tories will suffer more, because they have less people willing to work with them, especially given that they threw their Lib Dem coalition partners under the bus last time.
It would be interesting to see if they change local elections to match Scotland and Northern Ireland . It would a be trial run giving parties an idea of what it would do while also teaching the public what it is
That could be a compromise for him if he doesn't want it for generals, at least enact it for locals. Even the Welsh assembly allows local councils to adopt STV now but since it is voluntary and many are one party councils they probably won't. So they need to make it mandatory. Once people get used to it, support will grow after a few cycles.
Let's hope the UK will actually become a democracy some time soon. Nobody can seriously call FPTP democratic in any way, shape or form. It only leads to politicians focussing on a few constituencies that are not considered to be "safe seats", thus ignoring the interests of all other constituencies and also ignoring many votes since the votes for a small party simply do not matter. Furthermore, a minority of votes can actually lead to a large majority of seats. How can any of that be called democratic?
And then they call members of the EU undemocratic, while if they were to rejoin they'll be rejected specifically for this reason, not mentioning the House of Lords. UK people don't know the first thing about democracy.
Democratic and fair are not remotely the same thing. For example, where I live in the US we were made to vote on a toll increase. All of the promises for the revenue were for the people who wouldn’t be paying the tolls. It does not matter to me that the vote was “democratic” when the people benefiting were not the people paying and they mathematically had more votes to begin with.
@@thetrainhopper8992 That is a completely different question though. If an election is not even democratic, it cannot possibly be fair but if it is democratic, there should be mechanisms that ensure it is fair.
One person one vote for one representative is far closer to true democracy than any proportional system since it is the voter that chooses the representative. In PR you can only vote for party hacks chosen by the party and you cannot get rid of them. in representative election you can choose any person who cares to stand. The UK is probably the most democratic country in the world. It is becoming less democratic however as the parties alter the rules in favour of parties and more politicians. PR would be a massive step in this direction.
@@loracle540 Seems you do not really looked into the way actual democracies work. There are plenty of exmples of how to allow anyone to stand and to then use PR to make those elections democratic by counting every vote. "In PR you can only vote for party hacks chosen by them." Oh really? Who chooses who can stand in which constituency in the "oh so democratic" UK in your view? How come e.g. Labour can ban Corbin from standing? Nothing to do with party politics for sure, right? Seems you didn't even try to think that one through.
I use to play a forum based UK political simulation game. During our 2007 round the Labour Party introduced an AMS electoral system (80% FPTP / 20% PR) for the 2010 round with interesting results.
I think for this to happen there would have to be a hung parliament, not a labour majority as is predicted at the moment. Then, a coalition government with the Lib Dem’s, where one of their conditions for forming a government is proportional representation. There isn’t a chance either of the 2 big parties will do it without being pushed.
The nearest we got to this was the February 1974 election, but the problem there was that the kingmaker (the Liberals) wasn't actually able to make either main party king. A mere ten or a dozen seats going the right way might have changed so many things. These days it's one main party or the other getting a comfortable majority, mainly because the losing party messed up the worst.
@@arandombard1197 PR was only put to the public by Blair and in agreement with Ashdown in 97 and the public gave both parties big gains. Labour had a 197 majority. The AV Ref was not PR and could be less proportional than FPTP
@@pastyman001 AV was still far more proportional that FPTP. Each area would at least get a representative that best reflected the local consensus and it removes the spoiler effect which prevents people from voting for third parties.
He's more a radical than he looks. If you look at his devolution agenda, the moving of power away from Westminster to the devolved nations and local authorities is massive. Plus House of Lords abolition. I doubt they'll replace it with another fptp chamber. And if that's under PR, then what about the Commons? It gives them a route. I'm not saying it will happen, and unfortunately because of our current voting system and the way it creates swing constituencies, both main parties have to appeal to a specific, small group. But Labour always under promises and over delivers. Look at 1997, the same things were going around then, and that Labour government gave massive investment and reform. It won't be as far as some will hope, but give Starmer a chance, give Labour a chance, and they'll deliver, I promise. Plus, I'll take any Labour government over a Tory one
@@Splooshua. In political strategy speak that means "I have an opinion, but if I say either way that will piss off a section of the voting base, so I have to play safe". Saying it isn't a priority means nothing, but looking at his other policies and previous statements before being party leader suggest he's in favour. Doesn't mean he is, but you have to remember Labour have to play a lot more strategically than the Tories because the papers are mostly against them and will use anything to pummel them into the ground
@@YourGayOverlord If he was committed to party democracy he would respect the over 3/4 of Labour members who voted for PR and it’s also very clear he’s not playing tactically to get into power. Take the example of nationalising water: 66% of conservatives and 82% of Labour voters support nationalising water so therefore he should be backing it because it’s a popular policy? Well Starmer doesn’t. It’s obvious that he’s not playing 4D chess by going back on his pledges to win votes then introducing them when he’s in power, he’s simply driven by corporate money backing and neoliberal ideology.
The TLDR is yes. It's inevitable. The only question is when, but I personally believe we'll see it within the next decade once the Tories are out - the Tories benefit greatly from FPTP where all others will actually do better with PR. Labour membership is strongly leaning towards PR so they will be pushed to do it in their second or third term.
Labour will drag their feet. We might get STV for local elections in England, hopefully mandated and not voluntary. But it would take the next time Labour get back in before we really get another bite I suspect. PR support only just won Labour party base support. It will take far more time for that to spread out more generally.
FPTP was 'designed' for a political system with only two parties. In the old days it was the Tories and the Whigs. As soon as Labor appeared, the FPTP system was mathematically broken. When you can have a situation where two parties get 33% of the vote and one party gets 34% and gets to form a government, you don't even have a democracy any more; 66% of your population, a majority, would be effectively disenfranchised. In the USA they try to prevent this by maintaining a duopoly of power, which may as well be a single party state.
The German two-votes system has both local representation and pretty good proportionality. The first vote elects locally via FPTP, the second vote is for lists which determines proportionality which is than used to to fill up the _Bundestag_ to approach that proportionality. (This means that each new _Bundestag_ can have a different size.) Have a look at it.
Doubt anyone is going to see this but Scotland does not use the STV model. We use the Mixed Member Proportional model (or AMS) where we get two votes, one for a candidate in the local area and another for the party so that they can fill up the threshold. Ireland and NI both use STV though!
CGP Gray illuminated me to the voting systems and how ridiculous the first past the post truly is. I’ve longed for a new system but when I’ve spoken to others about it, a lot don’t see the same issues I do.
To convince them you need to be able to articulate. Know your audience. Demonstrate how unfair FPTP with a familiar example. eg. if several people combined do the lions share of work but get paid less than one person who did the most out of a single person. Or have a vote on what to do and show the distorted result with FPTP vs ranked choice. Abstract alone might plant the seed, to make it grow you must use familiar examples and scenarios to drive home the unfairness. Think of how same sex marriage got nowhere while winning the theoretical arguments. They also needed sympathetic couples as examples people could relate to for support to reach a majority.
It is so blindly obvious that electoral reform should not be a power wielded by parliament. The electoral system should be determined through direct democracy (a referrendum question offered at every parliamentary election, on how the next election should be carried out)
Actually a failing government should be more interested in switching to PR around the end of their term, as that could spare them an embarrassing loss, like what the tories would be facing at the next election.
Could y’all do a video talking about Final Five (or Final Four) Voting in the US? It was most recently used in Alaska’s 2022 elections and it was approved in Nevada the same year. The strategy for these reformers is to focus on the state level, since in the US, individual states have the power to change their voting system.
Many Alaskans were initially very cautious about IRV, especially since was voted on in a referendum on a 50.5/49.5 vote. Nowadays are now highly supportive of the system, as it stops extremist candidates like Governer Palin and the Trumpian Kelly Tshibaka, in favour more moderate candidates like Representative Peltola. Ironically these folk are now trying to push a ballot to scrap IRV in favour of the old system, which effectively made the Republican primary the major election.
@@philipbranco9568 IRV did not stop Palin. She'd have lost under FPTP. IRV leads to the same results as FPTP in around 95% of the cases. Peltola herself said what helped her win was the jungle primary with top 4 advancing. Under the old primary system, Palin would have advanced from the republican primary. They ran their own. Democrats ran a multi party primary with independents and 3rd parties. Al Gross who previously ran as a democrat for a US senate seat got more votes than Peltola in the special election primary. Thus, if they did not change the primary system, Peltola would not have been on the ballot. Once she was in the general as the sole democrat then even if it was FPTP she'd have won since she'd have won the plurality vote. If Al Gross did not withdraw then I suspect he'd also have won under FPTP. Palin simply capped out and reaches a ceiling. So the vital part is actually the open primary with top few advancing to the general. It might have saved Murkowski. She got the highest vote in the new primary but under the old system she might have lost. She lost before but won via write in. Once she makes it to the general she might have won as write in against Tshibaka under FPTP.
The chart at the end shows the sheer unfairness of FPTP. Reform and Greens are predicted at 5% and 5.7%, but will gain 0 seats and 1 seat respectively. Meanwhile the SNP with just 3.7% of the vote is on track for 32 seats (and Plaid with just half a percent can nab four seats). All because of the geographical distribution of voters. Even sillier is that the Lib Dems vote share is expected to drop slightly, yet they're expected to double their seats. I hope Starmer can change this, but Labour have had a habit of conveniently forgetting about PR when they win so I'm not hopeful.
We need PR to bring more varied opinions into parliament which represent better the views of voters. We can see from the current government with it’s big majority that too much power is a dangerous thing. Weaker coalition governments would do less harm in the long run.
I remember after Neil Kinnock was defeated by John Major in 1992 and it was postulated that Labour would never get elected in the foreseeable future, they started to show some interest in proportional representation. As soon as the polls started to turn in their favour it was kicked into the long grass. Blair could have rammed through proportional representation when he had a thumping majority but most political parties want absolute power and if anything, try and cement their hold on power. Even the devolution for Scotland and Wales was, I believe, a ruse to ensure that whenever the Tories regained power, there would at least be regions of the UK that would remain forever Labour. They reckoned without the SNP
FPTP is a demonstrably terrible system; I'm probably the 10,000th person to recommend CGP Grey's video series on the subject. Even the US is slowly adopting Instant Runoff Voting, state by state, so it would really be a mark of shame if the UK can't make a more representative system a national thing first.
AUS's compulsory stuff wouldn't fly in most other countries. Aussies are used to it but it seems too much to other places that are wanting to reform. In the UK we had a referendum on ranked voting and it failed so that is likely dead in the water. Ranked voting with single member districts is likely mostly window dressing. 95% of the time it produces the same result as FPTP. We need multi member districts as well for a real change like AUS's senate.
Not supporting PR is undemocratic. It's that simple. You cannot claim to have a parliament that represents the people, if you wilfully disenfranchise millions of voters - whether that gets you into parliament or not.
They are represented though by their local MP, they likely voted for. Claiming that PR is representative when it could be the most common 6th place choice is just wrong.
@@SaintGerbilUK Except most people vote based on which party they want in charge, not who they want to represent a tiny part of it. Also, 229 MPs were elected by less than half of their voters in their respective constituencies. One of them didn't even get a third of the votes in their constituency.
@@EightThreeEight I absolutely agree, the solution is not to makes that the truth. In a PR system you would say that people are not represented because most people didn't get their first choice, and only got their second or third choice. It's the same argument just from the other side.
@@SaintGerbilUK People getting their second or third choice is still better than getting one of their least favourites, which frequently happens under FPTP thanks to the spoiler effect.
Thanks for the video. You missed the psycholgical imapact of voters not believing that their vote counts. You mentioned in STV when someone gets an excess of quota and their unused votes get distributed-good but also that it works from the bottom up too. So if a politician is eliminated in the second round in FPTP the voters´s choice is binned under STV the voter´s second choice is then used as their primary vote. This allows everyone to believe that it is worth going to the polls and that your voice will be heard....sometimes after many counts but you will be counted .
Not as good as proportional representation but still better than FPTP. In Australia we use both systems, one for the lower house (Preferential), and one for the upper house (PR)
Indeed. The UK just needs to look at Australia's House of Representatives to see how it's done. At least in preferential voting, it's safe to say that the winning candidate is included among the choices, if not the first choice, of the majority of voters. Good choice, I'd say, since preferential voting also takes place in single seat constituencies and piecemeal changes such as shifting from FPTP to preferential voting doesn't overwhelm the public.
not really. a) when people establish a preferential voting System, most of the time they go for instand run off, wich is really bad even for single winner systems. b) Voting for a parliament does not need to have any of the problems, that are inevitable for single winner systems. c) when used for a parliamentary election single winner systems introduce additional problems. so when changing a parliamentary election you should straight up go for the right answer and not fool around with with single winner.
what I like about Australia's system is that the framers fused the American and British systems. The government will be compelled to negotiate to the directly-elected Senate before they can pass their bills. Brilliant.
1:39 - That's Cape Town. South Africa does not have FPTP. We got rid of it in 1994. In fact, the National Party/Afrikaner Party coalition came to power in 1948 with just 41.63% of the vote on an apartheid mandate, with Jan Smuts' United Party getting 49.68% of the vote. After they took power in the legislature and executive, they gerrymandered the shit out of the constituencies, removed some groups from the voters roll and added South West African representation to bolster their advantage. FPTP was a disaster but ANY system with an uneducated electorate whose culture is alien to democratic principles is an even bigger disaster. One Man, One Vote has destroyed South Africa under PR.
I see electoral reform being a hard sell in the UK for several reasons. It’s more complicated. Opponents pointing to PR causing lengthy coalition negotiations before a government can be formed. There’s a section of the population who’ll object to the UK doing things more like countries on the continent.
It's not more complicated, though. That's a total myth, pushed around by those it suits to keep the current system. it's actually simpler to rank the available candidates into preference order than to do all the mental gymnastics of "I'd like this one, but then that one might get in, so I'll have to go instead for..."
We already use PR or used PR for most other elections. Former EU elections used regional party list. Mayoral elections used to use SV. NI regional, local, Scottish local elections use STV. Welsh councils can now adopt STV. Other regional assemblies use AMS. Did we really hear any objections for those? Voters in Scotland at least prefer the PR systems and if you put them to a vote I doubt we'd revert back. There might be some whining but I suspect it will dampen down. If Cons manage to win a majority after the change they could undo it. Hopefully they'd seldom win a majority under the new system and their small party coalition partners would refuse to change.
Learn from Australia. Their system is complicated and people don't understand it yet, but they will in time, and it's the best system. STV is the way to go.
There's not much to understand. Tick 1 for your most preferred and work down the list. Though it's not perfect. Major parties rather the voter votes 'above the line' where you choose from the 6 major parties instead of 'below the line' where you list every candidate which can be up to 30 candidates. Preferences are transferable between candidates. The greens often preference Labor, which in essence means a vote for a failed greens candidate is effectively a Labor vote. A vote for a right leaning candidate often means a preference vote for Liberal (Tory). To my mind preferences are used to avoid tie votes. PR voting does not mean a hung parliament is avoided. Julia Guillard had to join forces with the Greens and 2 independents to ensure a majority in 2010.
@@jim-es8qk Except you can only vote for one person, and deciding who that is is not trivial. The truly simplest method is approval voting, but I've never seen anyone advocate for it
We already use STV in the UK for N Irish and Scottish local elections. Welsh councils can now adopt it. Mayoral elections used supplementary vote which was similar, you only got to rank 2 though. So we've got experience with it. There WILL be whining but we will get over it just like stuff like same sex marriage, universal credit and now voter ID. Voter ID will still be whined at since we haven't had it for a general election yet but we likely adapt.
I think STAR voting is fairly simple to understand. You just rank each candidate on a 5-star scale. Of the two candidates receiving the highest scores, the one who was scored higher than the other by the most voters wins. It’s less restrictive than FPtP as voters can score as many candidates as they like, more descriptive than approval as they can indicate which candidates they like better than others, and unlike RCV or STV if they like two or more candidates equally they can give them the same rating.
I like stv because it gives voters more control over which people are elected than a party list system. But while we all know how fptp rewards winners, the way it works in Canada at least gives an advantage. If a party loses touch and plits it can lose all of it's seats and that is a very moderating factor.
If we had PR in 2024, Reform would have won about 100 seats. I wonder if Labour will still be as keen to make the voting system fairer now that they're in... 🤔
I personally like Frances two round system, but more than anything, I support change in our electoral system, instead of having a referendum on whether we should change our voting system, we should have a referendum on what it should be changed to
This isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. You can have different electoral systems for different legislative bodies: it's especially common where legislatures are bicameral. This is particularly relevant in the UK given Labour's plan to replace the House of Lords. Just as is done in Australia, the upper house could well end up elected on a PR basis while another system (e.g. ranked voting using a single transferable vote mechanism) could be used in the Commons - or FPTP could simply be retained there. A PR-elected upper house would make it virtually impossible for a radical, unrepresentative future government of either the Left OR the Right that just happens to "luck into" a big Commons majority ever again taking the country down a ruinous path the way this most radical of Brexit outcomes was foisted upon Britain...
The house of Lords is subordinate to the Commons. The Lords cannot in practice indefinitely block the will of the Commons. So a radical extreme Commons will still be able to push through their agenda.
@@gregoryfenn1462 An elected upper house (especially one where no party would ever likely command a majority) is ALWAYS going to act as a serious check on the excesses of a lower house. This would be true even if the current (statutory) rules governing the ability of the Lords merely to delay enactment of radical legislation passed by the Commons - were retained for the Lords' replacement. But the latter is surely also up for grabs in the coming debate over upper house reform under Labour.
@@PeloquinDavid I don't want a PR upper chamber that has real power to block. I want a PR lower house that can legislate positively. Lets fix the lower house first as that is more pressing than the upper house. See how that goes before we radically change the upper house.
Can you please explain the logic that SNP is to blame for creating unstable majorities and causing the last 2 hung parliaments? In each of the 4 last elections, even if every single SNP seat went to the Labour Party, not a single result would actually have changed. The Tories and labour would be closer in seat number, yes, but the ultimate outcome would have been exactly the same in them all…it’s insane to suggest the rise of the SNP has created unstable majorities and not the reality of a fractured Conservative Party that has caused exactly this.
I guess it's more that because people THINK that the SNP will form a coalition with Labour, that fence Lab/Con voters will lean on the Con side because for them the idea of a Lab+SNP government is so bad. You're right mathematically it won't have made much difference but the belief that it could is still powerful
@@gregoryfenn1462 I understand that, but that’s more to do with why conservatives surged in England - not why there are unstable majority governments. The reality is that’s not the case and in fact it wouldn’t matter which way those seats went it. No labour majority from 1997-2005 relied on Scottish seats. Even if all labour seats in Scotland then went to the snp labour would still have won a majority. The idea that unstable majorities is the SNP’s fault I just find baffling and somewhat misleading.
The incentive problem of Electoral Reform is like a microcosm of capitalism. Only the rich and powerful have the ability to change the system, but the current system greatly favors the rich and powerful. I voted in my first General Election in 1992, and my vote has never counted, because I live in a safe seat and I have never voted for the party that controls it. One consequence of safe seats that I haven't seen widely discussed is how it stifles MP independence within their parties. If your seat is so safe that a sack of potatoes would win if it had the right colour rosette, you have very little incentive to challenge the party line on any matter, because you know you could be replaced by the party at any time. They don't need you to win the seat, but you need them to advance your political career. Personally, I think the best way forward would be to convene a Citizen's Assembly and agree to be bound by it's conclusions. A program of publice education on the subject would be a necessary part of that as well.
hard disagree, in the recent Australian elections because it wasn't FPTP a couple of safe conservative seats got purged because the preferences flowed away from the candidate, we had seats fall for the first time in 50 years would've been impossible if it was FPTP, even where its optional had worse results.
Tony Blair even commissioned a report from the late Roy Jenkins, which recommended an additional member system, but the report was then put on the shelf.
In discussing this issue, it needs to be mentioned that there are many variations of proportional representation: This video discussed Ranked Choice Voting (RCV): A system in which voters rank candidates. There are also systems in which seats in legislative distributed based on percentage of votes received by each party. Such party list proportional representation is what Israel and many European nations use. Germany uses a hybrid system in which some seats are elected by party list proportional representation and others by FPTP. I mention these distinctions because the 2011 UK referendum only rejected RCV : voters were never asked to consider party list proportional representation.
Its a bit complicated, but I do like the system we have in Germany. It tries to combine proportional voting with voting for a direct representative. As any systm, it has a few quirks : everyone has two votes, which might confuse people, and the difictulty to balance the number of directly elected representative with the actual proportion of the votes (which is the major problem of the system, leading to oversized parliament). Obvioulsy people might disagree, but its definetly better than fptp.
In the US a couple of our states have changed their voting systems. In California, Louisiana and Washington (state) they use a jungle primary with the top 2 advancing to the general election. Alaska and Maine use ranked-choice voting.
STV doesn't require PR. You can still maintain single-member districts with it - it's kind of strange that it was presented as if they're parts of the same whole.
A majority thing to note, is that in Australia atleast, the quota is the number of votes divided by the number of seats + 1, the one their is important as instead of say having quota for 7 seats its 8 meaning that the final candidate still has the same requirement of votes as every other seat elected.
That is for the Australian senate and most state upper houses. For lower house elections the Single transferable vote where you number the candidates in order of your preference is used.
@@Dave_Sisson it's not even that. It's a different system altogether as it's only one winner per seat, rather than multiple winners.It's a different system called preferential or two party preferred voting and you need 50%+1 to win.
A real issue with FPTP not mentioned. It makes sure that larger parties win even if the majority of people vote against them. Lets say the Conservatives win 45% of the overall constituency. The labour party wins 40%, with the remaining votes given to the greens. Even though Greens voters would likely prefer Labour over the Conservatives, the conservatives win. This is avoided under a PR system like STV where the greens can preference labour 2nd
No they still have to have a majority to form a government. Therefore the greens would form a coalition with labour not the Tories. This is one of the reasons given by government for PR being bad. One party very really gets a majority therefore more coalition governments like elsewhere in Europe.
I distinctly remember a failed representative voting referendum that I voted in after 2012 and I'm concerned that you didn't mention it in this video because now I'm worried I hallucinated it
No you didn't hallucinate it it happened. It's just evidence against what TL;DR are advocating for. You know the "independent" news have policies they advocate for like PR, a Labour government and rejoining the EU.
4:07 I'd take it further than this. The healthy majority CAUSED a lot of unnecessary chaos. The Tories thought with a "stonking" great majority that they were untouchable.
This reminds me, has TLDR done any reporting on the recent Greek elections? Some shenanigans going on there, where New Democracy won a plurlaity that fell a bit short of an overall majority, formed a government, promptly changed the electoral system to one that favoured the frontrunners more, ran a fresh election, and got a majority under the new system even though their vote share went back a couple of %.
@@MM-un3ob Okay, slight correction - the new voting system was one that had been previously agreed upon but which couldn't come into effect until after the next election for constitutional reasons. So as soon as the first election happened, the system changed automatically.
Hungary doctored their system so the ruling party would have whopping majorities instead of slim under a pure PR system. They had unequal populations in districts (we do in the UK too) as well, reduced the PR seats. Italy is also fond of frequently changing their electoral system for both chambers at the same time which seems pointless. They did reach a sweet spot as their aim seems to be curbing the fragmentation but nevertheless changed it again.
We've have 4 Labour governments vs the 12 Conservative ones since Winston Churchill. the current streak maybe 13 years, but they've had over 50 years in the top spot. Labour only seem to get into power when the Tories over step. Labour then do what they suggest before getting too comfy and over reach themselves and get supplanted. If Labour win next it's literally an act of protest to reign the Tories in because for at least one election cycle Labour will do their best to be the angelic force of the people, before the halo slips if they win a second general election.
Nah Labour would rather have their 10 years in the sun than actually improve the country's situation and stop it from falling into Tory hands for the next 40 years.
A Labour majority under Starmer is indeed unlikely to end FPTP. It'll take a hung Parliament to do that. With any luck that's what we'll get, and end the systemic bias in favour of minority Tory governments that has been such an unfortunate feature of the past century.
Labour & the Tories prefer FPTP cause it favors themselves. Starmer said that during his leadership campaign, he was in favour of it. But now, not so. The only way I can see it Changing that IF smaller parties gain in the heartlands of both of the two main parties (not Lib Dems) then they might think again or the next election results in a hung parliament in which either the Lib Dems insist on the change to support Labour or Labour need help of more than one party to govern. If Labour wins a majority, I feel it's unlikely to change.
I note that other countries with FPTP elections, they have a second run-off of the top 2, with "more than 50%" being the target. Australia's proportional representation gives voters more choice.
The Irish system is the most democratic system you can have - people chose both the parties and the candidates they prefer and vote for them in a ranked order with their vote being transferred to the next highest choice that still can win which results in far fewer votes being wasted and puts the choice fully in the voters hands, the system used in the Netherlands is actually even worse than what we currently have as parties just list their preferred candidates at the top of the list.
Some of the US uses ranked choice voting. Some places also pair it will multi member districts which gives voters more choice and less fear about throwing their vote away.
I agree with the Labour membership but I really doubt Keir Starmer cares what they think based on his current behaviour. It's Keir's way or the highway as far as he's concerned.
What is your favorite form of proportional representation? 1. Party list proportional representation 2. Mixed member proportional representation 3. Dual member proportional representation 4. Single transferable vote 5. Rural urban proportional representation
We have proportional representation in New Zealand in the form of MMP (two votes, one your local candidate and one for your preferred party), and while not perfect, is a much MUCH better system than First Past the Post. Yes, you have coalition governments, but turns out that largely works just fine. What you don't have is governments run by a party MOST people didn't vote for, ie: the Tories in Britain who only got 43% of the vote, but an 80 seat majority. Under proportional representation every vote really does matter and can make a difference - which is exactly why the Tories don't want it. They are quite happy with the status quo of being in the minority, but holding all the power and will lie through their teeth to scaremonger about any change. I'm here to tell you Britain, proportional representation works just fine.
You don't need to tell us. We literally use PR for almost every other election other than english local elections. We use it for devolved assemblies, local elections in NI, Scotland, Wales (local councils can now adopt it), used SV for mayoral elections until Tory reverted it back to FPTP, used regional party list for former EU elections. So most voters have used it in some form. We used to have some PR seats for the general election until they were abolished.
I would somewhat dispute how well it works, when the far-right NZ First party has been in coalitions with centre-left Labour to keep the centre-right National Party out.
@@doctorravenclaw2649 NZ First are not a far-right party. NZ First are actually an oddity in political terms, holding left wing views on some matters and right wing views on others. Their populist streak comes from a view that certain issues should be sorted through public referendum and they have long been seen as anti-immigration, but who's policies don't back it up. A large part of what they do is on behalf of 'grey power', a seniors movement in NZ. So NZ First introduced discounted bus fares for seniors etc. While some of their social policy is conservative, to call them 'far-right' is deeply flawed.
Honestly thought we would have switched by now. The best chance was back in 2010 (?), but the fury against the STV system vote, was basically used as an attack on the government, with friends and family suggesting they voted to stop it just to give the lib dems a kicking. I'm very much for PR, I hate the current system and with views both liberal and centre, I pretty much have no hope of ever electing someone I feel aligns with my views in my current ultra safe tory seat. I wonder how the tories will feel after 13 years out of power and if its a "key vote winner" for them and then the cycle will continue. Ironically the only time I've ever felt my vote mattered, was in the EU elections. Go figure.
Could they? Yes. Will they? No. STV might be the only viable option here since FPTP does lock in two major parties without a major turnout for opposition front he voting public, while PR on its own creates a democratic mess. Italy and to a lesser extent the Netherlands are decent examples of this. So no just PR is not the answer that people should go for, but FPTP shouldn't be endorses either.
New Zealand went from FPTP the AMS. There was feet dragging. Western Australia's state govt equalized population of districts and introduced ranked voting (they already had multi member districts). They managed to get this thru despite it endangering some incumbents. There was a local council in the US somewhere where they switched to PR. Caveat here is not only high minded councillors but also many were not running again anyway so no self interest at stake. A bunch of US states in the progressive era bent to popular will and introduced mechanisms for voters to initiate law or constitutional changes. They could have refused to maintain their power but they followed popular will. Voters have used those to enact term limits, independent redistricting, primary reforms etc. So there is truth in the cynical statement. It's not absolute though as there are plenty of exceptions in history. How did much of Europe get PR? They changed from FPTP mostly. We had the debate in the UK as well but commons wanted AV while lords wanted STV and they settled on FPTP.
Here in Brazil, we have proportional voting for each state. The party I support, PSDB, has long supported a mixed system. Each person has two representatives, one elected in a FPTP, one elected in a proportional system. The proportional system has many flaws
Switzerland switched to a proportional system (Hagen-Bischoff) over a century ago, but FPTP is still used for the House of cantons (Senate), where every canton has 2 seats. Each canton is also represented in the Lower chamber, which can overrule the Senate. The parliament, both houses, then elects the seven-member executive which includes all major parties except the Greens.
The Northern Irish assmebly uses STV, the Scottish parliament uses AMS. Neither are PR systems, they're still majoritarian. WHat you descirbed isn't STV- it's AV which has the singular member and the voter-MP constituency connection. Australia uses this system and there was a referendum on this in the UK a decade ago. And while the voting system uses an FPTP method, the actual system is called SMP.
Any democratic system that can allow for a party to get fewer votes than another party, and still have a solid majority in parliament is completely broken.
agreed
...or designed that way. Those who benefit would not call it "broken".
@@jps0117fiddled, not broken
Even in STV you can still have fewer votes and still get a larger vote share
@@Haris1 STV is not real PR. It's like a addiction treatment medicine for people addicted to FPTP.
I Will say, as an Irish person, I genuinely think that Proportional Representation via a Single Transferable vote is one of the best voting systems in the world, and definitely superior to FPTP, I don’t think I’ve heard a single person in Ireland complain about the voting system, compared to many from the UK complaining about FPTP
Its interesting that it doesn't seem to work all to well in the UK and US, but in NZ, it kinda does? I suppose the total malrepresentation the is somewhat mitigated by the list candidates (which works on a proportional system).
@@draco84oz it doesn't, FPTP is completely inferior in every way.
@@draco84oz Are you from New Zealand and older than 15?
If no you have an excuse, if yes, you should know the system better.
In the 1990s New Zealand had a successfull referendum changing FPTP to the current MMP system. It was narrowly passed (luckily) and then confirmed in another referendum in the 2010s.
MMP in NZ is very proportional (except for the 5%-threshold), but proportional systems don't mean you can't have regional representatives.
Another oddity ACT NZs leader has confirmed in a article that he took the parties yellow-cyan-purple branding from the German FDP party.
@@draco84ozit works fine. People here are not very educated.
what about the Dhondt system?
If we want to live in a better democracy we need to ditch fptp. We will stay stuck in a stagnant two party system with incompetent career politicians if we never move beyond fptp.
UK is not a democracy the majority of Westminster are Unelected
@@abitmorerationalnot if they are held accountable
You risk swapping career politicians for radicals.
I'd rather have a corrupt government than a fascist one.
@@abitmorerationalNot in Switzerland. In Switzerland career politicans are not really a thing and most politicans have a full time job outside of politics.
@@abitmorerationalcynicism is cool and all, but what's your actual position? Politicians can't be trusted so let's not bother having a representative election? I agree that most politicians we have today are slimy and self interest, but apathy is just going to make that worse.
The preferential system did just help break apart the two party system in Australia, which means it's fantastic. It gives people the knowledge that they can really vote for the party they want to, rather than only voting for the party most likely to win.
💯👍
Problem is it still produces the mathematical inevitability of two party dominance, even if it stays it somewhat. Proportional representation is really the only way to really guarantee everyone can vote in a way in which their vote is truly and fairly reflected in Parliament, and prevent two party dominance
Yea, such a shame the Greens are so shite though.
well... eh. it allows people to vote third party without fear of vote splitting (though there are a few weird hairy cases - eg if liberal party gets 3rd in Prahran, Labour would likely win rather than greens), but the duopoly has still remained pretty strong since the 1980's/
The senate is much better in that aspect (malapportionment aside)
@@aidancollins1591pity that all parties and political viewpoints are shite, because all people in groups tend to be pro themselves and anti dissolving themselves.
Man I remember writing essays about this in my politics classes back in 2011… Kinda ridiculous how it’s STILL an issue that is being discussed
The debate is over a century old here in Canada. Politicians keep promising to do something, and then never do
I was writing dissertations about this back in 97. I was so hopeful as New Labour swept in and it was the first Labour govt in my memory. While they didn't do PR for general elections they introduced PR for the regional assemblies, EU elections, SV for mayoral elections. Then we got STV for local elections in Scotland in 2007 via the Scottish parliament.
Then there was nothing other than the AV referendum which was doomed and would have been barely an improvement.
I fear I might never see PR for general elections.
@@theuglykwan Scots get STV and then vote by majority for parties that support the union, then they get a referendum on independence. What a wonderful thing STV is...
Dude. FPP has been an issue for over a 100 years in British politics. 12 years is not that long ago
@@MrJimheeren It is when you’re only 27, like I am?
I'm moved here from Canada where we also have the same conversation about moving from FPTP to PR. The way our governments keep PR off the table is incredibly frustrating. Even when they promise to do it, as Trudeau did in 2015, they'll renege on it when they get majorities through FPTP.
If they do decide to try for PR, instead of just doing it per what they campaigned on, they'll make it a referendum. These votes always fail because it gives the people who already benefit from FPTP the opportunity to run massive anti-PR campaigns to discourage voters from changing the system. The party putting it forward won't advocate for PR or do a good job of explaining the system they're changing to either, because they benefit from things staying under FPTP. They actually want these referendums to fail.
The problem is making people vote for this kind of structural change is a waste of time. Many voters can't be bothered to care that much about the mechanics of the voting system. They just live with it. If a country is to switch the voting system, the party putting it forward needs to do it when they enter office. No referendum. The referendum was the general election.
In Canada, we desperately need to get rid of FPTP. The Conservatives or Liberals regularly get majorities with between 30-40 per cent of the vote. Rural safe seats are uncompetitive ridings that usually favour only one party (usually the Conservatives). Smaller parties like the NDP and Greens get sometimes 20 per cent of the vote but see a fraction of that in actual seats. In the last election, the NDP got 17 per cent of the vote, but only five per cent of seats in the house. Also the Bloc, the Quebec separatist party that only runs in Quebec, gets a disproportionate number of seats despite only running candidates in the province of Quebec.
Unfortunately, it looks like it's never going to happen in Canada. After Trudeau killed it in 2016 when PR wouldn't give the Liberals what they wanted electorally, it's unlikely to be on the table in the future.
The only possibility I can see of it happening is if it looks like the Tories will win in the upcoming election, and Singh turns to Trudeau and says, "Institute proportional representation now, or else." Generally speaking, it would tend to keep progressives (which most Canadians are, with their votes split across three parties) in charge of the country moving forward. Without it, another minority-elected majority could get in, and next time, a bunch who look south to Trump and don't necessarily see things they don't like...
Canadians can do it at the provincial level. There's been attempts there and support in some places got quite high. One place it got to just under 60% and but the threshold for it to succeed was 60%. In Quebec I think they elected a premier / governor that pledged PR referendum but reneged. In some places it was voted down but not by that much.
I think Canadians should do it at local and provincial level first to build momentum.
Some incumbent govts do enact it eg. Western Australian govt had multi member districts but no PR so they've now enacted ranked voting and equalized district populations despite it not being in their self interest.
In NZ, it took a few referendums to get MMP.
It's not impossible for PR to win via referendum but it needs a decent educational campaign plus some notable election that has unfair results and the media to push it so it enters the minds of voters.
I think it will be a long journey for UK and Canada to get more PR at the higher levels.
The Bloc in Quebec has exactly the same result as the Scottish national party. The SNP only has candidates in Scotland and wins the majority of the constituencies in Scotland therefore winning far more seats than they should. Probably why I don't think they support PR as they are one of the biggest beneficiaries of FPTP.
Probably true, but the SNP supports PR even though it would win fewer Westminster MPs in Scotland under PR than under FPTP. Despite that the SNP is pro-PR because it believes that it would be good for democracy, which is a very principled stance for the party to take. If you believe in PR because you believe that it would be good for democracy then you've got to believe in it regardless of whether your party would be better off or worse off.
@@theuglykwanas a politically homeless Canadian citizen in the current FPTP nightmare, I can not in good conscious call Canada a democracy but an oligarchy.
If Kier Starmer is not clearly for PR, then we need to vote for other parties like the Greens and Lib Dem. This is essential to restoring a functioning democracy for the UK.
That will still allow Conservative in power as the Labour Party still be spitting their vote
Tactical voting. That's it.
Anyone who doesn't bite tactically, votes for Tories.
Sorry no FPTP essentially makes that impossible. Voting for anyone but the two main parties in a constituancy makes the main party you actively dislike more likely to win; so other parties arent an option
Its good that there's a more grassroots movement for PR within Labour because to me Starmer seems swayable on the issue; in the same way that David Cameron wasnt in favour but was swayable towards starting Brexit
Except you know, PR isnt the equivillent of driving your car into a lake
@@frankkobold Yes, tactical voting is key. But we also want to ensure electoral reforms - so really critical to vote in enough greens and Lib dems. Otherwise, we are stuck with the tories or the tory lite.
@@sashasscribbles I am in a formerly blue wall seat that voted overwhelmingly for the Lib Dems recently. Lets vote tactically and ensure there are enough Greens and Lib Dems to push for electoral reforms...
I think the UK should really adapt the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system. We use it here in the Republic of Ireland for both local and general elections. It’s a more fairer system of voting because you have more representation. 🗳️👍
The Republic of Ireland has been permanently represented by a conservative party for its entire existence 😄
@@chrism4945 That’s debatable. But the point is in an STV system you’d have more than one MP representing your constituency.
I agree
a 'more fair' or a 'fairer system' - you cannot have 'more fairer' - in the same way you cannot say 'more better', or 'more higher/lower etc.
@@bertiebongo it’s a BETTER system
Only a hung parliament gives voting reform a chance to be discussed. It's why many voters are not completely turning over to Labour, because they know that if FPTP is ever going to be replaced, a hung parliament is the only way to force the issue to happen.
It didn't work in the 2011 Referendum on AV.
And like back then, even if a PR Referendum is put to the UK public, there's still a very high chance they'll vote no.
Outside political anorak circles, I find voter understanding of electoral reform to be pretty terrible. It's hard to convince people to vote in favour of something if they don't know what for or why.
Why should there be a referendum on electoral reform?
Agreed, a citizens' assembly would be a better way of getting PR than a referendum, or else there could be a citizens' assembly followed by a referendum because at least then it would be a vote on a system devised by the people rather than by the politicians. Ireland had citizens' assemblies and then referendums on its recent changes to its laws on abortion and gay rights.
@@stephjsinclair It was a stepping stone - a show of willingness to change.
The trouble with many reformists is they're idealistic clods who want their utopia or nothing at all.
But nearly every PR election results in hung parliaments, where small parties decide whose votes will be wasted 😄
STV is probably my favorite voting system. You still get local representatives, can back the candidates you truly like without worrying about handing a win to your least favorite, and it means you don't have to worry about what happened in Belfast South, where one candidate won with less than a quarter of all the votes.
STV for single representative elections (e.g. mayor), proportional for multi representative elections (e.g. city council)
@@tails55 STV would be perfect for parliament where there is a geographical component of constituencies.
Other issues with FPTP:
1) The spoiler effect, where voting for a 3rd party causes the big party you least prefer to win
2) Due to this, by threatening to put up candidates in very tight maginal seats, a new small party can gain a lot of influence over a big party e.g. Brexit party in 2019.
3) To avoid the spoiler effect, voters turn to tactical voting for a big party which distorts the true level of support for all parties, and makes polling difficult (voting intention vs true support)
4) Knowledge of very local polling is required to figure out how to correctly tactical vote (e.g. seats which are Lib Dem vs Conservative with low Labour support, people may tactical vote for Labour and cause the Conservative to win)
5) Small parties cannot grow over multiple election cycles, as people know voting for a small party would be a waste of a vote and they are crushed at every election, losing support
6) Safe seats are bad for voter choice but also bad for Parliament / Government as safe seat MPs can be e.g. lazy, ignore concerns of voters etc and still win over and over again and be part of a winning government
7) Small shifts in vote share (or just vote distribution changes between seats) can cause huge swings in seats won by each party; unstable government. The vote/seat changes can also be nonsensical, e.g. from 2015 to 2017 Theresa May increased the Conservative vote share from 37% to 42%, but their seats won dropped from 331 (51%) to 318 (49%), famously causing 2 more years of chaos
8) A party can lose the election (another party gets more votes than them) but still win the election (get a majority of available seats)
9) Because it is hyper-local to each constituency, regional parties have an inherent advantage over UK-wide parties e.g. SNP taking almost every Scottish seat, with only around half of Scottish votes
10) In most general elections, both big parties (the only two real options) are mostly trying to target the same tiny group: swing voters in swing seats, as they largely decide the election outcome. This voter group will see a lot of manipulative targeted advertising and such, while the concerns of everyone else can be ignored.
(The next election is unusual here as Conservative support has fallen off a cliff, turning large swathes of previously safe seats which would be ignored, into marginals / likely Labour gains)
Money is an issue that every one has for a better and luxurious life, irrespective of the challenges we all face,it would be nice you setup a portfolio of yours rather than waiting upon the goverment for assitance, was hard for me until I started investing in Bitcoin trading and am now earning $56,435 per week with an initial capital of $13,000, since I met Mrs Nancy Edith, God bless you dear, my family really appreciates.
Same here, I started with $1,000 now earning $6,300 bi-weekly profits with her trading program.
I have also been trading with her, The profits are secured and over a 80% return on investment directly sent to your wallet. I made up to $70,560 in 2months trading with her.
Any Means of making Contact with Mrs Nancy, would appreciate, I will love to invest..
Only those who are able to identify the opportunity that comes with it have and are still benefiting from it.
And this is why I'll be voting for Reform.
Any system that allows for a majority to result from fewer than half the votes cast is functionally undemocratic with no incentive for the victorious party to represent the majority of voters. How different would the last thirteen years have been with PR?
There's projections of the results of 2019 under various PR systems and Cons typically need outside support to get a majority. It's not insta Labour coalition as it would be close under some systems and need practically everyone else for a bare majority.
So it restrains undeserved majorities but would probably still have led to weak Cons govts like under May even after another general election that Boris called.
@@theuglykwan it took a prior result for that election to even happen.
@@theuglykwan No one can really say for certain what would've happened under any other voting system, because all these projections are based on the assumption that everyone would've voted the same way as they did under the current one, which they may well not have done!
NZ - where I live - moved to PR some time ago. I moved from the UK to NZ at about the same time. PR has been a great success here. Not perfect - what is? But certainly a better system.
I support STV a lot. I don't agree with any list systems (whether partial or whole) because candidates near the top of a party list are basically guaranteed to be elected no matter how unsuitable the electorate finds them. Democracy requires voters to have the power to throw out members who they feel are doing a bad job or would be unsuitable for the role. STV is a brilliant balance between having more proportion in elections while keeping the ability to vote for or against individuals (rather than party lists).
Also STV maintains a loose constitutency list, unlike electorial systems that use party lists. STV also allows and in fact might encourage independent candidates, whereas list systems essential block independents from having a fair chance
If you have a well-informed electorate who care about individual MPs rather than parties, then, yes, the ability to vote for/against individuals rather than parties is important. If you have a relatively uninformed electorate that votes along party lines regardless of who the individual MP would be, then people are already voting for parties rather than for individuals, and the inability to vote for/against individuals under full PR systems is much less important.
On the other side of things, how far individuals follow the party whip also matters. If a given MP always follows the party line, then votes for them are effectively votes for the party, regardless of who they are as an individual. It's only if someone votes independently of their party (even if they happen to align with them most of the time) that it matters which individual holds that seat rather than which party.
I happen to think there's enough value in having a specific person to represent a given constituency (meaning individual citizens have a clear point of contact to bring their concerns and ideas to) that I'd be reluctant to go full PR, but arguing that the average citizen cares enough about politics to pick an individual rather than a party doesn't seem a compelling argument.
@@rmsgreyI think most people usually vote for a party, but they vould very well vote against an individual if they've done something wrong. Eg Boris's seat is a safe Tory one, but if he stood in the next election he would almost certainly be voted out by people voting against him specifically. So I think it's import for that threat to be there even if it is rarely used, to keep them on their toes. Also, even if MPs always vote with the party whip, they can have an influence on what the whipped position is, and they can speak in the house to put forward the interests of their constituents.
Is that so??
@@adrianthoroughgood1191Yep, definitely happens. You also end up with independents who specifically run against an unpopular main party candidate, and win.
@@adrianthoroughgood1191 Nope the peole like Boris Jonson. He would be voted out becuase people dont lile Sunak
Not the first time Kier Starmer promised something in his leadership campaign and then not do it.
(Or pretty much any tory)
tecnically, with the FPTP system the most voted party could have 0 MP's
i honestly think this is one of the most pressing political issues of our generation and yet no one talks about it enough. it's a complete travesty that the consensus is that it would be better for our democracy to move to a proportional system, yet the people who are in or able to take power benefit from the current system so the system will never change. i really think electoral issues should be a power administered outside of parliament - they have far too much skin in the game of maintaining the status quo. not sure how that could effectively function but some sort of judicial body or system of referenda would be more democratic.
It's sad that in the early 19th century we almost got PR. The house of commons wanted ranked voting while the lords wanted STV. They compromised on FPTP as they wanted to get other vital reforms thru so they wouldn't be left with nothing. There was limited STV for the university seats for 8 cycles before they were scrapped.
The thing is back then there were some multi member districts, so even ranked voting would have meant defacto STV for some areas.
Other european countries managed reforms even with contentious debates and compromise but our attempts to revisit it were never as strong as back then.
Spot on. Its not a coincidence that we (and the us) have such dysfunctional political systems
PR is THE most pressing issue. We must have this change for future generations because, without PR, no other meaningful change is possible. We all have our shopping list of political changes. Any party can claim to have the right policies, but they get to choose whether or not to honour their promises. Increased voter power is the only way to keep the changes we want on track.
We NEED proportional representation to ever truly see any change in our country
The quota in Ireland is NOT just a division of available votes by seats. The quota is worked out as the number of available votes divided by the number of candidates PLUS ONE. Then the result of that sum is also given a plus one. So multi seat constituency with 100k voters and 9 candidates breaks down as 100k divided by 9 plus one, 10 and this gives 10k, plus 1, the quota is 10, 001.
"The quota is worked out as the number of available votes divided by the number of candidates PLUS ONE"
No. ...divided by the number of 'seats' plus one.
As a person who made a big university assignment about electoral systems, I pretty amazed by Mixed Member Propetional system. In the UK it is used in Scotland and London, and New Zealand chose it when they ditched fptp in the 1980s.
It makes parliament almost absolutely proportional while retaining normal constituency representation. And electoral expert like this system the most.
The UK assemblies use AMS which is similar to MMP but without the overhang seats. It's prone to rigging, they can reduce the % of party list seats to blunt their effect without outright ditching the system. The party list seats also enable swamp creatures who are not easily removed by voters. Once corruption is high and norms are disgarded this system is vulnerable.
STV is better imo.
@@theuglykwan "The UK assemblies use AMS"
Only a couple of them do. The NI Assembly uses PR/STV. It doesn't completely eliminate the swamp creatures (great term, that) that are inevitable from party list systems, but it does give the electorate a meaningful choice in most constituencies.
When you ignore the problems that if only helps the leftist, so its bad for the country and it makes bigger parlaments and the politcians dont care about their voters anymore
@@NorthDownReader You're right that NI uses STV, I forgot about that. It's not a couple that use AMS though, Scotland, Wales and London is 3!
Preferantial voting isn't a bad plan. It's what we use in Australia in lower houses. It works well enough (but the secret sauce is compulsory voting).
So a social dictatorship.
Now that explains why your county is going down the last years
He's talking about proportional representation, which is what is used in the Senate. But I agree, if they elected both houses by proportional representation it would be way too expensive and time consuming
I was surprised that you didn't mention the referendum on the Alternative Vote 12 years ago, which would have led to more proportional representation.
I felt at the time, a smear campaign by politicians and media outlet put the general public off voting something which ultimately would have given them greater power and choice.
Yes it does show their biases doesn't it.
I think part of it is that it takes 5x longer to explain PR than FPTP and since most people can't be bothered to read the manifesto of the people who they are currently voting for, what chance do they have to read multiple and understand PR on top?
@@lllluka In the UK, from the AV projections of various general elections, here it tends to restrain conservative majorities a bit and Lib Dems get a few more seats. So typically it would help us be more proportional in some elections. It really depends on the cycle though.
If we got PR then, the Tories would've been out years ago. Majority of UK has voted left wing consistently.
@@jakien nonsense complete nonsense.
@@SaintGerbilUK just a fact. Even when Ed Milliband stood for PM it's a statistical fact if you add votes for all the parties together. UK generally votes left wing and gets right wing. Not relevant but if we won PR during the lib dem/cons era, there would have been no Brexit vote (I voted leave but whatever).
I bloody well hope so. It'll be better for everyone, and I say that as one of those Labour members. The two main parties may suffer a bit, but the benefits to fair representation will be phenomenal
Meaningless, the majority of Westminster legislator are Unelected.
The tories will suffer more, because they have less people willing to work with them, especially given that they threw their Lib Dem coalition partners under the bus last time.
You are aware that it may destroy your ideas
@@benzof5475Like FPTP isn't already doing so by leaving us in a two party state.
@@TheAztecGamer123
Both Torie and Labour are opposition minority parties in Scotland.
Would be the first step to a necessary change in UK.
It would be interesting to see if they change local elections to match Scotland and Northern Ireland . It would a be trial run giving parties an idea of what it would do while also teaching the public what it is
That could be a compromise for him if he doesn't want it for generals, at least enact it for locals. Even the Welsh assembly allows local councils to adopt STV now but since it is voluntary and many are one party councils they probably won't. So they need to make it mandatory. Once people get used to it, support will grow after a few cycles.
Let's hope the UK will actually become a democracy some time soon. Nobody can seriously call FPTP democratic in any way, shape or form. It only leads to politicians focussing on a few constituencies that are not considered to be "safe seats", thus ignoring the interests of all other constituencies and also ignoring many votes since the votes for a small party simply do not matter. Furthermore, a minority of votes can actually lead to a large majority of seats. How can any of that be called democratic?
And then they call members of the EU undemocratic, while if they were to rejoin they'll be rejected specifically for this reason, not mentioning the House of Lords. UK people don't know the first thing about democracy.
Democratic and fair are not remotely the same thing. For example, where I live in the US we were made to vote on a toll increase. All of the promises for the revenue were for the people who wouldn’t be paying the tolls. It does not matter to me that the vote was “democratic” when the people benefiting were not the people paying and they mathematically had more votes to begin with.
@@thetrainhopper8992 That is a completely different question though. If an election is not even democratic, it cannot possibly be fair but if it is democratic, there should be mechanisms that ensure it is fair.
One person one vote for one representative is far closer to true democracy than any proportional system since it is the voter that chooses the representative. In PR you can only vote for party hacks chosen by the party and you cannot get rid of them. in representative election you can choose any person who cares to stand. The UK is probably the most democratic country in the world. It is becoming less democratic however as the parties alter the rules in favour of parties and more politicians. PR would be a massive step in this direction.
@@loracle540 Seems you do not really looked into the way actual democracies work. There are plenty of exmples of how to allow anyone to stand and to then use PR to make those elections democratic by counting every vote.
"In PR you can only vote for party hacks chosen by them." Oh really? Who chooses who can stand in which constituency in the "oh so democratic" UK in your view? How come e.g. Labour can ban Corbin from standing? Nothing to do with party politics for sure, right? Seems you didn't even try to think that one through.
I use to play a forum based UK political simulation game. During our 2007 round the Labour Party introduced an AMS electoral system (80% FPTP / 20% PR) for the 2010 round with interesting results.
I think for this to happen there would have to be a hung parliament, not a labour majority as is predicted at the moment. Then, a coalition government with the Lib Dem’s, where one of their conditions for forming a government is proportional representation. There isn’t a chance either of the 2 big parties will do it without being pushed.
The nearest we got to this was the February 1974 election, but the problem there was that the kingmaker (the Liberals) wasn't actually able to make either main party king. A mere ten or a dozen seats going the right way might have changed so many things.
These days it's one main party or the other getting a comfortable majority, mainly because the losing party messed up the worst.
Is this a joke or are you being genuine? Because that's literally what happened and we rejected it.
@@arandombard1197 PR was only put to the public by Blair and in agreement with Ashdown in 97 and the public gave both parties big gains. Labour had a 197 majority. The AV Ref was not PR and could be less proportional than FPTP
@@pastyman001 AV was still far more proportional that FPTP. Each area would at least get a representative that best reflected the local consensus and it removes the spoiler effect which prevents people from voting for third parties.
Anyone back here July 5th 2024?
If change depends on Keir Starmer, you know its veeery bad...
He's more a radical than he looks. If you look at his devolution agenda, the moving of power away from Westminster to the devolved nations and local authorities is massive. Plus House of Lords abolition. I doubt they'll replace it with another fptp chamber. And if that's under PR, then what about the Commons? It gives them a route. I'm not saying it will happen, and unfortunately because of our current voting system and the way it creates swing constituencies, both main parties have to appeal to a specific, small group. But Labour always under promises and over delivers. Look at 1997, the same things were going around then, and that Labour government gave massive investment and reform. It won't be as far as some will hope, but give Starmer a chance, give Labour a chance, and they'll deliver, I promise. Plus, I'll take any Labour government over a Tory one
He’s already said “it’s not a priority” meaning it’s never gonna happen in Keir Starmer speak
@@Splooshua. In political strategy speak that means "I have an opinion, but if I say either way that will piss off a section of the voting base, so I have to play safe". Saying it isn't a priority means nothing, but looking at his other policies and previous statements before being party leader suggest he's in favour. Doesn't mean he is, but you have to remember Labour have to play a lot more strategically than the Tories because the papers are mostly against them and will use anything to pummel them into the ground
@@Splooshua. LOL are you for real,No matter who speaks,Labour are finished with,they will Jog of
@@YourGayOverlord If he was committed to party democracy he would respect the over 3/4 of Labour members who voted for PR and it’s also very clear he’s not playing tactically to get into power.
Take the example of nationalising water: 66% of conservatives and 82% of Labour voters support nationalising water so therefore he should be backing it because it’s a popular policy? Well Starmer doesn’t. It’s obvious that he’s not playing 4D chess by going back on his pledges to win votes then introducing them when he’s in power, he’s simply driven by corporate money backing and neoliberal ideology.
The TLDR is yes. It's inevitable. The only question is when, but I personally believe we'll see it within the next decade once the Tories are out - the Tories benefit greatly from FPTP where all others will actually do better with PR. Labour membership is strongly leaning towards PR so they will be pushed to do it in their second or third term.
Lol, it's cute that you think Labour will care what the members think once they get into power...Starmer hasn't cared so far.
Labour will drag their feet. We might get STV for local elections in England, hopefully mandated and not voluntary. But it would take the next time Labour get back in before we really get another bite I suspect. PR support only just won Labour party base support. It will take far more time for that to spread out more generally.
FPTP was 'designed' for a political system with only two parties. In the old days it was the Tories and the Whigs. As soon as Labor appeared, the FPTP system was mathematically broken. When you can have a situation where two parties get 33% of the vote and one party gets 34% and gets to form a government, you don't even have a democracy any more; 66% of your population, a majority, would be effectively disenfranchised.
In the USA they try to prevent this by maintaining a duopoly of power, which may as well be a single party state.
The German two-votes system has both local representation and pretty good proportionality.
The first vote elects locally via FPTP, the second vote is for lists which determines proportionality which is than used to to fill up the _Bundestag_ to approach that proportionality.
(This means that each new _Bundestag_ can have a different size.)
Have a look at it.
They do similar in Australia except the first vote is done by two party preferred voting and the equivalent of the Bundestag has a fixed size.
Doubt anyone is going to see this but Scotland does not use the STV model. We use the Mixed Member Proportional model (or AMS) where we get two votes, one for a candidate in the local area and another for the party so that they can fill up the threshold. Ireland and NI both use STV though!
CGP Gray illuminated me to the voting systems and how ridiculous the first past the post truly is. I’ve longed for a new system but when I’ve spoken to others about it, a lot don’t see the same issues I do.
Yeah because first past the post is better.
To convince them you need to be able to articulate. Know your audience. Demonstrate how unfair FPTP with a familiar example. eg. if several people combined do the lions share of work but get paid less than one person who did the most out of a single person. Or have a vote on what to do and show the distorted result with FPTP vs ranked choice.
Abstract alone might plant the seed, to make it grow you must use familiar examples and scenarios to drive home the unfairness.
Think of how same sex marriage got nowhere while winning the theoretical arguments. They also needed sympathetic couples as examples people could relate to for support to reach a majority.
It is so blindly obvious that electoral reform should not be a power wielded by parliament.
The electoral system should be determined through direct democracy (a referrendum question offered at every parliamentary election, on how the next election should be carried out)
Actually a failing government should be more interested in switching to PR around the end of their term, as that could spare them an embarrassing loss, like what the tories would be facing at the next election.
PR isn't one system, but a family of systems with a similar goal.
Could y’all do a video talking about Final Five (or Final Four) Voting in the US? It was most recently used in Alaska’s 2022 elections and it was approved in Nevada the same year. The strategy for these reformers is to focus on the state level, since in the US, individual states have the power to change their voting system.
Many Alaskans were initially very cautious about IRV, especially since was voted on in a referendum on a 50.5/49.5 vote. Nowadays are now highly supportive of the system, as it stops extremist candidates like Governer Palin and the Trumpian Kelly Tshibaka, in favour more moderate candidates like Representative Peltola. Ironically these folk are now trying to push a ballot to scrap IRV in favour of the old system, which effectively made the Republican primary the major election.
@@philipbranco9568 IRV did not stop Palin. She'd have lost under FPTP. IRV leads to the same results as FPTP in around 95% of the cases. Peltola herself said what helped her win was the jungle primary with top 4 advancing.
Under the old primary system, Palin would have advanced from the republican primary. They ran their own. Democrats ran a multi party primary with independents and 3rd parties. Al Gross who previously ran as a democrat for a US senate seat got more votes than Peltola in the special election primary.
Thus, if they did not change the primary system, Peltola would not have been on the ballot. Once she was in the general as the sole democrat then even if it was FPTP she'd have won since she'd have won the plurality vote. If Al Gross did not withdraw then I suspect he'd also have won under FPTP. Palin simply capped out and reaches a ceiling.
So the vital part is actually the open primary with top few advancing to the general.
It might have saved Murkowski. She got the highest vote in the new primary but under the old system she might have lost. She lost before but won via write in. Once she makes it to the general she might have won as write in against Tshibaka under FPTP.
They conflated all of the voting in Europe as being the same, which is just not true.
What chance do they have explaining final five?
The chart at the end shows the sheer unfairness of FPTP. Reform and Greens are predicted at 5% and 5.7%, but will gain 0 seats and 1 seat respectively. Meanwhile the SNP with just 3.7% of the vote is on track for 32 seats (and Plaid with just half a percent can nab four seats). All because of the geographical distribution of voters. Even sillier is that the Lib Dems vote share is expected to drop slightly, yet they're expected to double their seats.
I hope Starmer can change this, but Labour have had a habit of conveniently forgetting about PR when they win so I'm not hopeful.
Labour might be in favour of PR whilst the Conservatives are in power, but I reckon they'll be more pro FPTP once in power.
We need PR to bring more varied opinions into parliament which represent better the views of voters. We can see from the current government with it’s big majority that too much power is a dangerous thing. Weaker coalition governments would do less harm in the long run.
I remember after Neil Kinnock was defeated by John Major in 1992 and it was postulated that Labour would never get elected in the foreseeable future, they started to show some interest in proportional representation. As soon as the polls started to turn in their favour it was kicked into the long grass. Blair could have rammed through proportional representation when he had a thumping majority but most political parties want absolute power and if anything, try and cement their hold on power. Even the devolution for Scotland and Wales was, I believe, a ruse to ensure that whenever the Tories regained power, there would at least be regions of the UK that would remain forever Labour. They reckoned without the SNP
FPTP is a demonstrably terrible system; I'm probably the 10,000th person to recommend CGP Grey's video series on the subject. Even the US is slowly adopting Instant Runoff Voting, state by state, so it would really be a mark of shame if the UK can't make a more representative system a national thing first.
STV is the best voting system. The only down side is that it makes counting slow and difficult to implement.
That is true. We are so used to results in the morning so people will whine over this but we'll get over it.
But very entertaining! The drama around counts is a national event here in Ireland.
In the PR system, the party which benefits the most will be Reform. SNP will lose all the seats since they only gain around 3% of the popular votes.
Well, I hope we get to see this done. Hopefully, one day, the UK will be an advanced democracy. Not likely, but we can hope.
Hopefully it ceases to be the uk even sooner 🏴
It should. Instant run off / ranked voting (a la Australia) is a much much better system, especially if it is a compulsory "number every box" system.
AUS's compulsory stuff wouldn't fly in most other countries. Aussies are used to it but it seems too much to other places that are wanting to reform. In the UK we had a referendum on ranked voting and it failed so that is likely dead in the water.
Ranked voting with single member districts is likely mostly window dressing. 95% of the time it produces the same result as FPTP. We need multi member districts as well for a real change like AUS's senate.
Not supporting PR is undemocratic. It's that simple. You cannot claim to have a parliament that represents the people, if you wilfully disenfranchise millions of voters - whether that gets you into parliament or not.
They are represented though by their local MP, they likely voted for.
Claiming that PR is representative when it could be the most common 6th place choice is just wrong.
@@SaintGerbilUK Except most people vote based on which party they want in charge, not who they want to represent a tiny part of it.
Also, 229 MPs were elected by less than half of their voters in their respective constituencies. One of them didn't even get a third of the votes in their constituency.
@@EightThreeEight I absolutely agree, the solution is not to makes that the truth.
In a PR system you would say that people are not represented because most people didn't get their first choice, and only got their second or third choice. It's the same argument just from the other side.
@@SaintGerbilUK People getting their second or third choice is still better than getting one of their least favourites, which frequently happens under FPTP thanks to the spoiler effect.
Democracy is about the most popular choice winning tho
Thanks for the video. You missed the psycholgical imapact of voters not believing that their vote counts. You mentioned in STV when someone gets an excess of quota and their unused votes get distributed-good but also that it works from the bottom up too. So if a politician is eliminated in the second round in FPTP the voters´s choice is binned under STV the voter´s second choice is then used as their primary vote. This allows everyone to believe that it is worth going to the polls and that your voice will be heard....sometimes after many counts but you will be counted .
Even preferential voting instead of first past the post would be good
Not as good as proportional representation but still better than FPTP. In Australia we use both systems, one for the lower house (Preferential), and one for the upper house (PR)
Indeed. The UK just needs to look at Australia's House of Representatives to see how it's done. At least in preferential voting, it's safe to say that the winning candidate is included among the choices, if not the first choice, of the majority of voters. Good choice, I'd say, since preferential voting also takes place in single seat constituencies and piecemeal changes such as shifting from FPTP to preferential voting doesn't overwhelm the public.
not really.
a) when people establish a preferential voting System, most of the time they go for instand run off, wich is really bad even for single winner systems.
b) Voting for a parliament does not need to have any of the problems, that are inevitable for single winner systems.
c) when used for a parliamentary election single winner systems introduce additional problems.
so when changing a parliamentary election you should straight up go for the right answer and not fool around with with single winner.
what I like about Australia's system is that the framers fused the American and British systems. The government will be compelled to negotiate to the directly-elected Senate before they can pass their bills. Brilliant.
@@MusikCassette sorry maybe I should have said "would be an improvement"
1:39 - That's Cape Town. South Africa does not have FPTP. We got rid of it in 1994. In fact, the National Party/Afrikaner Party coalition came to power in 1948 with just 41.63% of the vote on an apartheid mandate, with Jan Smuts' United Party getting 49.68% of the vote. After they took power in the legislature and executive, they gerrymandered the shit out of the constituencies, removed some groups from the voters roll and added South West African representation to bolster their advantage.
FPTP was a disaster but ANY system with an uneducated electorate whose culture is alien to democratic principles is an even bigger disaster. One Man, One Vote has destroyed South Africa under PR.
I see electoral reform being a hard sell in the UK for several reasons. It’s more complicated. Opponents pointing to PR causing lengthy coalition negotiations before a government can be formed. There’s a section of the population who’ll object to the UK doing things more like countries on the continent.
It's not more complicated, though. That's a total myth, pushed around by those it suits to keep the current system.
it's actually simpler to rank the available candidates into preference order than to do all the mental gymnastics of "I'd like this one, but then that one might get in, so I'll have to go instead for..."
We already use PR or used PR for most other elections. Former EU elections used regional party list. Mayoral elections used to use SV. NI regional, local, Scottish local elections use STV. Welsh councils can now adopt STV. Other regional assemblies use AMS.
Did we really hear any objections for those? Voters in Scotland at least prefer the PR systems and if you put them to a vote I doubt we'd revert back. There might be some whining but I suspect it will dampen down. If Cons manage to win a majority after the change they could undo it. Hopefully they'd seldom win a majority under the new system and their small party coalition partners would refuse to change.
Vote for reform uk they want to change the system, check out their policies very good
Learn from Australia. Their system is complicated and people don't understand it yet, but they will in time, and it's the best system. STV is the way to go.
No one understands it? Well, you are definitely selling it, mate. Here, the person with the most votes wins. That is it.
There's not much to understand.
Tick 1 for your most preferred and work down the list. Though it's not perfect.
Major parties rather the voter votes 'above the line' where you choose from the 6 major parties instead of 'below the line' where you list every candidate which can be up to 30 candidates.
Preferences are transferable between candidates.
The greens often preference Labor, which in essence means a vote for a failed greens candidate is effectively a Labor vote. A vote for a right leaning candidate often means a preference vote for Liberal (Tory).
To my mind preferences are used to avoid tie votes.
PR voting does not mean a hung parliament is avoided.
Julia Guillard had to join forces with the Greens and 2 independents to ensure a majority in 2010.
@@jim-es8qk Except you can only vote for one person, and deciding who that is is not trivial. The truly simplest method is approval voting, but I've never seen anyone advocate for it
We already use STV in the UK for N Irish and Scottish local elections. Welsh councils can now adopt it. Mayoral elections used supplementary vote which was similar, you only got to rank 2 though. So we've got experience with it. There WILL be whining but we will get over it just like stuff like same sex marriage, universal credit and now voter ID. Voter ID will still be whined at since we haven't had it for a general election yet but we likely adapt.
I think STAR voting is fairly simple to understand. You just rank each candidate on a 5-star scale. Of the two candidates receiving the highest scores, the one who was scored higher than the other by the most voters wins. It’s less restrictive than FPtP as voters can score as many candidates as they like, more descriptive than approval as they can indicate which candidates they like better than others, and unlike RCV or STV if they like two or more candidates equally they can give them the same rating.
I like stv because it gives voters more control over which people are elected than a party list system. But while we all know how fptp rewards winners, the way it works in Canada at least gives an advantage. If a party loses touch and plits it can lose all of it's seats and that is a very moderating factor.
What if they fear the split so much they capitulate to the fringe wing?
@@theuglykwan Still a recipe for defeat.
If we had PR in 2024, Reform would have won about 100 seats.
I wonder if Labour will still be as keen to make the voting system fairer now that they're in... 🤔
100% we need this, how can UKIP in 2015 win 12.6% of the vote and only get 1 seat?
Very good reason why we shouldn't do PR. Nazis like UKIP can get into power.
I think it is unfair to omit the 2011 referendum on alternative voting which happened as part of the deal between Cameron and Clegg from the story.
That should be a separate video of how that was fcked up and how to do it better so future chances are not squandered.
I personally like Frances two round system, but more than anything, I support change in our electoral system, instead of having a referendum on whether we should change our voting system, we should have a referendum on what it should be changed to
This isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. You can have different electoral systems for different legislative bodies: it's especially common where legislatures are bicameral.
This is particularly relevant in the UK given Labour's plan to replace the House of Lords. Just as is done in Australia, the upper house could well end up elected on a PR basis while another system (e.g. ranked voting using a single transferable vote mechanism) could be used in the Commons - or FPTP could simply be retained there.
A PR-elected upper house would make it virtually impossible for a radical, unrepresentative future government of either the Left OR the Right that just happens to "luck into" a big Commons majority ever again taking the country down a ruinous path the way this most radical of Brexit outcomes was foisted upon Britain...
Man, I really hope the UK replicates Australia's Washminster system. That would be great.
The house of Lords is subordinate to the Commons. The Lords cannot in practice indefinitely block the will of the Commons. So a radical extreme Commons will still be able to push through their agenda.
@@gregoryfenn1462 An elected upper house (especially one where no party would ever likely command a majority) is ALWAYS going to act as a serious check on the excesses of a lower house. This would be true even if the current (statutory) rules governing the ability of the Lords merely to delay enactment of radical legislation passed by the Commons - were retained for the Lords' replacement. But the latter is surely also up for grabs in the coming debate over upper house reform under Labour.
@@PeloquinDavid I don't want a PR upper chamber that has real power to block. I want a PR lower house that can legislate positively. Lets fix the lower house first as that is more pressing than the upper house. See how that goes before we radically change the upper house.
Can you please explain the logic that SNP is to blame for creating unstable majorities and causing the last 2 hung parliaments?
In each of the 4 last elections, even if every single SNP seat went to the Labour Party, not a single result would actually have changed. The Tories and labour would be closer in seat number, yes, but the ultimate outcome would have been exactly the same in them all…it’s insane to suggest the rise of the SNP has created unstable majorities and not the reality of a fractured Conservative Party that has caused exactly this.
I guess it's more that because people THINK that the SNP will form a coalition with Labour, that fence Lab/Con voters will lean on the Con side because for them the idea of a Lab+SNP government is so bad. You're right mathematically it won't have made much difference but the belief that it could is still powerful
@@gregoryfenn1462 I understand that, but that’s more to do with why conservatives surged in England - not why there are unstable majority governments. The reality is that’s not the case and in fact it wouldn’t matter which way those seats went it. No labour majority from 1997-2005 relied on Scottish seats. Even if all labour seats in Scotland then went to the snp labour would still have won a majority. The idea that unstable majorities is the SNP’s fault I just find baffling and somewhat misleading.
The incentive problem of Electoral Reform is like a microcosm of capitalism. Only the rich and powerful have the ability to change the system, but the current system greatly favors the rich and powerful.
I voted in my first General Election in 1992, and my vote has never counted, because I live in a safe seat and I have never voted for the party that controls it.
One consequence of safe seats that I haven't seen widely discussed is how it stifles MP independence within their parties. If your seat is so safe that a sack of potatoes would win if it had the right colour rosette, you have very little incentive to challenge the party line on any matter, because you know you could be replaced by the party at any time. They don't need you to win the seat, but you need them to advance your political career.
Personally, I think the best way forward would be to convene a Citizen's Assembly and agree to be bound by it's conclusions. A program of publice education on the subject would be a necessary part of that as well.
hard disagree, in the recent Australian elections because it wasn't FPTP a couple of safe conservative seats got purged because the preferences flowed away from the candidate, we had seats fall for the first time in 50 years would've been impossible if it was FPTP, even where its optional had worse results.
Tony Blair even commissioned a report from the late Roy Jenkins, which recommended an additional member system, but the report was then put on the shelf.
In discussing this issue, it needs to be mentioned that there are many variations of proportional representation: This video discussed Ranked Choice Voting (RCV): A system in which voters rank candidates. There are also systems in which seats in legislative distributed based on percentage of votes received by each party. Such party list proportional representation is what Israel and many European nations use. Germany uses a hybrid system in which some seats are elected by party list proportional representation and others by FPTP. I mention these distinctions because the 2011 UK referendum only rejected RCV : voters were never asked to consider party list proportional representation.
Its a bit complicated, but I do like the system we have in Germany. It tries to combine proportional voting with voting for a direct representative. As any systm, it has a few quirks : everyone has two votes, which might confuse people, and the difictulty to balance the number of directly elected representative with the actual proportion of the votes (which is the major problem of the system, leading to oversized parliament).
Obvioulsy people might disagree, but its definetly better than fptp.
In the US a couple of our states have changed their voting systems. In California, Louisiana and Washington (state) they use a jungle primary with the top 2 advancing to the general election. Alaska and Maine use ranked-choice voting.
STV doesn't require PR. You can still maintain single-member districts with it - it's kind of strange that it was presented as if they're parts of the same whole.
A majority thing to note, is that in Australia atleast, the quota is the number of votes divided by the number of seats + 1, the one their is important as instead of say having quota for 7 seats its 8 meaning that the final candidate still has the same requirement of votes as every other seat elected.
That is for the Australian senate and most state upper houses. For lower house elections the Single transferable vote where you number the candidates in order of your preference is used.
@@Dave_Sisson it's not even that. It's a different system altogether as it's only one winner per seat, rather than multiple winners.It's a different system called preferential or two party preferred voting and you need 50%+1 to win.
A real issue with FPTP not mentioned.
It makes sure that larger parties win even if the majority of people vote against them. Lets say the Conservatives win 45% of the overall constituency. The labour party wins 40%, with the remaining votes given to the greens. Even though Greens voters would likely prefer Labour over the Conservatives, the conservatives win. This is avoided under a PR system like STV where the greens can preference labour 2nd
No they still have to have a majority to form a government. Therefore the greens would form a coalition with labour not the Tories. This is one of the reasons given by government for PR being bad. One party very really gets a majority therefore more coalition governments like elsewhere in Europe.
@@David-bi6lf Coalitions in my eyes are a good thing because it holds major parties accountable and makes sure people listen to more of the population
@@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046 I agree but those in power spin that as bad because they benefit from FPTP.
I distinctly remember a failed representative voting referendum that I voted in after 2012 and I'm concerned that you didn't mention it in this video because now I'm worried I hallucinated it
No you didn't hallucinate it it happened.
It's just evidence against what TL;DR are advocating for. You know the "independent" news have policies they advocate for like PR, a Labour government and rejoining the EU.
The referendum for AV/IRV in 2011
Not a proportional system
@@stephjsinclair how was AV not a PR system, especially when TL;DR claim that France has PR system, even though it's basically FPTP but with 2 rounds.
4:07 I'd take it further than this. The healthy majority CAUSED a lot of unnecessary chaos. The Tories thought with a "stonking" great majority that they were untouchable.
This reminds me, has TLDR done any reporting on the recent Greek elections? Some shenanigans going on there, where New Democracy won a plurlaity that fell a bit short of an overall majority, formed a government, promptly changed the electoral system to one that favoured the frontrunners more, ran a fresh election, and got a majority under the new system even though their vote share went back a couple of %.
Wait... the current electoral system in Greece was not made by New Democracy after the first election, was it? Sources please
@@MM-un3ob Okay, slight correction - the new voting system was one that had been previously agreed upon but which couldn't come into effect until after the next election for constitutional reasons. So as soon as the first election happened, the system changed automatically.
@@alexpotts6520so all legal, and not so much shenanigans as you presented it to be.
@@ab-ym3bf Oh yeah, all legal. I described it as "shenanigans", not a coup!
Hungary doctored their system so the ruling party would have whopping majorities instead of slim under a pure PR system. They had unequal populations in districts (we do in the UK too) as well, reduced the PR seats. Italy is also fond of frequently changing their electoral system for both chambers at the same time which seems pointless. They did reach a sweet spot as their aim seems to be curbing the fragmentation but nevertheless changed it again.
Plus reform of the house of the lords would gain more support from all of the uk electorate.
We've have 4 Labour governments vs the 12 Conservative ones since Winston Churchill. the current streak maybe 13 years, but they've had over 50 years in the top spot. Labour only seem to get into power when the Tories over step. Labour then do what they suggest before getting too comfy and over reach themselves and get supplanted. If Labour win next it's literally an act of protest to reign the Tories in because for at least one election cycle Labour will do their best to be the angelic force of the people, before the halo slips if they win a second general election.
Nah Labour would rather have their 10 years in the sun than actually improve the country's situation and stop it from falling into Tory hands for the next 40 years.
I wish Labour would recognize that.
A Labour majority under Starmer is indeed unlikely to end FPTP. It'll take a hung Parliament to do that. With any luck that's what we'll get, and end the systemic bias in favour of minority Tory governments that has been such an unfortunate feature of the past century.
Australia has been using full preferential voting for many years now as it makes election results more legitimate
This would also help build a new workers party
Labour & the Tories prefer FPTP cause it favors themselves. Starmer said that during his leadership campaign, he was in favour of it. But now, not so. The only way I can see it Changing that IF smaller parties gain in the heartlands of both of the two main parties (not Lib Dems) then they might think again or the next election results in a hung parliament in which either the Lib Dems insist on the change to support Labour or Labour need help of more than one party to govern. If Labour wins a majority, I feel it's unlikely to change.
Put it to the people.. let us decide
I note that other countries with FPTP elections, they have a second run-off of the top 2, with "more than 50%" being the target. Australia's proportional representation gives voters more choice.
The Irish system is the most democratic system you can have - people chose both the parties and the candidates they prefer and vote for them in a ranked order with their vote being transferred to the next highest choice that still can win which results in far fewer votes being wasted and puts the choice fully in the voters hands, the system used in the Netherlands is actually even worse than what we currently have as parties just list their preferred candidates at the top of the list.
I live in the US and we use FPTP. I don't know how much better PR is, but it does sound more democratic.
Some of the US uses ranked choice voting. Some places also pair it will multi member districts which gives voters more choice and less fear about throwing their vote away.
Tony Blair was the best Labour PM that the Tories ever had.
We could adopt the Australian voting system, where you number the parties from 1 to 5, that’s a very good system.
@@lllluka No. You can do what OP said. OR you can number all candidates instead. It's one or the other.
I agree with the Labour membership but I really doubt Keir Starmer cares what they think based on his current behaviour. It's Keir's way or the highway as far as he's concerned.
That was a great explanation thank you
What is your favorite form of proportional representation?
1. Party list proportional representation
2. Mixed member proportional representation
3. Dual member proportional representation
4. Single transferable vote
5. Rural urban proportional representation
STV or MMP
We have proportional representation in New Zealand in the form of MMP (two votes, one your local candidate and one for your preferred party), and while not perfect, is a much MUCH better system than First Past the Post. Yes, you have coalition governments, but turns out that largely works just fine. What you don't have is governments run by a party MOST people didn't vote for, ie: the Tories in Britain who only got 43% of the vote, but an 80 seat majority. Under proportional representation every vote really does matter and can make a difference - which is exactly why the Tories don't want it. They are quite happy with the status quo of being in the minority, but holding all the power and will lie through their teeth to scaremonger about any change. I'm here to tell you Britain, proportional representation works just fine.
You don't need to tell us. We literally use PR for almost every other election other than english local elections. We use it for devolved assemblies, local elections in NI, Scotland, Wales (local councils can now adopt it), used SV for mayoral elections until Tory reverted it back to FPTP, used regional party list for former EU elections. So most voters have used it in some form. We used to have some PR seats for the general election until they were abolished.
I would somewhat dispute how well it works, when the far-right NZ First party has been in coalitions with centre-left Labour to keep the centre-right National Party out.
@@doctorravenclaw2649 NZ First are not a far-right party. NZ First are actually an oddity in political terms, holding left wing views on some matters and right wing views on others. Their populist streak comes from a view that certain issues should be sorted through public referendum and they have long been seen as anti-immigration, but who's policies don't back it up. A large part of what they do is on behalf of 'grey power', a seniors movement in NZ. So NZ First introduced discounted bus fares for seniors etc. While some of their social policy is conservative, to call them 'far-right' is deeply flawed.
@@doctorravenclaw2649 Wait, why does the far right party prefer the centre left to the centre right? Is there some grudge that led to that?
Kudos to whomever made the “Dog News”, “Box”, and “Fly News” logos for the advert section.
Honestly thought we would have switched by now. The best chance was back in 2010 (?), but the fury against the STV system vote, was basically used as an attack on the government, with friends and family suggesting they voted to stop it just to give the lib dems a kicking.
I'm very much for PR, I hate the current system and with views both liberal and centre, I pretty much have no hope of ever electing someone I feel aligns with my views in my current ultra safe tory seat.
I wonder how the tories will feel after 13 years out of power and if its a "key vote winner" for them and then the cycle will continue.
Ironically the only time I've ever felt my vote mattered, was in the EU elections. Go figure.
FPTP also means that parties become less ideological and more pragmatic
Could they? Yes. Will they? No. STV might be the only viable option here since FPTP does lock in two major parties without a major turnout for opposition front he voting public, while PR on its own creates a democratic mess. Italy and to a lesser extent the Netherlands are decent examples of this. So no just PR is not the answer that people should go for, but FPTP shouldn't be endorses either.
PR is the way forward. We can then benefit from the best of the politicians from all political parties. No dogma, just sense.
Sir Arnold already said it in Yes Minister some 30 years ago: 'no government will ever change the system that put it into place'.
New Zealand went from FPTP the AMS. There was feet dragging.
Western Australia's state govt equalized population of districts and introduced ranked voting (they already had multi member districts). They managed to get this thru despite it endangering some incumbents.
There was a local council in the US somewhere where they switched to PR. Caveat here is not only high minded councillors but also many were not running again anyway so no self interest at stake.
A bunch of US states in the progressive era bent to popular will and introduced mechanisms for voters to initiate law or constitutional changes. They could have refused to maintain their power but they followed popular will. Voters have used those to enact term limits, independent redistricting, primary reforms etc.
So there is truth in the cynical statement. It's not absolute though as there are plenty of exceptions in history. How did much of Europe get PR? They changed from FPTP mostly.
We had the debate in the UK as well but commons wanted AV while lords wanted STV and they settled on FPTP.
Here in Brazil, we have proportional voting for each state. The party I support, PSDB, has long supported a mixed system. Each person has two representatives, one elected in a FPTP, one elected in a proportional system. The proportional system has many flaws
Switzerland switched to a proportional system (Hagen-Bischoff) over a century ago, but FPTP is still used for the House of cantons (Senate), where every canton has 2 seats. Each canton is also represented in the Lower chamber, which can overrule the Senate. The parliament, both houses, then elects the seven-member executive which includes all major parties except the Greens.
The Northern Irish assmebly uses STV, the Scottish parliament uses AMS. Neither are PR systems, they're still majoritarian. WHat you descirbed isn't STV- it's AV which has the singular member and the voter-MP constituency connection. Australia uses this system and there was a referendum on this in the UK a decade ago. And while the voting system uses an FPTP method, the actual system is called SMP.