Will the UK Ever Change its Electoral System?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 июн 2024
- Compare news coverage. Spot media bias. Avoid algorithms. Be well informed. Download the free Ground News app at: ground.news/tldr
In recent years, there has been a lot of debate surrounding the UK's electoral system and how it could change from First Past the Post (FPTP) to Proportional Representation (PR). In this video, we explore the advantages and disadvantages of each system and discuss the reasons behind the push for change. With increasing support for PR within the Labour Party membership, could Keir Starmer and the Labour leadership heed the calls for reform?
💬 Twitter: / tldrnewuk
📸 Instagram: / tldrnewsuk
🎞 TikTok: / tldrnews
🗣 Discord: tldrnews.co.uk/discord
💡 Got a Topic Suggestion? - forms.gle/mahEFmsW1yGTNEYXA
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
TLDR Store: www.tldrnews.co.uk/store
TLDR TeeSpring Store: teespring.com/stores/tldr-spring
Learn About Our Funding: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We aim to give you the information you need, quickly and simply so that you can make your own decision.
TLDR is a completely independent & privately owned media company that's not afraid to tackle the issues we think are most important. The channel is run by just a small group of young people, with us hoping to pass on our enthusiasm for politics to other young people. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following, and backing us on Patreon. Thanks!
/////////////////////////////////////
1 - www.electoral-reform.org.uk/v...
2 - www.electoral-reform.org.uk/v...
2 - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-p...
3 - www.electoral-reform.org.uk/w...
4 - www.electoral-reform.org.uk/t...
5 - www.electoral-reform.org.uk/v...
6 - www.electoral-reform.org.uk/w...
7 - www.parliament.uk/business/pu...
8 - www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/fi...
8 - www.electoral-reform.org.uk/d...
9 - www.theguardian.com/politics/...
10 - www.newstatesman.com/politics...
10 - labourlist.org/2023/06/propor...
10 - labourlist.org/2021/07/exclus...
11 - www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/p...
00:00 - Introduction
00:51 - FPTP vs PR
05:33 - Could It Change?
08:35 - Sponsored Content
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
@@user-wc8pm8eu4b it’s a BETTER system
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.
We NEED proportional representation to ever truly see any change in our country
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)
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...
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.
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.
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.
@@psyqueerdelic 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 😄
Not the first time Kier Starmer promised something in his leadership campaign and then not do it.
(Or pretty much any tory)
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
To say that we're bored of the two main parties is something of an understatement!
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.
AV wouldn't necessarily be more proportional. Just look at Canada. The Liberals are already overrepresented, but with AV they would've gotten even more seats due to NDP and Green voters' next choices going to the Liberals. This at the expense of the Conservatives whose vote-to-seat count is quite equal now.
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?
@@SaintGerbilUK I get what you mean, but people don't read manifestos anyway, no matter the system
@@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.
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.
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.
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
Would be the first step to a necessary change in UK.
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!
So true about safe seats. Last time I voted was for Paris Hilton. In my constituency my vote means nothing
If it's important to you move, or realise that you are an extreme minority.
In FPTP Canada, my vote means as little as if I didn't vote at all. I dispise the big two Cons and Libs, I'd never vote for either.
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 showed it at 2:18, but didn't talk about it
And BTW, they changed it now so that the Bundestag has a fixed size. Though winning your district doesn't necessarily mean you'll get that seat anymore
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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!
Thanks for explaining .
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, but it would also mean they'll never win a majority again in any future election. Even if the Tories lose big time in the next election, they'll have a good shot to get a majority in the next election thereafter
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
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.
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.
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.
It f*cking better
The third type is also two party preferred voting where you need 50%+1 to win once preferences are resdistributed if you don't win it outright first. It's much faster to count than PR but you still need an outright majority to win. Problem with the UK switching away from FPTP is it will greatly increase costs and the time needed to count the vote.
PR isn't one system, but a family of systems with a similar goal.
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 🏴
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"
It's honestly astounding that FPTP ever got used.
We have a different PR system in wales to elect the Senedd Members. Surprised you didnt mention it, as we have a labour majority under that system.
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.
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.
Fingers crossed for PR!
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.
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.
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
@@psyqueerdelic 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.
Kudos to whomever made the “Dog News”, “Box”, and “Fly News” logos for the advert section.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you
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.
And Georgia has runoffs.
And one small nitpicky correction: In Louisiana, if you get more than 50% in the primary, you get the seat. In California and Washington they have the second round regardless.
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.
3:12 its the number of available seats plus one. So for example if there are 6 seats then a quota is one seventh (rounded down plus one vote)
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.
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.
It had the chance to do so in 2011 but the referendum overwhelmingly favoured sticking with first past the post.
AV was not PR. We have never had a vote on PR.
Why do people lie..? It makes serious debates impossible
By that logic why did we not cancel general elections after 1997 or some other election where the result was clear? Because we can change our minds.
The same issue can produce a different result in different elections. We voted to remain in the EEC back in the 1975 by 67% which is also how much we rejected the AV referendum by in 2011. Then fast forward some time we voted for Brexit.
@@David-bi6lf
Changing the way we elect our MPs is not desirable
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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 sincerely hope so
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.
The only realistic route to electoral reform, is if Labour become the largest party, fall short of a majority, and need the Lib Dems to prop them up, form a government and get their King's speech through. Under that scenario the Lib Dems would surely insist on Labour committing to PR in exchange for their support. While the Labour leadership don't want to ditch FPTP, I belive that more than 70% of Labour members support PR. Therefore if the leadership try to resist and refuse, the Lib Dems could play them off against their own party members, and shame and humiliate them into playing ball.
I strongly doubt that Labour majority government would deliver electoral reform.
BTW it's scary. but I suppose not suprising, that so many people believe that PR was rejected in the 2011 referendum, when of course it simply wasn't on the ballot-paper and the non-proportional AV was actually rejected.
In the Australian lower house we have preferential voting and single member electorates, you keep distributing votes until one person has a majority. the multi-member preferential is used for the Australian upper house the senate.
PR is better for upper house voting or if only one house in parliament (w/e it is called), makes sense too. But in lower house or 2+ houses, one has to be preference and the other PR ok? Especially the stronger house should be via preference vote.
Why should one be preference in a bicameral system? What is the logic behind it?
why abbreviate FPTP when the syllables are the same amount if you were to just say it normally
Classic 😂
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.
Just FYI, when you mentioned Africa, you showed Cape Town, South Africa, which actually uses PR... Other countries, such as Zimbabwe, use FPTP.
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.
Canada's Liberals actually campaigned on enacting PR. However, once they actually took government, they promptly dropped this promise. Had they initially only won a minority government (particularly if they depended on the support of the NDP, as they now do), FPTP would probably be gone.
PR is the way forward. We can then benefit from the best of the politicians from all political parties. No dogma, just sense.
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.
What if I don't want my vote to go to anyone else? Voters should be allowed to mark as many or as few choices as they want. Ranking all of them also forces people to rank candidates they may know nothing about.
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.
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.
Vote for reform uk they want to change the system, check out their policies very good
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
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.
It highest chance is like 2011 the smaller party in a coalition government wanting it so it goes to a referendum
would be nice if we had actually voted for sunak too.
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.
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.
Explainer videos are my favourite, personally
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.