There are people in Parliament who have an incentive to fix it; their parties got screwed by FPTP, and if they fix it they'll have more power in the future. Unfortunately, by definition, they have less power than the parties who benefit from FPTP...
@@pulli23 Just like Gandhi did when he had King George beheaded. "Change nothing" versus "full French Revolution" is a false dichotomy if I ever saw one.
@@timothymclean only the realy small parties, you need to be exceptionally far behind to want it to change (and mean it ) most likely what would have happened if the other large party won they would not complain about it being un fair. We saw this in canada only a few years ago
@@tristenbezayiff571 It's not like the top dogs change *that* much from election to election. There's a pretty consistent tier system, and maybe I'm just projecting Yankee expectations into the wrong political climate for them, but it seems like the lower-tier parties would consistently have motivation to change FPTP.
For Reference: Blue: Conservative. Red: Labour. Yellow: SNP (Scottish National Party). Orange: Liberal Democrats. Brown: DUP (Democratic Unionist Party). Dark Green: Sinn Féin (N. Ireland). Green: Plaid Cymru (Wales). Light Green: Social Democratic & Labour Party. Light Blue: Ulster Unionist Party (N. Ireland). Purple: UKIP (British Independence Party). Very Light Green: Green Party.
Aren't you just adorable!? With all that desire and illusion of personal relevance like everything you were taught to have faith in like Santa or Jesus or Justice was not just a road paved in lies leading you specifically to no where at all in the journey toward death that privileged livestock such as ourselves are afforded such amenities as climate control and gossip mags. How truly divine!
We get a lot of tactical voting as well in the UK, so sometimes we aren’t even picking the party we want to run the country we are just voting against the one we don’t. We have great fun complaining about politics in this country.
time to go back to math class then. lib dem does not equal SNP and neither equal Labour and thus the idea that somehow Labour or LibDem got screwed or that Tories received an outsized majority must assume that voters Lib Dem, SNP, and other minor party voters did not know exactly what they were doing. Those who vote for minor parties are fully aware that it may give and advantage to one of the 2 major parties whom we might align with had our preferred party not been available and we are ok with that both labour and Libdems got what they deserved this round as they dismissed the people they claim to represent and treated them as serfs who are not smart enough to understand politics and thus should simply play along. Tories consolidated the vote with a large net cast. Lib Dems and Labour divided their own constituencies and each-others and lost it all.
in 2019 however tories did actually recieve a majority vote, so their majority representation is proportionate. no party really matters if they have less that 50% of seats, which is why the 2016 government was useless (no party had a majority)
this is why I like the German two-prong system - one vote for the local M.P., one vote for the party in your state, calculated together with (hideously complicated calculation rules I'm not geoing to get into) to get as close to representation of the votes as possible, while letting local politicans that might be really popular in their area win seats, without disenfranchising smaller parties
That sounds an awful lot like MMP - one of the voting systems Grey mentions at the end. My country (Canada) has been trying to implement that for a while, but the party in power never wants it.
@@hoodiesticks See that's kind of the depressing thing about Canadian politics. The only party that stands to benefit from it's removal is the NDP because the Bloc Quebecois skyrockets their representation error and heading into the September elections, the party in power is a minority government because they won more seats via FPTP despite the second most vote totals.
However, in Poland we have utterly system in contrast to British one, there are many people who want to ....change it like the British. What;s more, there's party having one-mandate region system as the main political objective.
@@ManOfTheWeek596 it’s not exactly mmp. With mmp you give half the seats to the local representatives and give the other half to the parties according to the result of the second vote. In Germany the second vote alone decides how many seats a party gets and then the local representatives fill up those spots together with the candidates on the list if there are spots left. It’s only a difference in technicality though
Um actually, using the 'misrepresentation error' method in the video it was one of the 'best'. Conservative (blue) and Labour (red) got 82.4% of the vote and 89.1% of the seats. The misrepresentation error was only 17.4%, the lowest in over 50 years.
Rambi Ninethousand At least by using colors, it's easy for someone who's not British to understand the video easily, and the people who actually know about British politics can easily attach names to the colors.
I think the degree of misrepresentation error is about to skyrocket with today's election. Based on the polls, I can already see that "Fareham and Waterlooville" is expected to have an error of 140.6pp. Southport is expected to go from its place at the bottom with 138pp of error to 101.3pp. Belfast South (now Belfast South and Mid Down) will "improve" to 118pp. Edit: The misrepresentation error nationally is ~58.3pp.
Kevin Ndayishimiye Had to rack my brain a lil bit but correct me if I’m wrong. UK is what it is today (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland). Great Britain is all of the British Isles ( the whole island of Ireland and England Scotland and Wales.) England is just one part of the U.K.
Sam the Sheeopoll no the uk is the country but Great Britain is the nation but yes uk is made of Northern Ireland England Scotland and Wales to form the nation and country
Only the British or the Japanese or the Japanobritainican Roaring Lion of the Rising sun say "oi!" Weird Americans, too, but they usually just catch British when they visit the UK. The dialects are like a plague.
So I have voted at every opportunity since 1979, I have never had an MP, County Councillor, District Councillor, Town or Parish Councillor that reflected my politics. I have had MEP (members of the European parliament) who represented me because they were elected proportionately. I like Single Transferable Vote (STV) which is used for elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly - very few wasted votes, works out close to exactly proportional, and gives you a choice even within the party you support. You can access the results online - you can see each round as the votes get redistributed - very interesting. The reason they have it was to try and accurately reflect opinion in a very divided community.
Appreciate someone recognises out absolute skill to have a government that doesn't fall apart...mostly Very true aswell if we didn't get proper representation the troubles would happen again if any side thought the other side was getting an unfair advantage
Key (for non-brits): Blue: Conservative Red: Labour (This is England, so it has a U) Orange: Liberal Democrat Yellow: Scottish National Party Purple: United Kingdom Independence Party Green: ...Green. The rest don't matter. Comments disabled because flame war.
GlitchyShadow13 Green in Wales: Plaid Cymru Light blue: Ulster Unionists Dark green: Sinn Fein Light green: SDLP, a nationalist party in NI Red in NI: Democratic Unionist Party
If the UK election results are crazy, just check up the results of Indian election which is way crazier. The ruling party got 55.8% seats when their vote share was 37.3%.
Patriotism is weird. FUCK YEAH THIS LITTLE BIT OF DIRT AND MY COLOURED PIECE OF CLOTH ARE WAY BETTER THAN YOURS. NO YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COME TO MY PIECE OF DIRT
Jack Penman in an idealistic world there would be no such things as countries and we'd all get along happily ever after but sadly that isn't reality, if you go to another country, guess what, you're going to be treated like a foreigner and other countries put their citizens first.
The British system works pretty well most of the time. We vote, at 10pm the exit poll tells us who won, we go to bed, and when we wake up the next morning the result is confirmed. Counting is all finished in less than 24 hours. Following the US Presidential Election, that system seems like a big messy farce.
True democracy is just as evil as a dictatorship. Go read up on why we have electoral systems. Think about it, Russia is a democracy and Hitler was voted in as well. I reckon that the people who designed the governmental process put more thought into it that every single person that's wants a popular vote. Ironically its the exact same reason why we are republics. Voters are stupid. Period.
@basjqnatsks Russia was never an actual democracy, there have been election fraud since day one, and Hitler's takeover would've been impossible in most modern democracies because they have contingency laws precisely to avoid a tyrant from abolishing democracy (requiring more than simple majority to pass constitutional reforms, free and nonpartisan court system etc). Democracy isn't perfect but it's the only system that makes the leaders of the country accountable for their actions, forcing them to obey the will of the people in at least some way. All other systems will see the ruler use all of their power to benefit themselves and not the people. Benevolent dictators (or oligarchs) do not exist
For people saying the 2019 got it even worse: You're wrong! 2015: Tories' 37% of votes were boosted to 51% of seats (13.9% misrepresentation) Labour had 5.2% misrepresentation, UKIP 12.5%, LD 6.7%, SNP 3.9%, Greens 3.6% and others about 2% combined, making it 47.6% in total. 2019: Tories' 44% of votes were boosted to 56% of seats (12.6% misrepresentation) Labour had 1.1 misrepresentation, LD 9.9%, LD 3.5%, Greens 2.5% and others (I suppose) about 2% combined. That should be around 32% if I count correctly. That is around 15% better than 2015. Also note that each and every big party had a smaller representation error in 2019 than in 2015, only further confirming the numbers.
erni muja Not necessarily, many countries in Europe use proportional representation and have functioning governments, as the parties learn to compromise and cooperate to get things done. Many of the uk’s problems with hung parliaments happened because the largest party acted like they had a majority
@erni muja France has a variety on FPTP, Italy mixes FPTP and proportional representation, and Germany is perfectly stable. There seems to be an inverse relation going on here.
Jerkwad152 Where's your resistance then? I wonder what happens when Sanders finally loses. Will American people just sit down and do nothing? I'm really curious.
Whenever I bring up the nightmare that is FPTP to my dad, one of the things he'll counter with it "So you'd want to give UKIP power in parliament?" to which my answer is YES You can't support a system just because it screws over the people you don't like, because that very same system can screw you over just as easily, but only then will you cry foul and demand change.
KenzoTenma _ no Corbyn has a rainbow coloured flag to represent all his dream ‘policies’ he will implement when he will become PM like getting rid of the royal family
Ummm, I'm pretty sure it's always been like that- conservatives have been associated with the color blue for decades (at least) because of their association with aristocracy/royalty while Labour has always been in red because of it having more socialist/anti-monarchical leanings it's only in the US that it's flipped because red was used for Republicans and blue for Democrats in the 2000 election and the colors just stuck in everybody's heads because of how drawn out it was
Slightly Salted Tacos Well apparently you are completely right about that. When opponents come with things like this: "The Alternative Vote is a complicated, expensive and unfair system that gives some people more votes than others. It might sound like a small change but the danger is in the detail -- it's a politicians' fix. Governments would be selected through backroom deals and people would have no control over where their vote goes. It should be voters that decide who the best candidate is, not the voting system. Defend one person, one vote. Vote NO to AV on 5 May." Than you know how people vote has nothing to do with actual reality. AV is neither complicated, expensive or unfair. It does nothing to cause more backroom deals and IT GIVES EVERY PERSON ONE VOTE.
I tell you what after the alternative vote referendum and the recent brexit referendum I truly believe most of my countrymen are incapable of thinking for themselves. People don't realize that its not the medias jib to tell the truth and so they believe it all without looking it up. I had to explain to my own grandparents that a referendum isn't a vote its just a large scale poll and they didn't believe me.
Proportional representation was framed (by the ruling party) as producing weak coalition governments that were ineffectual, despite the fact that the coalition government at the time (admittedly, the first one to last a full term) was working reasonably well.
As someone from the UK, I knew this all already, but it was a really well done video that would be very informative to people from outside the UK! Well done!
True but you guys don't elect your senate :/ (I really shouldn't be talking tho, I'm from the US and our legislature and electoral college aren't exactly representative either...)
Eric Cholico Actually the US Senate is more representative then the Canadian Senate. You guys at least have the electoral college and various other mechanisms that allow for an at least somewhat representative Senate. However, in Canada the Governor-General (on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen) appoints all Senators on the advice of the Prime Minister. Yours are indirectly elected, while ours are appointed.
Germany has a great system: In the election for the parliament you have 2 votes: One for the local representative and one for a party. The local representatives are guaranteed a seat in the parliament, but the whole parliament has to be divided between the parties as close as possible to the results of the 2nd vote. The parties with too few seats just get more. That way the parliament represents the whole country while people can still choose between local representatives.
Bibbedibob that's what I thought as well. At first it looked like the British one works like that as well, but somehow they messed up majorly somewhere along the lines
Yeah, just forget about the christianity in the name of your party and let them die slowly in the mess you have supported, in the end its their fault to suffer, they could have chosen to be born in america!
"Why the UK Election Results are the Worst in History" This has aged like fine wine. The 2015 election was the crack in the septic tank that burst wide open.
@@aprofessionalgamer5355 The Conservative Party ran on a manifesto of offering a referendum on UK membership of the EU, despite the leader David Cameron having no intention of seeing such a process to the end, and then won a majority of seats.
@@aprofessionalgamer5355 Maybe, but we mustn't forget, that the beggar who is sitting in the market place, he is completely deaf, in so much as far as listening to the song that is coming from the mockingbird, is concerned.
The UK did have a vote for people to decide on whether or not it should switch to AV. Funnily enough, the two parties that are kept in power by FPTP campaigned against it to the extreme. Yay.
AV wouldn't change much in this case, maybe it could be good for a presidential election but it really doesn't solve the problem when electing seats to the parliment. MMP or STV is the way to go here.
Sweden is also using a system where ISIS members who return to sweden get driver's licenses and housing opportunities, so, you know, take that with a grain of salt.
FPTP also reinforces regional divides in the UK. In Scotland, the SNP got ~50% if the vote but ~95% if the seats, meaning that Scottish unionists have almost no voice in parliament despite making up half of the population. People in the mostly rural Home Counties were seemingly all Conservative except for university towns like Oxford and Exeter, while most of Wales, London and the other major Northern cities (Manchester, Leeds etc.) were seemingly all Labour. This is, of course, misrepresentative of the populations of these areas as a whole. At a time when the geographic divisions of the UK are stronger than ever, FPTP is making them even worse.
As one who understand UK political parties (mostly, here's my guess)- Blue: Tories Red: Labour Yellow: SNP Orange: Lib Dems Purple: UKIP Green: Greens Light Brown: DUP Dark Green: Plaid Cymru Forest Green: Sinn Fein Gray: Independents Light Green: UUP
Common problem in elections when you have geographic representation - which can have its upside, but as the video points out, if electoral districts have historic or engineered electoral imbalances, such that nation-wide minorities eke out wins of majorities in enough low-population areas to overcome the wide margins of nationwide majorities in high population areas, then the minority stays in power. Ultimate solution: minorities have to turn out more to vote in those close seats - and this did not seem to happen in the UK's last election cycle.
+John Blossom Proportional representation with multi-member constituencies solves the problem: you have local representation and at the same time (almost) everyone who voted in any constituency gets fairly represented in the Parliament...
az929292 In a perfect world, perhaps, but good luck getting enough green benches! To me, turnout is the key - when people care about elections, then generally the right things happen, because the elected know that the voters are aware.
That rather depends on how big you want the constituencies to be. Having grown up in a full-on PR country I don't see the point of local representation at the national level at all, but even if you do want to have it, constituencies could be much larger than they currently are, as there is no way that the difference between one part of, say, Sheffield and another part of Sheffield have such vastly different local wants and needs that they need to vote separately.
+Robert Faber I am not saying that it's right for all nations, but this is where the U.S. concept of Federalism comes in handy. You can be big and small. In New England, many towns are still governed by direct representation, in addition to the Federal/State system. But it's all moot if corporation co-opt it all...
Harry Strong Indeed, the only time this 'argument' if you can even call it that matters is if you live in a safe constituency where you're voting against the holders.
neildKoR It did make a difference: Every vote without representation is a prove for the broken election system. Your vote will have a long therm benefit for your country. (I hope you have independent judges in the UK - in Switzerland, we have the issue that the government can choice the judges in the highest courts - kind of an issue when the voting system is the case to be decided...)
The core problem is the "winner take all" outcome. You can use the best voting system possible to make outcomes less unrepresented (which is yes/no for each candidate) but you will ultimately not represent everyone, just whichever group is largest.
do you have any thoughts on the recent Australian federal election? with approximately 11% of the national vote going to our Greens party, yet only receiving 1 of the 150 seat in the House of Representatives, and the whole mess with potential minority governments. Don't forget Australia does use a STV voting system, and has mandatory voting
The best way to think of STV is that it provides the solution that minimizes dissatisfaction, and the Greens are such a polarizing party that while 11% of people voted for them, most of the country voted for "anybody but them". At least, that's what I assume happened - I'm from inner Melbourne, so most people I know voted Green.
Does Australia use STV? We only have 1 member per electorate. We use preference voting. The senate does represent Australia as a whole better because greens have a similar number of senators to their amount of voters, however it isn't perfect because each states selects 12 instead of the whole country selecting 76.
Australia doesn't have STV, it has PV: Preferential Voting where candidates are ranked for a single electorate. This system solves half of the problems of FPP and one I think the UK would like best. There is still one MP for one electorate with no list MPs, but each MP is chosen by actual preferential consensus for each seat. Greens still don't win seats simply because Liberal voters would still rather Labor get the seat than them.
Miles Anderson It's also because Greens are concentrated in Melbourne and surrounding areas so a large part of their vote is spread out around Melbourne.
The Scottish National Party in Scotland got nearly 100% of Scotland's 56 seats, yet gained only 50% of the popular vote. FPTP is a total national disgrace, we need change.
@@enayatchoudhury5431 because who loves it when less than 50% of the population gets the say and everyone else means nothing, brexit party and green party for around 2% each, 0 seats, while another got 0.7 and 7 seats, seems pretty democratic, i assume with this you are a tory
"Government isn't a sport where a singular "winner" must be determined. It's a system to make rules that everyone follows..." Hey man, I just wanted to highlight this sentence. Watched this video when I was new to politics, and this comment really changed my perspective on right vs left and other people. Everyone's voice is equal. Even if you disagree with someone, you gotta recognize their opinion is equal to yours in value, and that's important because we're all affected by the system. It would be wrong if one "team" always won, because that's just a dictatorship where one side doesn't get a voice.
Tell it to the Democrat Party. They haven't accepted an election loss in more than 20 years and this time they've decided they don't need to abide by them anymore when it's trivially easy to cheat and no one on the other side has the guts to stop you.
@@Maxatal Watch Tom Scott's video(s) about electronic voting. A voting machine can be hacked by one lucky individual. Hand counting has bias, but it doesn't scale well. Hand counting _is_ safer than a machine, on a large scale.
nah, 'worst' refers to the misrepresentation error. the 2019 election had 33.4 points of misrepresentation error, that's actually a lot better than 2015.
I see what he’s saying but I just don’t agree. In the end, the party with the most votes in their constituency won that constituency, I see no problem with that, nor do I see how it can even possibly be equated to a dictatorship Edit: Just gonna say this so that I don’t get replied to 3 years later. I intended for this comment to be a joke because I hate yogurt, however I’m terrible at making jokes Edit2: I feel so much regret looking at my old comment, how salty was I?
@@theplushtoywolf1038 He is not saying that FPTP = dictatorship, rather that supporting it just because and only when it benefits the party that you like is like supporting a dictatorship-lite Also the problem is that often the majority of voters want someone else. Getting the most votes doesn't mean that most people support you, and whilst in the letter of the law people vote for their constituency, this doesn't reflect how people actually vote. Case in point: Labour MPs in the north getting voted out specifically because of the unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn even though they are not Corbyn.
Gooscar but by that logic, we would be forced to apply that to every party, and then nothing would ever get done. Just look at the weimar republic, the only way laws were passed was because the president could do whatever he wanted without a need for parliament People only complain about this when it suits them. I hate our Tory mp with a passion, however she was voted in democratically as she had the most votes and I have to accept that I wasn’t saying he flat out called it a dictatorship, but he compared it to dictatorship Thanks for reading my mini-rant
@@gooscarguitar I mean within a country of the UK's population size, FPTP is good for having different states/communities represented. It's also a good way to oppose mob rule.
@@WanukeX More like how the Brexit party basically did not contest the Tory party. I mean it's not the fault of the parties either, it's the fault of the people and the government for not implementing change to the voting system. Not enough people want it and government is too busy with everything else.
Oh CGP Grey, my sweet summer child, this video was the time before Brexit was voted. This parliament fragmentation was nothing compared to the real shitshow that began one year later. And well, then 2020 with Covid-19 and a failing Brexit. History is weird but fascinating, isn't it?
In my country only about 50% of people went vote, and the ruling party got 35% (and formed coalition/ bribed lesser entities to join them to get over 50% in parliament). That means they rule with support of about 20% of the population. Marginally better than monarchy, where only priests and nobles ruled (5%), but still bad... It's not what democracy should be.
Best voting system in Germany: you vote a local representative AND your favorite party. If the party has more second votes than first, it gets more seats and opposite around, the other parties are getting some for having the right relation in parliament But we need to be fair: We learned from the sucking British and American system
But the system isn't perfect. It can lead to a massive growth of the parliament. Without the corrections we would've 598, but it's grown to 709 mandates and it looks like it will continue to grow. There's a massive debate going on, how it's possible to reduce the number again without loosing the the general idea of the system.
That's MMP, Grey has a video on it. It is fairly good in terms of representation. Although STV (like in Australia) seems even a lot better than MMP, because it does not reward spreading hate towards other parties. In an STV system if one party says the other's voters are idiots and traitors, it potentionally loses (2nd, 3rd, 4th) votes. Also, there is no such thing as a "lost vote" in STV (if not done deliberately) so this common form of blackmailing smaller parties' voters becomes a straight up lie.
Regarding FPTP versus PR: Hans-Dietrich Genscher was a member of every single German government between 1969 and 1992. That’s significantly longer than Leonid Brezhnev served as leader of the USSR. Even though his Free Democrat party only polled between 5 and 10 percent of the vote, they exercised a massively disproportionate political influence, because they were the kingmakers, the indispensable partners in any coalition. In 1982 his party tore up a previous agreement with the SPD and suddenly put the CDU into government, apparently at whim. The only way voters could have excluded Genscher from government was if 96% voted with no other purpose than his exclusion - an impossibly high margin.
john skin thing is tho, in 2019 Boris was elected by the Tory party, and not by the people, then put all the people in the cabinet he wanted, basically meaning there has been a coup in the Tory party🤣🤣 Welcome to dictatorship lite I guess
In Canada, we have FptP just like the UK. In our 2019 election, The Liberals won a minority gov't-- with a full 1% less support than the Conservatives. Our main social democratic party the NDP got 15%, but got 8 fewer seats than the separatist Bloc Quebecois, who got 7%. It really is a stupid system, regardless of country
@@macccccc52 Were you waiting for the results and wondering if there's ever been a worse election than this? That's how I got here, 17 minutes after you...
No need to worry about elections here in Bangladesh. The votes are casted the night before the election day. If someone goes to vote, they are told, " You don’t have to bother, your vote has been casted. " How cordial of our government.
True. I am 47 years old and have never ever been represented in parliament. When I was young I lived in a Tory stronghold and was told to vote Lib Dem because Labour had no chance of winning there. Now I am older I vote Green. There is only one Green MP in the whole UK despite many thousands voting Green consistently. We do not live in a democracy.
1:12 Besides the subject of the video, there's some massive disagreement between the countries of the UK. Scotland massively votes "yellow", England massively votes "blue", N. Ireland doesn't have a single majority win for either "Blue" or "yellow" and Wales somewhat surprisingly to me isn't in agreement with England either. How is this union not falling apart after every election? In the case of this 51% "blue", there are 3 countries within the union that are effectively unrepresented. I'm seriously wondering - not trying to stoke any fires, if there are any.
Basically there's not really much difference depending on what party is in charge at the larger national scale. Plus the General Election is pretty much decided by England. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are pretty insignificant when it comes to a General Election. The only thing Scotland can do is just throw the SNP (Yellow) into parliament to be a pain in the ass to the Tories/Conservatives. It gets interesting for Scotland, however, because we have a Devolved Parliament meaning we have a decent bit of control over our own laws and policies, for example Scotland has an entirely different education system from the rest of the UK. Scotland had a chance to go independent a few year back but voted against it 55% against 45% for.
‘Yellow’ have only been this big for less than a decade, Scotland used to be a ‘red’ stronghold with noticeable support for ‘orange’ in the north. N Ireland has a whole other system of parties constantly battling over the existential question of what country to belong to. Wales recognises that it couldn’t survive alone, and usually leans in a similar way to England anyway.
Meanwhile in the Netherlands, where the national parlement is chosen nationaly (basicly the votes you won devided by all the votes) we have to much parties and a government which has more than 50% requiers AT LEAST 5 parties.
@@TheASMRCyclist yes it does, and whatever party wins always loses votes next year cause they can't stick to their promises, since they usually have to co operate with like 3 to 4 other parties.
@@Spearca The EU has no democracy... Germany makes the rules, it's no secret. They even have the balls to attempt to tell the USA what to do now... Wow... They have a short memory. Also 2018 renewable energy investments - US - $65 billion, Germany - $10 billion, UK - $10 billion, so the EU can sign on to our Toronto Agreement since they are so far behind.
This was an amazing video while I like the use of the animal kingdom analogy to avoid pointing your finger or supporting anyone's side, a real world example like this helps put things in a perspective. And you still avoided making any particular side besides the voting system itself look bad which I hugely respect
finally. someone gets it. the uk election system's tactic is essentially to create enough voting to create the illusion of democracy but enough rues and roundabouts to schew the results in favour of the two major parties
I think the best voting system is the german one, basically every "county" votes one represantative and one party, so 50% of the parliament is voted like in brittain and 50% is voted nationwide. So every area is represented, but also the vote is much more fair.
similar in Australia, we have the house of reps and the senate - each electorate votes an mp, and the senate is based on your vote as a nation. the catch, we have preferencial voting. so it's not 1 or the other and actually gives minority parties a chance.
In Québec, the last provincial election in 2018 gave the winning party (CAQ) 74 out of 125 seats with 37.4% of the popular vote. It's ridiculous. The party even promised electoral reform before the election but, seeing as they won because of the flaws in the system, they never brought it up again.
In Malta, we use the Single Transferable Vote system - divided into 13 districts each electing 5 seats for Parliament. Hence for a district majority, a party needs at least 3 seats.
@Suppertimepuss2 Over an Ancient tooth which by law shouldn't have been taken like that. And actually, everyone including me laughed over it cause it's ridiculous.
Canada has the exact same problem. electing local representative for a NATIONAL election. Last election, the Conservatives won the majority with only 40%... I remember when I first got to vote, I was confused by this. I want to vote for the party, not the local rep! All the reps say the same thing and wtf is a local rep going to do for me? Who funds major infrastructural projects? The federal and provincial government! Not the local rep!
I made a similar spreadsheet for the 2018 Mexican general elections. Mexico does not have a first past the post system for the legislature, but a plurinominal representation system. In 2018, nine parties spread out in three alliances participated. Even though around 1% of the population voted for independents, no independent got seats in either chamber of congress. Plurinominal representation means that an specific number of legislative seats are given to political parties to fill at their whim based on the proportion of votes they got in each plurinominal district in the country. Mexico has five plurinominal districts, they range from having 62 constituencies to 54. Each plurinominal district has 40 legislative seats in the lower house. In the upper house, there's only a national list of 32 legislative seats. After the election, the amount of votes each party got is tallied, parties who got less than 3% of the vote are removed, and the 200 lower house and 32 upper house seats are distributed between the rest of the parties. For instance, in 2018 PRI got 17.3% of the popular vote, but only 2.33% of the FPTP legislative seats, then they were awarded 19% of plurinominal seats, so their share of legislators in the lower house grew to 9%. Another example, PES got 18.7% of FPTP legislative seats but only 2.51% of the popular vote, they were no plurinominal seats assigned to them, and as a consequence their share of legislative seats decreased to 11.2% In the case of all parties and political alliances, the plurinominal system reduced the amount of misrepresentation. The misrepresentation error for the lower house of congress was: 35.2% net, and after parliamentary alliances were considered, it went down to 32.5%. Had a FPTP system been used, it would've gone up to 64.9%. The misrepresentation error for the upper house of congress was: 21% net, and after parliamentary alliances were considered, it went down to 19% Had a FPTP system been used, it would've gone up to 67.9%. In the lower house, 300 seats are given out based on FPTP, while 200 are given out through PRS In the upper house, 64 seats are given out based on FPTP, 32 seats are given out to the second place party in each state, and 32 other seats are given through PRS.
"The Wrekin" is pronounced "Reek-in". The British phrase "Going about the Wrekin" means to talk without getting to the point as "The Wrekin" is a large hill in Shropshire, UK.
I suggest combining the constituencies into larger ones that still elect the same total number of representatives. In Norway, the votes for MPs are tallied at the county level, which makes it much easier to get a more representative parliament. In addition, parties who get more than 4% of the votes on the national level, and are under-represented because of the limited number of representatives from each county, are eligible for one of the 19 levelling seats.
Michael Trimmer That's actually incorrect. The larger the district magnitude the more proportional the vote share to seat ratio becomes due to having a lower threshold for gaining a seat. The Netherlands is a PR system with somewhere around 140 seats within one district (the entire country) and it is one of the most proportional systems in the world, and works very effectively (unlike its neighbor Belgium who uses the same system but only slightly different and is a bloody mess).
Michael Trimmer How does that make sense ? Are you maybe refering to the "more than 4%" part ? We have the same system in Iceland and I think that this limit should be removed (that every party that is underrepresented can, if they have enough votes on the national level, be awarded an extra MP form that constituency). The Icelandic/Norwegian/[real name] system can be improved, but must be more representative than fptp (don't have the time to go into it right now, can later if you want to hear my arguments).
Michael Trimmer Parties that get enough votes in one county can still get their seat(s) there, the only thing they aren't eligible for without 4% nationwide is levelling seats.
+Attila the Fun Australia and New Zealand managed to change theirs to something infinitely less terrible, Alternate vote/Instant runoff voting/preferential and Mixed Member proportional respectively. Canada, your turn!
+Cycling in Edmonton from the Eyes of a Teen Yes but at the same time, how the hell would any party actually rule? The answer? They wouldn't. Our parties disagree on almost all points, and if any party could not get a majority, we would be absolutely fucked, especially now that the right-wing is united. Nothing would get done and all the house would do would be argue, argue, argue. Furthermore, the system Trudeau wants is corrupt as fuck. I believe it would result in the Liberals ALWAYS becoming the opposition. I think it is because you must make a first and second (and third?) choice on your ballots, and our PM knows Conservative voters will have to vote Lib as their second choice. Thanks but no thanks. Also, bloc quebecois and green, do we REALLY want them getting more representation?
There's one issue with the presumption that Parliament doesn't represent the population, which is operating on the assumption that everyone votes. If you live in a constituency where your party has 50% (or some amount more) of the support of the constituents, and is facing something like eight other candidates who are equally divided, then the margin of lazy voters has to be ENORMOUS for your candidate to fail, therefore most people who might support a popular party can safely not show up to vote, secure in the knowledge that their candidate will win anyway. Unless the total turnout is very high compared to the number of people who can vote, you can't truly determine if the final parliamentary numbers are actually representative or not.
+midlifecrisi hates Google + It's basically just because not many people understand voting systems and both Labour and the Tory's told people they should vote against it so people did without knowing any better.
+midlifecrisi hates Google + Any major party will convince their voters change is bad. The snp cons and lab all benefit from what we have currently. So they wont vote for change. Libs always want change because that change would benefit them. No politician will vote to lose some of their power. Personally I'd rather the smaller partys got the representation they deserve and earned. While i dont support them, goverment is ment to represent the people. All the people.
I’m not confused. I’ll admit I don’t have a lot of knowledge on politics in the U.K (in case you weren’t aware, schools don’t have the time to teach us everything about every other country on Earth). It’s more overwhelming thinking about how hard it would be to be an independent with this many parties.
@@lietajucemaciatko383 In US politics, independent voters (not to be confused with the independent party) are generally defined as people who completely identify with any political party and/or vote exclusively for a party. Also known as unaffiliated or swing voters. I suppose that might be a bit confusing to anyone who isn’t familiar with US politics, so sorry about the confusion.
If we follow the rule where every candidates represent the majority of the constituency, the govt. will never form and even if it form it will be a weak govt.. It will end up a representative but a weak govt.
***** Are you suggesting that coalition governments will become the norm, and that is a bad thing? Germany has had a coalition government in all but one term since 1949, it's difficult to suggest that German governments have trouble getting things done. They've also enjoyed more political stability (only two early elections since 1949 due to government collapse, the UK has had five in the same period)
But, we're not sure it would work the way it worked for Germany. Though, they have evolved through their election procedure and now they have stable govt., but we all know what were the conditions after when they adopted Weimar Constitution. Things could go worse for UK for what we've now.
Niall Kinsella Well, I am German and can tell you from following the polical landscape for the past 30 years, that shit gets done in a coalition. Germany is only doing OKish with that because they are an economic powerhouse either way, so it is hard to fuck them up badly, but of course they are getting there slowly but surely by now... But I don't wanna label the system as bad anyway, because I am a great believer in that people only get the government they deserve, so fuck them :)
Niall Kinsella Germany's Wiemar Republic (formed after ww1 but abolished when Hitler came to power) used a proportional representative voting system and it failed dramatically. There were constant re- elections, constant coalitions and no-one ever got a majority because too many different parties held seats. Granted the Nazis did actively tried to make politics much harder and none of the parties could think of a way to deal with the depression at the time but the government was still a very weak one.
Joe Fishy The problem you describe has been solved by introducing a 5% hurdle. Parties that fail to reach 5% of the votes don't get seats. This introduces a very moderate misrepresentation error, but avoids the problem of the Weimar Republic.
if i understand correctly a we did have only two main parties till not long ago then a third party came along in the middle taking votes from both the main ones resulting in the terrible mess we have now
We never really have more than three. Previously it was Tory, Labour and Lib Dem (yellow), then Tory, Labour and UKIP (purple). After Brexit there's only really Tory and Labour, and neither is particularly good.
In Canada we have 4 "main" (or at least "well known") national political parties: Conservative, Liberal, NDP (New Democratic Party), and Green Party (a party primarily focused on taking care of the environment, they NEVER win 99.99% of the time). Then we have some smaller parties in each of the Provinces and Territories such as in Quebec who has Bloc Quebecois. These smaller parties are more "locally" focused on the interests/issues pertaining to their own provinces/territories.
Blue - Conservative Red - Labour Orange - Liberal Democrats Yellow - Scottish National Party Green - Either Plaid Cymru, Sinn Féin or Green Party (depending on the shade of green) Purple - United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) Dark Red - DUP Grey - Any lowstream independent party
@@mobilechikane8574 they didn't because lib dems were going to just ignore it so more people didn't want a boris Brexit than did, but of those who didn't it split between second referendum and just ignoring it so boris Brexit had more than second referendum or ignore referendum but wasn't a majority
yep, the system is working great, the majority of people voted conservative and got conservative. The majority of people also voted to leave, and they just got that too. Quite happy with how things are turning out finally.
No need to worry about elections over in Russia
The elections are done so well that the results are already in before people arrive to vote
@@toomanycharacter no
Congratulations to Putin for winning the 2036 election!
@@toomanycharacter Stalin is better
@@BeeBeau That's like saying Mussolini or Mao were better than Hitler.
@@atronite yes
The worst thing about this is that the misrepresentation error has to be fixed by those in power... aka the ones who benefit the most from said error
There are people in Parliament who have an incentive to fix it; their parties got screwed by FPTP, and if they fix it they'll have more power in the future. Unfortunately, by definition, they have less power than the parties who benefit from FPTP...
@@pulli23 Just like Gandhi did when he had King George beheaded.
"Change nothing" versus "full French Revolution" is a false dichotomy if I ever saw one.
@@timothymclean that's basically what OP said
@@timothymclean only the realy small parties, you need to be exceptionally far behind to want it to change (and mean it ) most likely what would have happened if the other large party won they would not complain about it being un fair. We saw this in canada only a few years ago
@@tristenbezayiff571 It's not like the top dogs change *that* much from election to election. There's a pretty consistent tier system, and maybe I'm just projecting Yankee expectations into the wrong political climate for them, but it seems like the lower-tier parties would consistently have motivation to change FPTP.
After this election, this problem is even more acute and the solution seems farther away than ever.
For Reference:
Blue: Conservative.
Red: Labour.
Yellow: SNP (Scottish National Party).
Orange: Liberal Democrats.
Brown: DUP (Democratic Unionist Party).
Dark Green: Sinn Féin (N. Ireland).
Green: Plaid Cymru (Wales).
Light Green: Social Democratic & Labour Party.
Light Blue: Ulster Unionist Party (N. Ireland).
Purple: UKIP (British Independence Party).
Very Light Green: Green Party.
UKIP is UK Independence party and DUP is also N.Ireland but apart from that 👍👍
Thanks so much
How did I know the party that benefited the most was the conservatives before reading this comment? :D
@@seeibe Lol
Back when UKIP was relevant lol
I have to talk to my teacher: You should round up 37% to 51% and that's equals/technical 100%. Sounds good.
yes
Yeah
Majorative vote( most people in the class vote for it no one can contend)
ruined 666 likes
@@thelocalnecromancer1224 road to 999
Meanwhile in the US, we still want more than two real parties
+Joe Mattock Well, Sanders is what the Democrats used to be before money and corporations spoiled that party too
We have more than two parties, Just two popular ones.
Phvro Yeah, I like the Greens
***** I know the Libertarians exist, I just don't particularly like them, never knew there was a socialist party.
Aren't you just adorable!? With all that desire and illusion of personal relevance like everything you were taught to have faith in like Santa or Jesus or Justice was not just a road paved in lies leading you specifically to no where at all in the journey toward death that privileged livestock such as ourselves are afforded such amenities as climate control and gossip mags. How truly divine!
2:53 This isn't election results, it's a traffic light.
Lol
Underrated
what kind of traffic lights you looking at
it's a joke redditors
I CAN'T UNSEE IT!
@@MrKobus-rz4qy reddittors are abolished here
We get a lot of tactical voting as well in the UK, so sometimes we aren’t even picking the party we want to run the country we are just voting against the one we don’t. We have great fun complaining about politics in this country.
Isn’t complaining about politics fun for every country in existence?
@@feister2869 it’s fun and sad at the same time
Borsalino Kizaru yea… especially when talking about usa that laughing stock and I kinda feel bad for those lads
The US in a nutshell!
@@RM-jq5vi a 2 party system is the result of this strategic voting and happens under both fptp and electoral college
I thought parties were meant to be fun...
...wait, how?
I thought they are meant to be so dull that you DON'T pay attention to their schemes.
Lol
Harry Robins Monster Raving Loony is
erejnion r/whooosh
😂
I did the math(s).
2019's error was 34%.
So not as bad as 2015, but much worse than 2017.
what was 2017's
@@fatherfountain1906 About 21%.
time to go back to math class then. lib dem does not equal SNP and neither equal Labour and thus the idea that somehow Labour or LibDem got screwed or that Tories received an outsized majority must assume that voters Lib Dem, SNP, and other minor party voters did not know exactly what they were doing. Those who vote for minor parties are fully aware that it may give and advantage to one of the 2 major parties whom we might align with had our preferred party not been available and we are ok with that both labour and Libdems got what they deserved this round as they dismissed the people they claim to represent and treated them as serfs who are not smart enough to understand politics and thus should simply play along.
Tories consolidated the vote with a large net cast. Lib Dems and Labour divided their own constituencies and each-others and lost it all.
in 2019 however tories did actually recieve a majority vote, so their majority representation is proportionate. no party really matters if they have less that 50% of seats, which is why the 2016 government was useless (no party had a majority)
Damn crazy how the Tories lost their majority in the election that most accurately represented what people actually want
this is why I like the German two-prong system - one vote for the local M.P., one vote for the party in your state, calculated together with (hideously complicated calculation rules I'm not geoing to get into) to get as close to representation of the votes as possible, while letting local politicans that might be really popular in their area win seats, without disenfranchising smaller parties
That sounds an awful lot like MMP - one of the voting systems Grey mentions at the end. My country (Canada) has been trying to implement that for a while, but the party in power never wants it.
@@hoodiesticks See that's kind of the depressing thing about Canadian politics. The only party that stands to benefit from it's removal is the NDP because the Bloc Quebecois skyrockets their representation error and heading into the September elections, the party in power is a minority government because they won more seats via FPTP despite the second most vote totals.
@@hoodiesticks It is MMP
However, in Poland we have utterly system in contrast to British one, there are many people who want to ....change it like the British. What;s more, there's party having one-mandate region system as the main political objective.
@@ManOfTheWeek596 it’s not exactly mmp. With mmp you give half the seats to the local representatives and give the other half to the parties according to the result of the second vote. In Germany the second vote alone decides how many seats a party gets and then the local representatives fill up those spots together with the candidates on the list if there are spots left. It’s only a difference in technicality though
“Government isn’t a sport where a singular winner must be determined”
US: well yes but actually no
The us wasn’t intended to be two party in fact the founders despised it.
@@strategygaming5830 it wasn't intended for the federal government to have so much power over the states.
Thats the same in Canada where Trudeau did not even get most votes.
@@happyfase also true.
@@strategygaming5830 not true, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson actually supported it.
CGP Grey 2015: "Why the UK Election Results are the Worst in History"
Theresa May 2017: Hold my tea
gold
My tea lol
coffee is my tea
I love how you said Hold my tea instead of beer
Um actually, using the 'misrepresentation error' method in the video it was one of the 'best'. Conservative (blue) and Labour (red) got 82.4% of the vote and 89.1% of the seats. The misrepresentation error was only 17.4%, the lowest in over 50 years.
That's right world, all of our parties are named after a colour!
Rambi Ninethousand I vote greenish purple
come on folks, vote GP! -PG-
Bram06 Purplish green is far superior to greenish purple you fool!
Lock Ray I must say, I do like their idea of reestablishing slavery...
Rambi Ninethousand At least by using colors, it's easy for someone who's not British to understand the video easily, and the people who actually know about British politics can easily attach names to the colors.
Rambi Ninethousand color*
So in the U.K. 37% rounds up to 100% pretty much?
Some how
Once again, British numbers confuse Americans.
@@hella_cool1312 I believe it is the same in many American states.
No. Not like you think.
Just like it does in the US. The founding fathers forgot to fix that when they were changing the shit they inherited from the UK.
I think the degree of misrepresentation error is about to skyrocket with today's election. Based on the polls, I can already see that "Fareham and Waterlooville" is expected to have an error of 140.6pp. Southport is expected to go from its place at the bottom with 138pp of error to 101.3pp. Belfast South (now Belfast South and Mid Down) will "improve" to 118pp.
Edit: The misrepresentation error nationally is ~58.3pp.
The map of the U.K. in american movies: 0:56
they dont teach us shit about the UK in the USA. most people don't know the difference between the UK, Great Britain, and England is here.
Kevin Ndayishimiye Had to rack my brain a lil bit but correct me if I’m wrong. UK is what it is today (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland). Great Britain is all of the British Isles ( the whole island of Ireland and England Scotland and Wales.) England is just one part of the U.K.
Sam the Sheeopoll I swear in America all you get taught is fucking patriotism
Sam the Sheeopoll no the uk is the country but Great Britain is the nation but yes uk is made of Northern Ireland England Scotland and Wales to form the nation and country
Northern Ireland*
This video is terrible if you're colorblind
So are pie charts in general.
The video is terrible full stop. A load of leftist loser shite!
Mick.T. Shaft pardon?
@@argumengenichyperloquaciou4115 Oi! Florence Nightingale first used them to prove that British soldiers needed better medical treatment.
Only the British or the Japanese or the Japanobritainican Roaring Lion of the Rising sun say "oi!"
Weird Americans, too, but they usually just catch British when they visit the UK. The dialects are like a plague.
this has basically happened again but more extreme
So I have voted at every opportunity since 1979, I have never had an MP, County Councillor, District Councillor, Town or Parish Councillor that reflected my politics. I have had MEP (members of the European parliament) who represented me because they were elected proportionately.
I like Single Transferable Vote (STV) which is used for elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly - very few wasted votes, works out close to exactly proportional, and gives you a choice even within the party you support. You can access the results online - you can see each round as the votes get redistributed - very interesting. The reason they have it was to try and accurately reflect opinion in a very divided community.
Appreciate someone recognises out absolute skill to have a government that doesn't fall apart...mostly
Very true aswell if we didn't get proper representation the troubles would happen again if any side thought the other side was getting an unfair advantage
Good thing I live in America. wait
Eh could be worse
Lol
America is bad as well. U know if in America it wasn’t points but votes Donald trump would of lost
Haha! Loser! Wait, fuck I live there too.
@@mxn4719 he said it as a joke
Key (for non-brits):
Blue: Conservative
Red: Labour (This is England, so it has a U)
Orange: Liberal Democrat
Yellow: Scottish National Party
Purple: United Kingdom Independence Party
Green: ...Green.
The rest don't matter.
Comments disabled because flame war.
GlitchyShadow13
Green in Wales: Plaid Cymru
Light blue: Ulster Unionists
Dark green: Sinn Fein
Light green: SDLP, a nationalist party in NI
Red in NI: Democratic Unionist Party
GlitchyShadow13 You could have stoped at red and blue.
GlitchyShadow13 That makes it look like the Irish nationalist constituencies are where the green party won haha...
GlitchyShadow13 correction, Purple: Racists
GlitchyShadow13 a better key for americans
Blue = Republicans Red = Democrats Orange = Liberal Democrats + Liberal Republicans Purple = Tea Party
East Ham sounds like a delicious place to live.
I live there, ironically it's majority Muslim (me being one of them)
You will find alot of curry shops though.
*****
It then logically follows that the non-Muslims have all the ham they could ever dream of eating, and then some.
+JustOneAsbesto ham in curry does taste good
mvpmickey1
But it's not halal.
If the UK election results are crazy, just check up the results of Indian election which is way crazier. The ruling party got 55.8% seats when their vote share was 37.3%.
Yup we are the country that needs to abolish this the most
Japan be like:
These videos are like crack. Just one more hit before bed...
I don't think that's how crack works, not a lot of sleeping after a hit :P
that's the point, I guess
Ehh, I'll play for 5 mins...
[2 hours later]
2 hours have passed already?
I ended up learning a lot about Queen Lion
no he is a false Omnissiah
Homer talking to Bart: "Worst election...so far!"
Comic book guy
The whole analysis is idiotic it kinda pisses me off actually.
@@jaywogan168 why?
"voting needs to be fairer and representative"
"thank god ukip got no representation"
- a lefty
I agree the voting system needs a massive overhaul. But then again fuck ukip.
Jack Penman yeah fuck controlled immigration and fuck putting this country and its people first, yeah!
Patriotism is weird.
FUCK YEAH THIS LITTLE BIT OF DIRT AND MY COLOURED PIECE OF CLOTH ARE WAY BETTER THAN YOURS. NO YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COME TO MY PIECE OF DIRT
Because I'm not a nationalist am i
Jack Penman in an idealistic world there would be no such things as countries and we'd all get along happily ever after but sadly that isn't reality, if you go to another country, guess what, you're going to be treated like a foreigner and other countries put their citizens first.
Watching this in the US, in 2020, to remind myself that other countries have terrible electoral systems too.
The British system works pretty well most of the time. We vote, at 10pm the exit poll tells us who won, we go to bed, and when we wake up the next morning the result is confirmed. Counting is all finished in less than 24 hours. Following the US Presidential Election, that system seems like a big messy farce.
It would look like this in the US if people actually bothered to vote 3rd party
True democracy is just as evil as a dictatorship. Go read up on why we have electoral systems. Think about it, Russia is a democracy and Hitler was voted in as well. I reckon that the people who designed the governmental process put more thought into it that every single person that's wants a popular vote. Ironically its the exact same reason why we are republics. Voters are stupid. Period.
@@Kinnectxfollower Hitler was voted in, then he abolished democracy. Democracy is more about being able to vote someone out.
@basjqnatsks Russia was never an actual democracy, there have been election fraud since day one, and Hitler's takeover would've been impossible in most modern democracies because they have contingency laws precisely to avoid a tyrant from abolishing democracy (requiring more than simple majority to pass constitutional reforms, free and nonpartisan court system etc).
Democracy isn't perfect but it's the only system that makes the leaders of the country accountable for their actions, forcing them to obey the will of the people in at least some way. All other systems will see the ruler use all of their power to benefit themselves and not the people. Benevolent dictators (or oligarchs) do not exist
For people saying the 2019 got it even worse: You're wrong!
2015:
Tories' 37% of votes were boosted to 51% of seats (13.9% misrepresentation)
Labour had 5.2% misrepresentation, UKIP 12.5%, LD 6.7%, SNP 3.9%, Greens 3.6% and others about 2% combined, making it 47.6% in total.
2019:
Tories' 44% of votes were boosted to 56% of seats (12.6% misrepresentation)
Labour had 1.1 misrepresentation, LD 9.9%, LD 3.5%, Greens 2.5% and others (I suppose) about 2% combined. That should be around 32% if I count correctly. That is around 15% better than 2015. Also note that each and every big party had a smaller representation error in 2019 than in 2015, only further confirming the numbers.
erni muja Not necessarily, many countries in Europe use proportional representation and have functioning governments, as the parties learn to compromise and cooperate to get things done. Many of the uk’s problems with hung parliaments happened because the largest party acted like they had a majority
@erni muja No because once parties realise they'll NEVER win a majority then they're forced to work together co-operatively; see most of europe
@erni muja France has a variety on FPTP, Italy mixes FPTP and proportional representation, and Germany is perfectly stable. There seems to be an inverse relation going on here.
tony blair need we say more who cry then no one on the left
@erni muja Spain is on the verge of a third vote in the same election cycle because the parties can't compromise and make pacts.
Would you mind updating this?
The 2019 result was better
@@fatherfountain1906 no it wasnt, it was even worse
@@succhiatoredelcazzo4689 no it wasn't the misrepresentation error was 32%
@@fatherfountain1906 mk, still horrible however
@@succhiatoredelcazzo4689 yea its horrible im really disappointed labour didnt get pwned harder
Coming from an American where there are two choices, shit or shitter.
Are you brother of Andy Murray?
Atleast you have Sanders, although wall street tries to put him down.
No, we have the _illusion_ of Sanders. It's going to be either Clinton or Trump.
Jerkwad152 Where's your resistance then? I wonder what happens when Sanders finally loses. Will American people just sit down and do nothing? I'm really curious.
+Flattered Papyrus It's more complicated than that.
Whenever I bring up the nightmare that is FPTP to my dad, one of the things he'll counter with it "So you'd want to give UKIP power in parliament?" to which my answer is YES
You can't support a system just because it screws over the people you don't like, because that very same system can screw you over just as easily, but only then will you cry foul and demand change.
Well, fight UKIP with the Lib Dems I guess. There could be some very interesting fights.
Yeah even if UKIP is discusting, aka facism, almost nazism, they still got a voice innit.
"The Wrekin" is pronounced reeking as in "you reek"
P.s yes, I do live there.
wrekin boys
I live in Spelthorne, which is just below Wrekin in terms of accurate representation.
So you reckon, "Wrekin," should be reckoned as, "reekin'." Got it.
@@bug5654 If you don't reckon it that way, you're wreckin' the Wrekin.
boris win with super majority
Funny how you call the Tories "team blue" and Labour "team red" 😂
Dottoman maybe the tories should be red too to represent the bloodshed they cause from police and NHS cuts
KenzoTenma _ no Corbyn has a rainbow coloured flag to represent all his dream ‘policies’ he will implement when he will become PM like getting rid of the royal family
@Dottoman lmao free healthcare and shit = CZOMMINUsm
@@poison9795 no John Mcdonald and Momentum self labelling themselves as Marxist =Communist
Ummm, I'm pretty sure it's always been like that- conservatives have been associated with the color blue for decades (at least) because of their association with aristocracy/royalty while Labour has always been in red because of it having more socialist/anti-monarchical leanings it's only in the US that it's flipped because red was used for Republicans and blue for Democrats in the 2000 election and the colors just stuck in everybody's heads because of how drawn out it was
But why did the UK reject the alternative vote referendum in 2011?
I can't think of a single valid reason why first post the post would be preferable.
it was because of media fear mongering on the subject
Slightly Salted Tacos Well apparently you are completely right about that.
When opponents come with things like this:
"The Alternative Vote is a complicated, expensive and unfair system that gives some people more votes than others. It might sound like a small change but the danger is in the detail -- it's a politicians' fix.
Governments would be selected through backroom deals and people would have no control over where their vote goes. It should be voters that decide who the best candidate is, not the voting system. Defend one person, one vote. Vote NO to AV on 5 May."
Than you know how people vote has nothing to do with actual reality.
AV is neither complicated, expensive or unfair. It does nothing to cause more backroom deals and IT GIVES EVERY PERSON ONE VOTE.
PROPAGANDA.
I tell you what after the alternative vote referendum and the recent brexit referendum I truly believe most of my countrymen are incapable of thinking for themselves. People don't realize that its not the medias jib to tell the truth and so they believe it all without looking it up. I had to explain to my own grandparents that a referendum isn't a vote its just a large scale poll and they didn't believe me.
Proportional representation was framed (by the ruling party) as producing weak coalition governments that were ineffectual, despite the fact that the coalition government at the time (admittedly, the first one to last a full term) was working reasonably well.
As someone from the UK, I knew this all already, but it was a really well done video that would be very informative to people from outside the UK! Well done!
Ah, I remember watching this and thinking "Wow, Canadian elections could never be that bad"
Boy was I wrong
Canadian elections are fine
John Wayne They might be, but our Prime Minister isn’t
True have you seen his Gotie
True but you guys don't elect your senate :/ (I really shouldn't be talking tho, I'm from the US and our legislature and electoral college aren't exactly representative either...)
Eric Cholico Actually the US Senate is more representative then the Canadian Senate. You guys at least have the electoral college and various other mechanisms that allow for an at least somewhat representative Senate. However, in Canada the Governor-General (on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen) appoints all Senators on the advice of the Prime Minister. Yours are indirectly elected, while ours are appointed.
Germany has a great system: In the election for the parliament you have 2 votes: One for the local representative and one for a party. The local representatives are guaranteed a seat in the parliament, but the whole parliament has to be divided between the parties as close as possible to the results of the 2nd vote. The parties with too few seats just get more.
That way the parliament represents the whole country while people can still choose between local representatives.
Bibbedibob that's what I thought as well. At first it looked like the British one works like that as well, but somehow they messed up majorly somewhere along the lines
***** calling the CDU far left is absurd, for example: they oppose same sex marriage while other parties such as Linke or Grüne support it
Yeah, just forget about the christianity in the name of your party and let them die slowly in the mess you have supported, in the end its their fault to suffer, they could have chosen to be born in america!
That's called MMP, which is a good voting system.
Lol it seems the parties in Germany just like parties all around the world, don't give a fuck about ideologies anymore lol
"Why the UK Election Results are the Worst in History"
This has aged like fine wine. The 2015 election was the crack in the septic tank that burst wide open.
What happened In 2015?
@@aprofessionalgamer5355 The Conservative Party ran on a manifesto of offering a referendum on UK membership of the EU, despite the leader David Cameron having no intention of seeing such a process to the end, and then won a majority of seats.
@@Ivytheherbert just gonna pretend I understand all that thanks.
@@aprofessionalgamer5355 Maybe, but we mustn't forget, that the beggar who is sitting in the market place, he is completely deaf, in so much as far as listening to the song that is coming from the mockingbird, is concerned.
@@Ivytheherbert are the conservatives like the UK version of Republicans? I don't follow brit politics so idk
Belfast South's MP got
The UK did have a vote for people to decide on whether or not it should switch to AV.
Funnily enough, the two parties that are kept in power by FPTP campaigned against it to the extreme. Yay.
🤦♂
Yeah we need to pull a whigs on one of the parties, see how they will argue then
AV wasn't proportional representation. This is often used as a counter argument to PR but its not valid at all.
AV wouldn't change much in this case, maybe it could be good for a presidential election but it really doesn't solve the problem when electing seats to the parliment. MMP or STV is the way to go here.
Labour did not campaign against it
"Democracy."
Good thing Sweden is using a system where each party gets the number of seats proportional to the votes they got. 20% of the votes = 20% of the power.
still happy with my democracy in swizerland
and hi there my neutral friend
Sweden is also using a system where ISIS members who return to sweden get driver's licenses and housing opportunities, so, you know, take that with a grain of salt.
Ærik Bjørnsson Not relevant to democracy. Your opinion is not relevant.
Erik Holgersson
sort of is though, because when Sverige is under Sharia Law in 50 years, there won't be any democracy
FPTP also reinforces regional divides in the UK. In Scotland, the SNP got ~50% if the vote but ~95% if the seats, meaning that Scottish unionists have almost no voice in parliament despite making up half of the population. People in the mostly rural Home Counties were seemingly all Conservative except for university towns like Oxford and Exeter, while most of Wales, London and the other major Northern cities (Manchester, Leeds etc.) were seemingly all Labour. This is, of course, misrepresentative of the populations of these areas as a whole.
At a time when the geographic divisions of the UK are stronger than ever, FPTP is making them even worse.
Trial by combat on a local election level. Winner progresses to next level. Winner becomes prime minister. Televise it.
I second this man's motion
The ayes have it.
Purple was UKIP wasn't it?
kacper szyniec I believe it is
Yes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MPs_elected_in_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010
Yep.
As one who understand UK political parties (mostly, here's my guess)-
Blue: Tories
Red: Labour
Yellow: SNP
Orange: Lib Dems
Purple: UKIP
Green: Greens
Light Brown: DUP
Dark Green: Plaid Cymru
Forest Green: Sinn Fein
Gray: Independents
Light Green: UUP
yep
Government is not a sport! I keep saying that every time I get the chance. Thanks CGPGrey!
Common problem in elections when you have geographic representation - which can have its upside, but as the video points out, if electoral districts have historic or engineered electoral imbalances, such that nation-wide minorities eke out wins of majorities in enough low-population areas to overcome the wide margins of nationwide majorities in high population areas, then the minority stays in power. Ultimate solution: minorities have to turn out more to vote in those close seats - and this did not seem to happen in the UK's last election cycle.
+John Blossom Proportional representation with multi-member constituencies solves the problem: you have local representation and at the same time (almost) everyone who voted in any constituency gets fairly represented in the Parliament...
az929292 In a perfect world, perhaps, but good luck getting enough green benches! To me, turnout is the key - when people care about elections, then generally the right things happen, because the elected know that the voters are aware.
That rather depends on how big you want the constituencies to be. Having grown up in a full-on PR country I don't see the point of local representation at the national level at all, but even if you do want to have it, constituencies could be much larger than they currently are, as there is no way that the difference between one part of, say, Sheffield and another part of Sheffield have such vastly different local wants and needs that they need to vote separately.
+Robert Faber I am not saying that it's right for all nations, but this is where the U.S. concept of Federalism comes in handy. You can be big and small. In New England, many towns are still governed by direct representation, in addition to the Federal/State system. But it's all moot if corporation co-opt it all...
We (I'm British) had a referendum to see weather we should change to a more 'fair' voting system in 2010/2012 and it got rejected.
whether*
@@thehiddenninja3428 Yes, we usually only see 'weather' and 'fair' in the same sentence when it's wrong.
Thanks!
It appears this video was taken as a challenge...
I voted! My vote made precisely zero percent difference to the outcome!
neildKoR Yeah, that argument for voting sucks.
Harry Strong No it doesn't...
neildKoR And? You don't always win do you?
Harry Strong Indeed, the only time this 'argument' if you can even call it that matters is if you live in a safe constituency where you're voting against the holders.
neildKoR It did make a difference: Every vote without representation is a prove for the broken election system. Your vote will have a long therm benefit for your country.
(I hope you have independent judges in the UK - in Switzerland, we have the issue that the government can choice the judges in the highest courts - kind of an issue when the voting system is the case to be decided...)
Oh, I thought you were going to make a video on how the Tories are going to fuck everything up.
Itzzwan Everyone knows that already.
Itzzwan enventhough they are fixing the mess that was left by Labour
Emperor Seals who were fixing the mess left by the Tories. It's all a matter of perspective.
luke nisbet there was no mess to fix when tony blair got in power
I wasn't alive then i'm just guessing
The core problem is the "winner take all" outcome. You can use the best voting system possible to make outcomes less unrepresented (which is yes/no for each candidate) but you will ultimately not represent everyone, just whichever group is largest.
do you have any thoughts on the recent Australian federal election?
with approximately 11% of the national vote going to our Greens party, yet only receiving 1 of the 150 seat in the House of Representatives, and the whole mess with potential minority governments. Don't forget Australia does use a STV voting system, and has mandatory voting
The best way to think of STV is that it provides the solution that minimizes dissatisfaction, and the Greens are such a polarizing party that while 11% of people voted for them, most of the country voted for "anybody but them". At least, that's what I assume happened - I'm from inner Melbourne, so most people I know voted Green.
Does Australia use STV? We only have 1 member per electorate. We use preference voting. The senate does represent Australia as a whole better because greens have a similar number of senators to their amount of voters, however it isn't perfect because each states selects 12 instead of the whole country selecting 76.
Zanlo
preference voting IS stv... if number one doesnt get it, your Single Vote Transfers down your list to number 2......
Australia doesn't have STV, it has PV: Preferential Voting where candidates are ranked for a single electorate. This system solves half of the problems of FPP and one I think the UK would like best. There is still one MP for one electorate with no list MPs, but each MP is chosen by actual preferential consensus for each seat.
Greens still don't win seats simply because Liberal voters would still rather Labor get the seat than them.
Miles Anderson It's also because Greens are concentrated in Melbourne and surrounding areas so a large part of their vote is spread out around Melbourne.
The Scottish National Party in Scotland got nearly 100% of Scotland's 56 seats, yet gained only 50% of the popular vote. FPTP is a total national disgrace, we need change.
Anyone here after the 2019 UK election?
Thanks RUclips algorithm
Sam Derbyshire seems like it’s in everyone’s recommended
Yup
Heyo! Hung Parliament is worthless, so representation doesn't help!
@@enayatchoudhury5431 because who loves it when less than 50% of the population gets the say and everyone else means nothing, brexit party and green party for around 2% each, 0 seats, while another got 0.7 and 7 seats, seems pretty democratic, i assume with this you are a tory
"Government isn't a sport where a singular "winner" must be determined. It's a system to make rules that everyone follows..."
Hey man, I just wanted to highlight this sentence. Watched this video when I was new to politics, and this comment really changed my perspective on right vs left and other people.
Everyone's voice is equal. Even if you disagree with someone, you gotta recognize their opinion is equal to yours in value, and that's important because we're all affected by the system. It would be wrong if one "team" always won, because that's just a dictatorship where one side doesn't get a voice.
Tell it to the Democrat Party. They haven't accepted an election loss in more than 20 years and this time they've decided they don't need to abide by them anymore when it's trivially easy to cheat and no one on the other side has the guts to stop you.
@@RedSiegfried you seem like the kind of guy who thinks hand counting is safer than a machine. Hint: only one of those has bias.
@@Maxatal Watch Tom Scott's video(s) about electronic voting. A voting machine can be hacked by one lucky individual. Hand counting has bias, but it doesn't scale well. Hand counting _is_ safer than a machine, on a large scale.
@@Woodside235 I’m sure cash is safer than our entire credit system too. How about you never use electronic money again?
In a dictatorship it's not a case of one side doesn't get a voice, it's a case of the majority doesn't get a voice.
This video title is just aging like milk, huh?
nah, 'worst' refers to the misrepresentation error. the 2019 election had 33.4 points of misrepresentation error, that's actually a lot better than 2015.
I see what he’s saying but I just don’t agree. In the end, the party with the most votes in their constituency won that constituency, I see no problem with that, nor do I see how it can even possibly be equated to a dictatorship
Edit: Just gonna say this so that I don’t get replied to 3 years later. I intended for this comment to be a joke because I hate yogurt, however I’m terrible at making jokes
Edit2: I feel so much regret looking at my old comment, how salty was I?
@@theplushtoywolf1038
He is not saying that FPTP = dictatorship, rather that supporting it just because and only when it benefits the party that you like is like supporting a dictatorship-lite
Also the problem is that often the majority of voters want someone else. Getting the most votes doesn't mean that most people support you, and whilst in the letter of the law people vote for their constituency, this doesn't reflect how people actually vote. Case in point: Labour MPs in the north getting voted out specifically because of the unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn even though they are not Corbyn.
Gooscar but by that logic, we would be forced to apply that to every party, and then nothing would ever get done.
Just look at the weimar republic, the only way laws were passed was because the president could do whatever he wanted without a need for parliament
People only complain about this when it suits them. I hate our Tory mp with a passion, however she was voted in democratically as she had the most votes and I have to accept that
I wasn’t saying he flat out called it a dictatorship, but he compared it to dictatorship
Thanks for reading my mini-rant
@@gooscarguitar I mean within a country of the UK's population size, FPTP is good for having different states/communities represented. It's also a good way to oppose mob rule.
2019 election: hold my beer
smh it's political violence time
@@slaughterround643 ready the milkshakes
*mosin nagants
Technicly 2019s Misrepresentation Error is Lower than 2015s. mostly because of how terrible the Brexit Party did.
@@WanukeX More like how the Brexit party basically did not contest the Tory party.
I mean it's not the fault of the parties either, it's the fault of the people and the government for not implementing change to the voting system. Not enough people want it and government is too busy with everything else.
I wouldn't be surprised if FPTP is correlated with low voter turnout.
It is - why bother voting if you don´t fit the Tory/Republican or Labour/Democrat mold?
I actually did an analysis on this and while it's not statistically proven, there is quite a correlation.
Mattias Sollerman Referendum had an over 70% turnout.
some body that would seem to imply that turnout increases when people are confident that their vote isn't wasted
rhysepoos yep.
Oh CGP Grey, my sweet summer child, this video was the time before Brexit was voted. This parliament fragmentation was nothing compared to the real shitshow that began one year later. And well, then 2020 with Covid-19 and a failing Brexit. History is weird but fascinating, isn't it?
The election he's referring to actually had less misrepresentation than Brexit
Same in India.
The present ruling party got just 31% of national votes.
In my country only about 50% of people went vote, and the ruling party got 35% (and formed coalition/ bribed lesser entities to join them to get over 50% in parliament). That means they rule with support of about 20% of the population.
Marginally better than monarchy, where only priests and nobles ruled (5%), but still bad... It's not what democracy should be.
Shut up idiot, they won most of the seats. It is one of the highest vote shrare in history. Don't use stupid statistics to deceive.
@@hollyholm4481 "don't use maths and logic, my feelings are importantier"
Well a few hundred years of colonial rule tends to do that to a country. Or if you will "the apple does not fall far from the tree"
Best voting system in Germany: you vote a local representative AND your favorite party. If the party has more second votes than first, it gets more seats and opposite around, the other parties are getting some for having the right relation in parliament
But we need to be fair: We learned from the sucking British and American system
But the system isn't perfect. It can lead to a massive growth of the parliament.
Without the corrections we would've 598, but it's grown to 709 mandates and it looks like it will continue to grow. There's a massive debate going on, how it's possible to reduce the number again without loosing the the general idea of the system.
Also in the Netherlands
That's MMP, Grey has a video on it. It is fairly good in terms of representation. Although STV (like in Australia) seems even a lot better than MMP, because it does not reward spreading hate towards other parties. In an STV system if one party says the other's voters are idiots and traitors, it potentionally loses (2nd, 3rd, 4th) votes. Also, there is no such thing as a "lost vote" in STV (if not done deliberately) so this common form of blackmailing smaller parties' voters becomes a straight up lie.
Regarding FPTP versus PR:
Hans-Dietrich Genscher was a member of every single German government between 1969 and 1992. That’s significantly longer than Leonid Brezhnev served as leader of the USSR.
Even though his Free Democrat party only polled between 5 and 10 percent of the vote, they exercised a massively disproportionate political influence, because they were the kingmakers, the indispensable partners in any coalition. In 1982 his party tore up a previous agreement with the SPD and suddenly put the CDU into government, apparently at whim.
The only way voters could have excluded Genscher from government was if 96% voted with no other purpose than his exclusion - an impossibly high margin.
@@z167-v8u because no one votes for the party they fully like
2015:I have some of the worst election results
2019: hold my beer
john skin thing is tho, in 2019 Boris was elected by the Tory party, and not by the people, then put all the people in the cabinet he wanted, basically meaning there has been a coup in the Tory party🤣🤣 Welcome to dictatorship lite I guess
Unfortunately this is true
In Canada, we have FptP just like the UK. In our 2019 election, The Liberals won a minority gov't-- with a full 1% less support than the Conservatives. Our main social democratic party the NDP got 15%, but got 8 fewer seats than the separatist Bloc Quebecois, who got 7%. It really is a stupid system, regardless of country
john skin Hold my Tea
@@macccccc52 Were you waiting for the results and wondering if there's ever been a worse election than this? That's how I got here, 17 minutes after you...
No need to worry about elections here in Bangladesh. The votes are casted the night before the election day. If someone goes to vote, they are told, " You don’t have to bother, your vote has been casted. " How cordial of our government.
True. I am 47 years old and have never ever been represented in parliament. When I was young I lived in a Tory stronghold and was told to vote Lib Dem because Labour had no chance of winning there. Now I am older I vote Green. There is only one Green MP in the whole UK despite many thousands voting Green consistently. We do not live in a democracy.
Still though, support bases for all parties are growing. The likelihood of another Labour win is steadily increasing.
Josie Fox we need to implement PR ASAP
My MP is Green
1:12
Besides the subject of the video, there's some massive disagreement between the countries of the UK. Scotland massively votes "yellow", England massively votes "blue", N. Ireland doesn't have a single majority win for either "Blue" or "yellow" and Wales somewhat surprisingly to me isn't in agreement with England either. How is this union not falling apart after every election? In the case of this 51% "blue", there are 3 countries within the union that are effectively unrepresented.
I'm seriously wondering - not trying to stoke any fires, if there are any.
Basically there's not really much difference depending on what party is in charge at the larger national scale. Plus the General Election is pretty much decided by England. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are pretty insignificant when it comes to a General Election. The only thing Scotland can do is just throw the SNP (Yellow) into parliament to be a pain in the ass to the Tories/Conservatives.
It gets interesting for Scotland, however, because we have a Devolved Parliament meaning we have a decent bit of control over our own laws and policies, for example Scotland has an entirely different education system from the rest of the UK. Scotland had a chance to go independent a few year back but voted against it 55% against 45% for.
‘Yellow’ have only been this big for less than a decade, Scotland used to be a ‘red’ stronghold with noticeable support for ‘orange’ in the north. N Ireland has a whole other system of parties constantly battling over the existential question of what country to belong to. Wales recognises that it couldn’t survive alone, and usually leans in a similar way to England anyway.
Scotland wales an Ni pretty much govern themselves and in England in 2019 47‰ voted Tory which would achieve a majority in any electoral system.
Meanwhile in the Netherlands, where the national parlement is chosen nationaly (basicly the votes you won devided by all the votes) we have to much parties and a government which has more than 50% requiers AT LEAST 5 parties.
I assume that creates a lot of delays in lawmaking?
@@TheASMRCyclist yes it does, and whatever party wins always loses votes next year cause they can't stick to their promises, since they usually have to co operate with like 3 to 4 other parties.
@@Spearca The EU has no democracy... Germany makes the rules, it's no secret. They even have the balls to attempt to tell the USA what to do now... Wow... They have a short memory.
Also 2018 renewable energy investments - US - $65 billion, Germany - $10 billion, UK - $10 billion, so the EU can sign on to our Toronto Agreement since they are so far behind.
The fuck are you even talking about?
pure bs the current dutch government is comprised of 4 parties.....
This was an amazing video while I like the use of the animal kingdom analogy to avoid pointing your finger or supporting anyone's side, a real world example like this helps put things in a perspective. And you still avoided making any particular side besides the voting system itself look bad which I hugely respect
finally. someone gets it. the uk election system's tactic is essentially to create enough voting to create the illusion of democracy but enough rues and roundabouts to schew the results in favour of the two major parties
I think the best voting system is the german one, basically every "county" votes one represantative and one party, so 50% of the parliament is voted like in brittain and 50% is voted nationwide. So every area is represented, but also the vote is much more fair.
germany has a voting system? im pretty sure they have a dictator for life.
@@drawapretzel6003 Uh, no
similar in Australia, we have the house of reps and the senate - each electorate votes an mp, and the senate is based on your vote as a nation.
the catch, we have preferencial voting. so it's not 1 or the other and actually gives minority parties a chance.
"Why 2015 election results are the worst in history"
2019: "hold my beer"
2015 was wayyy worse. 2019 was just a clear up of the last election.
2019 was only bad if you're one of the 4 people left who still like Corbyn lmao
it's more like hold my election
@@silverhost9782 Or one of the 130,000 people who died needlessly from Covid.
@@michaelcoward1902 That implies that they wouldn't have died if Labour had won... which is pretty funny man
In Québec, the last provincial election in 2018 gave the winning party (CAQ) 74 out of 125 seats with 37.4% of the popular vote. It's ridiculous. The party even promised electoral reform before the election but, seeing as they won because of the flaws in the system, they never brought it up again.
Well it is going to referendum at the same time as the next election.
In Malta, we use the Single Transferable Vote system - divided into 13 districts each electing 5 seats for Parliament. Hence for a district majority, a party needs at least 3 seats.
@Suppertimepuss2 Over an Ancient tooth which by law shouldn't have been taken like that. And actually, everyone including me laughed over it cause it's ridiculous.
Canada has the exact same problem. electing local representative for a NATIONAL election. Last election, the Conservatives won the majority with only 40%...
I remember when I first got to vote, I was confused by this. I want to vote for the party, not the local rep! All the reps say the same thing and wtf is a local rep going to do for me? Who funds major infrastructural projects? The federal and provincial government! Not the local rep!
I know
It's not quite as bad considering we only have 3 major parties.
mEHpleSyrup
We have only 3 parties because we have a crappy voting system.
+bananian You got the system from Britain which is why you have similar problems.
I personally really like that Londoners don't unilaterally decide of who to send to parliament
I made a similar spreadsheet for the 2018 Mexican general elections. Mexico does not have a first past the post system for the legislature, but a plurinominal representation system. In 2018, nine parties spread out in three alliances participated. Even though around 1% of the population voted for independents, no independent got seats in either chamber of congress.
Plurinominal representation means that an specific number of legislative seats are given to political parties to fill at their whim based on the proportion of votes they got in each plurinominal district in the country.
Mexico has five plurinominal districts, they range from having 62 constituencies to 54. Each plurinominal district has 40 legislative seats in the lower house. In the upper house, there's only a national list of 32 legislative seats.
After the election, the amount of votes each party got is tallied, parties who got less than 3% of the vote are removed, and the 200 lower house and 32 upper house seats are distributed between the rest of the parties.
For instance, in 2018 PRI got 17.3% of the popular vote, but only 2.33% of the FPTP legislative seats, then they were awarded 19% of plurinominal seats, so their share of legislators in the lower house grew to 9%.
Another example, PES got 18.7% of FPTP legislative seats but only 2.51% of the popular vote, they were no plurinominal seats assigned to them, and as a consequence their share of legislative seats decreased to 11.2%
In the case of all parties and political alliances, the plurinominal system reduced the amount of misrepresentation.
The misrepresentation error for the lower house of congress was: 35.2% net, and after parliamentary alliances were considered, it went down to 32.5%. Had a FPTP system been used, it would've gone up to 64.9%.
The misrepresentation error for the upper house of congress was: 21% net, and after parliamentary alliances were considered, it went down to 19% Had a FPTP system been used, it would've gone up to 67.9%.
In the lower house, 300 seats are given out based on FPTP, while 200 are given out through PRS
In the upper house, 64 seats are given out based on FPTP, 32 seats are given out to the second place party in each state, and 32 other seats are given through PRS.
I like to think this started the whole... situation the UK is in now
probably, I live in the Uk and it's going like the inside of spongebob's mind in that one episode
@@dr.snailracer1912 yeah same
Everyone in the UK should watch this. Our system is infuriating.
"The Wrekin" is pronounced "Reek-in".
The British phrase "Going about the Wrekin" means to talk without getting to the point as "The Wrekin" is a large hill in Shropshire, UK.
0:56 This map is a lot more accurate than it should be
I suggest combining the constituencies into larger ones that still elect the same total number of representatives. In Norway, the votes for MPs are tallied at the county level, which makes it much easier to get a more representative parliament. In addition, parties who get more than 4% of the votes on the national level, and are under-represented because of the limited number of representatives from each county, are eligible for one of the 19 levelling seats.
Nillie That would make it worse. An even larger number of people would go under represented.
Michael Trimmer That's actually incorrect. The larger the district magnitude the more proportional the vote share to seat ratio becomes due to having a lower threshold for gaining a seat. The Netherlands is a PR system with somewhere around 140 seats within one district (the entire country) and it is one of the most proportional systems in the world, and works very effectively (unlike its neighbor Belgium who uses the same system but only slightly different and is a bloody mess).
Michael Trimmer How does that make sense ? Are you maybe refering to the "more than 4%" part ? We have the same system in Iceland and I think that this limit should be removed (that every party that is underrepresented can, if they have enough votes on the national level, be awarded an extra MP form that constituency). The Icelandic/Norwegian/[real name] system can be improved, but must be more representative than fptp (don't have the time to go into it right now, can later if you want to hear my arguments).
Michael Trimmer Parties that get enough votes in one county can still get their seat(s) there, the only thing they aren't eligible for without 4% nationwide is levelling seats.
Nillie That would be better, yes, but still not nearly as good as full-on PR...
Yeah email club!
Aaaaaaand guess what? In Canada, it's exactly the same thing...
+Mercure250
Obviously, nations like Canada and India modelled their systems around the British ones. Not real big news.
+Attila the Fun Australia and New Zealand managed to change theirs to something infinitely less terrible, Alternate vote/Instant runoff voting/preferential and Mixed Member proportional respectively.
Canada, your turn!
mugy7 I would like to. But you know. Conservatism.
+Mercure250 That's cos Britain invented Canada.
+Cycling in Edmonton from the Eyes of a Teen
Yes but at the same time, how the hell would any party actually rule? The answer? They wouldn't. Our parties disagree on almost all points, and if any party could not get a majority, we would be absolutely fucked, especially now that the right-wing is united. Nothing would get done and all the house would do would be argue, argue, argue.
Furthermore, the system Trudeau wants is corrupt as fuck. I believe it would result in the Liberals ALWAYS becoming the opposition. I think it is because you must make a first and second (and third?) choice on your ballots, and our PM knows Conservative voters will have to vote Lib as their second choice. Thanks but no thanks.
Also, bloc quebecois and green, do we REALLY want them getting more representation?
There's one issue with the presumption that Parliament doesn't represent the population, which is operating on the assumption that everyone votes. If you live in a constituency where your party has 50% (or some amount more) of the support of the constituents, and is facing something like eight other candidates who are equally divided, then the margin of lazy voters has to be ENORMOUS for your candidate to fail, therefore most people who might support a popular party can safely not show up to vote, secure in the knowledge that their candidate will win anyway. Unless the total turnout is very high compared to the number of people who can vote, you can't truly determine if the final parliamentary numbers are actually representative or not.
hey this the quartering's music
Hey it's my favorite neck beard syrupean
@Captain McDog Ricky Gervais?
0:44 I CAN SEE MY CONSTITUENCY FROM HERE!!! :D
You're clearly not from Orkney & Shetland then!
*laughs in London*
My favourite thing is when we had the vote for a better, alternative system a few years ago, everyone was super against it for literally no reason.
+midlifecrisi hates Google + It's basically just because not many people understand voting systems and both Labour and the Tory's told people they should vote against it so people did without knowing any better.
+midlifecrisi hates Google +
Any major party will convince their voters change is bad. The snp cons and lab all benefit from what we have currently. So they wont vote for change.
Libs always want change because that change would benefit them.
No politician will vote to lose some of their power.
Personally I'd rather the smaller partys got the representation they deserve and earned. While i dont support them, goverment is ment to represent the people. All the people.
daniel king Actually the SNP support proportional representation even though it'd be detrimental to them.
It's because AV is worse (less proportional) than FPTP.
Americans seeing more than 2 colors must be very confused
I’m not confused. I’ll admit I don’t have a lot of knowledge on politics in the U.K (in case you weren’t aware, schools don’t have the time to teach us everything about every other country on Earth).
It’s more overwhelming thinking about how hard it would be to be an independent with this many parties.
@@agent_sus3273 what do you mean by "an independent"
@@lietajucemaciatko383 In US politics, independent voters (not to be confused with the independent party) are generally defined as people who completely identify with any political party and/or vote exclusively for a party. Also known as unaffiliated or swing voters.
I suppose that might be a bit confusing to anyone who isn’t familiar with US politics, so sorry about the confusion.
I can't wait till he updates this for the 2019 election
2019 election was a success.
If we follow the rule where every candidates represent the majority of the constituency, the govt. will never form and even if it form it will be a weak govt.. It will end up a representative but a weak govt.
***** Are you suggesting that coalition governments will become the norm, and that is a bad thing?
Germany has had a coalition government in all but one term since 1949, it's difficult to suggest that German governments have trouble getting things done. They've also enjoyed more political stability (only two early elections since 1949 due to government collapse, the UK has had five in the same period)
But, we're not sure it would work the way it worked for Germany. Though, they have evolved through their election procedure and now they have stable govt., but we all know what were the conditions after when they adopted Weimar Constitution. Things could go worse for UK for what we've now.
Niall Kinsella Well, I am German and can tell you from following the polical landscape for the past 30 years, that shit gets done in a coalition. Germany is only doing OKish with that because they are an economic powerhouse either way, so it is hard to fuck them up badly, but of course they are getting there slowly but surely by now...
But I don't wanna label the system as bad anyway, because I am a great believer in that people only get the government they deserve, so fuck them :)
Niall Kinsella Germany's Wiemar Republic (formed after ww1 but abolished when Hitler came to power) used a proportional representative voting system and it failed dramatically. There were constant re- elections, constant coalitions and no-one ever got a majority because too many different parties held seats. Granted the Nazis did actively tried to make politics much harder and none of the parties could think of a way to deal with the depression at the time but the government was still a very weak one.
Joe Fishy The problem you describe has been solved by introducing a 5% hurdle. Parties that fail to reach 5% of the votes don't get seats. This introduces a very moderate misrepresentation error, but avoids the problem of the Weimar Republic.
How can a country have so many parties.... as an american being force-fed only two parties this blows my mind LOL
if i understand correctly a we did have only two main parties till not long ago then a third party came along in the middle taking votes from both the main ones resulting in the terrible mess we have now
+Dooomninja yep labour party replaced the liberal party and started the multiparty system in the Uk
We never really have more than three. Previously it was Tory, Labour and Lib Dem (yellow), then Tory, Labour and UKIP (purple). After Brexit there's only really Tory and Labour, and neither is particularly good.
In Canada we have 4 "main" (or at least "well known") national political parties: Conservative, Liberal, NDP (New Democratic Party), and Green Party (a party primarily focused on taking care of the environment, they NEVER win 99.99% of the time).
Then we have some smaller parties in each of the Provinces and Territories such as in Quebec who has Bloc Quebecois. These smaller parties are more "locally" focused on the interests/issues pertaining to their own provinces/territories.
Not unless you're in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland where we have more parties to choose from.
There's an entire paragraph in my politics textbook dedicated to this election.
Blue - Conservative
Red - Labour
Orange - Liberal Democrats
Yellow - Scottish National Party
Green - Either Plaid Cymru, Sinn Féin or Green Party (depending on the shade of green)
Purple - United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP)
Dark Red - DUP
Grey - Any lowstream independent party
English independent party
This came up on my feed today, after we've just re-elected a Conservative government with the largest majority since Thatcher. Feels relevant still.
'Majority'. The sad thing is that most people in the UK voted for parties backing a second referendum!
@@mobilechikane8574 Yep, but FPTP. Hooray ...
@@mobilechikane8574 they didn't because lib dems were going to just ignore it so more people didn't want a boris Brexit than did, but of those who didn't it split between second referendum and just ignoring it so boris Brexit had more than second referendum or ignore referendum but wasn't a majority
@@davidsmith-nb6np Lib Dems were never going to get into power they still supported a People's Vote.
yep, the system is working great, the majority of people voted conservative and got conservative. The majority of people also voted to leave, and they just got that too. Quite happy with how things are turning out finally.
Why the UK election results are the worst in history
Thailand: *Hold my beer*
If you even call that mess an election.
North Korea be like Amateurs.
He was right.
Sequel time?
Same thing in Canada,36% went to Lib,then a majority took place
Watching during 2020 US election week and laughing nervously.
i like the changes to all the old thumbnaisls