First Past The Post - A broken system? What are the alternatives? What would work better for the UK?

[Banderill]

Helen Morgan MP said on BBC Breakfast news on Thursday morning that the First Past the Post voting system (used in the UK and other countries) is broken; and that Proportional Respresentation would be better.

The Electoral Reform Society seems to rate the Single Transferable Vote system of proportional representation highly: https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/

Would proportional representation break the Tory / Labour duality we've had for decades, and if so what changes might that bring about in terms of education, health, trade and industry?

Or is there a better system?

 

[AuroraSaab]

It would but we aren't used to coalitions so would it work well or would it take a decade for the competing elements in a coalition government to actually work together to good effect? It also translates into representation for more minority factions and although Ukip seem a spent force there's no saying another single issue party wouldn't arise and gain undue influence.

I think there's just a huge amount of cynicism and distrust of our politicians in the UK at the moment. I'm not sure changing the voting system would rectify that any.

(Edited for spelling)

 

[fozy tornip]

Dunno what to make of this. Are you saying UKIP's influence was curbed by FPTP? They hijacked the entire political discourse and had their odious agenda adopted wholesale by a wretched conservative party seeking to preserve their hegemony. If anything PR would've diluted Ukip's influence, wouldn't it?
I wonder about you sometimes.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Well they might have influenced the discourse but they didn't have much in the way of actual seats. They would have got 80 ish seats under (certain formats of) PR, under FPTP they got 2. How would PR have diluted their influence? If you think PR is fairer because it more closely gives representation based on number of actual votes, then I think you have to accept that while it benefits smaller parties you might approve of, it also benefits smaller parties you might not approve of.

Looks like the two right wing parties in Spain will fall short of enough seats to form a government:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...spain-election-2023-polls-results-latest-news

 

[fozy tornip]

They don't need seats if owning the Tories is the point.
Today I read Ed Davey crowing that the Tories could be out of power for a generation. Big deal! And then back in power lead by Braverman or Badenoch. Enough. Electoral reform to make such an eventuality impossible should be the priority for the sane and progressive non-gammon majority.

 

[Pale Rider]

They don't need seats if owning the Tories is the point.
Today I read Ed Davey crowing that the Tories could be out of power for a generation. Big deal! And then back in power lead by Braverman or Badenoch. Enough. Electoral reform to make such an eventuality impossible should be the priority for the sane and progressive non-gammon majority.

Of course they do.

Any grip they may have had on the Tories completely fails as soon as it emerges they only have two seats.

Unless you are saying the Tories are honourable and would have stood by any murky pre-election deals.

Surely not.

 

[Hitchington]

I'm in favour of PR, absolutely. Cooperation through coalition to benefit the whole of society and not just those at the top.

However I do have some reservations about any system that could potentially make Laurence Fox or Nigel Farage an MP. 🤮

 

[theclaud]

Helen Morgan MP said on BBC Breakfast news on Thursday morning that the First Past the Post voting system (used in the UK and other countries) is broken; and that Proportional Respresentation would be better.

The Electoral Reform Society seems to rate the Single Transferable Vote system of proportional representation highly: https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/

Would proportional representation break the Tory / Labour duality we've had for decades, and if so what changes might that bring about in terms of education, health, trade and industry?

Or is there a better system?

Still no further thoughts on the bull-running question, then?

 

[BoldonLad]

It would but we aren't used to coalitions so would it work well or would it take a decade for the competing elements in a coalition government to actually work together to good effect? It also translates into representation for more minority factions and although Ukip seem a spent force there's no saying another single issue party wouldn't arise and gain undue influence.

I think there's just a huge amount of cynicism and distrust of our politicians in the UK at the moment. I'm not sure changing the voting system would rectify that any.

(Edited for spelling)

To me, this is the problem, I not sure that changing the method of electing (what many people see as) the shysters will fix it.

Turnouts for Elections tell a story of apathy and dis-affection.

 

[Once a Wheeler]

PR is one of the key changes needed to make the UK a democratic country. No government since the war has had a majority of the popular vote and attempts by the voters to game the system with tactical voting are at best botched jobs. See my comment here.

PR means that long-term issues can be tackled with much more consistency and pragmatism: and most of our current issues are long term, far longer term than any parliament or even run of parliaments under a new Thatcher or a new Blair. The NHS, housing, climate change and the economy all need planning on a time horizon of at least 50 years. By the time 50 years have gone by we will be in a world with a declining total population where even fewer younger people will be supporting even more older people. Five-year manifestos under the current system simply cannot do justice to problems of this order and timespan.

PR forces parties to combine in order to tackle real problems. The idea that first-past-the-post (FPP) is good because the electorate can chuck out a failing government is fundamentally flawed. It is like a family repeatedly throwing out the baby with the bath water and then wondering why its children have no long-term prospects. Governments do change under PR but the system often makes such change the equivalent of adjusting the route to broadly obvious destinations. FPP tends to deny the validity of the choice of existing destinations and then scraps the vehicle being used to get there. Good MPs of all parties have far more in common than they have differences to divide them; but FPP means that a faction that controls a minority can form a tail which wags the dog. Everyone but the faction loses.

Banderill's link to the Electoral Reform Society's information on proportional systems is a very good read. Any thorough-going proportional system is better than FPP but I think the Additional Member System (Germany, New Zealand and others) has much to recommend it because it retains an individual constituency MP whilst allowing into the legislature highly qualifiied people who do not happen to be natural doorstep campaigners.

If you feel like moving things forward, Make Votes Matter is one organization that promotes fair voting and has no allegiance to any political party.

 

[Once a Wheeler]

Turnouts for Elections tell a story of apathy and dis-affection.

Turnout is a different issue from PR but I favour compulsory voting such as practised in Belgium, Luxembourg and Australia. Compulsory voting does not prevent one from handing in a blank or spoilt ballot paper and it does ensure that one has had an opportunity to express one's point of view — or lack of point of view. Its very existence does underline the importance of participation.

 

[BoldonLad]

Turnout is a different issue from PR but I favour compulsory voting such as practised in Belgium, Luxembourg and Australia. Compulsory voting does not prevent one from handing in a blank or spoilt ballot paper and it does ensure that one has had an opportunity to express one's point of view — or lack of point of view. Its very existence does underline the importance of participation.

Don’t disagree with the idea of compulsory voting, but, how can you enforce it, unless you have a comprehensive and accurate list of everyone who must be compelled?

 

[Once a Wheeler]

Don’t disagree with the idea of compulsory voting, but, how can you enforce it, unless you have a comprehensive and accurate list of everyone who must be compelled?

Indeed, such a list would be essential. Enforcement should be appropriate. For example, since not voting is a failure to contribute to one's community, wilful non-voters could be obliged to do a day's community service, which makes the point very eloquently. Those who refuse the community service option could suffer a meaningful but not draconian fine, say the equivalent of three days' pay on minimum wage (±£250? at the moment).

 

[Pale Rider]

Amusing to see so much backing for PR until someone pointed out UKIP would have got loads of seats under that system.

I can see the protest banners now: Fair representation for all parties - except the ones I don't like!

The chaps who design (hideously complicated) PR systems are obviously very clever.

But designing one to meet the needs of those on here is probably beyond even their talents.

 

[BoldonLad]

Indeed, such a list would be essential. Enforcement should be appropriate. For example, since not voting is a failure to contribute to one's community, wilful non-voters could be obliged to do a day's community service, which makes the point very eloquently. Those who refuse the community service option could suffer a meaningful but not draconian fine, say the equivalent of three days' pay on minimum wage (±£250? at the moment).

I like it, but, good luck with that!