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

[PK99]

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

And, it is wrong to translate UKIP votes in FTP into PR seats. It is very possible- even likely - that UKIP would have got MORE votes and MORE seats in a PR "Votes = Seats" system

And, remember also, Labour set up the Scottish Parliament and voting system in a way that was supposed to prevent any one party from dominating - that went well, didn't it?

 

[Deleted member 28]

Why didn't Blair change it when they were in last?

 

[Bromptonaut]

Why didn't Blair change it when they were in last?

Because he had a massive majority.

Next...

The Labour manifesto in 2010 however promised a referendum on electoral changes.

 

[All uphill]

The thing I have noticed in the Netherlands is that smaller parties can hope and expect to be in and out of governing coalitions so they feel pressure to be realistic in their policies.

The problem, for me, with UKIP was that they had no responsibility but managed to influence the whole political debate for a while.

I think we would find it strange to have the formation of a governing coalition taking months following an election, even stranger not to be voting for "our" candidate.

Overall I believe we would benefit from having a more grown up politics with a much wider spread of parties.

 

[Xipe Totec]

And, remember also, Labour set up the Scottish Parliament and voting system in a way that was supposed to prevent any one party from dominating - that went well, didn't it?

Labour set up the Scottish Parliament based on the presumption that Scotland would always lean towards Labour & that would lead to Labour-led coalitions in perpetuity, hence the use of the pseudo-PR Additional Member system rather than a 'full' PR system.

What's interesting is that I suspect most people outside of Scotland have absolutely no idea that the present Scottish Government is a coalition, and not an SNP majority.

 

[PK99]

Labour set up the Scottish Parliament based on the presumption that Scotland would always lean towards Labour & that would lead to Labour-led coalitions in perpetuity, hence the use of the pseudo-PR Additional Member system rather than a 'full' PR system.

What's interesting is that I suspect most people outside of Scotland have absolutely no idea that the present Scottish Government is a coalition, and not an SNP majority.

Coalition with a dominant party.

In the same way, 13-years of Tory Government ignores the first 5 years of coalition with the Lib Dems.

 

[Rusty Nails]

And, it is wrong to translate UKIP votes in FTP into PR seats. It is very possible- even likely - that UKIP would have got MORE votes and MORE seats in a PR "Votes = Seats" system

That is an important point about PR. It does allow smaller parties a greater chance of representation...in line with the number of people that support its views...even if some others find those views reprehensible. This is being seen more often across Europe with the power gained by parties that are not a million miles away in many of their aims from UKIP.

While this may appear unpleasant to some, imo it is a risk that is worth it if PR is meant to represent the spectrum of views across the country.

 

[Deleted member 28]

Because he had a massive majority.

Next...

The Labour manifesto in 2010 however promised a referendum on electoral changes.

Pity he didn't think of the future.

Next........

Not so f*cking smug now are you.

 

[Once a Wheeler]

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.

You make a fair point but I do disagree with this analysis. Had UKIP been represented in the Commons on a proportional basis, the British public would have witnessed the brawling in the corridors of parliament which they descended to in the EU parliament, the gratuitous insults handed out by Nigel Farage and the uncooperative destructive bullying which they engaged in instead of reasoned debate. The British electorate would have seen them for what they were and they would never have gone beyond the status of fringe extremists. In my opinion it is precisely because they were kept out of parliament that they were able to present themselves as embodying a popular true faith which, in fact, nobody subscribed to in the form which they were determined to realize.

The complexity of PR is, I think, overstated. Many countries handle it perfectly well and compared to the complexity of tactical voting is arguably a simplification of the current system. Over time, an understanding of the electoral system would be a normal part of the school curriculum which would go a long way to clarifying its workings — and indeed lay the foundation for future amendments and improvements.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Pity he didn't think of the future.

Next........

Not so f*cking smug now are you.

Noty smug, just factual.

 

[BoldonLad]

You make a fair point but I do disagree with this analysis. Had UKIP been represented in the Commons on a proportional basis, the British public would have witnessed the brawling in the corridors of parliament which they descended to in the EU parliament, the gratuitous insults handed out by Nigel Farage and the uncooperative destructive bullying which they engaged in instead of reasoned debate. The British electorate would have seen them for what they were and they would never have gone beyond the status of fringe extremists. In my opinion it is precisely because they were kept out of parliament that they were able to present themselves as embodying a popular true faith which, in fact, nobody subscribed to in the form which they were determined to realize.

The complexity of PR is, I think, overstated. Many countries handle it perfectly well and compared to the complexity of tactical voting is arguably a simplification of the current system. Over time, an understanding of the electoral system would be a normal part of the school curriculum which would go a long way to clarifying its workings — and indeed lay the foundation for future amendments and improvements.

Doesn't that pre-suppose that "the British public" actually watch Parliamentary proceedings? A quick Google suggests an audience of approximately 120,000 households. Whilst I am amazed it is that high, it is hardly extensive coverage of the population.

 

[All uphill]

You make a fair point but I do disagree with this analysis. Had UKIP been represented in the Commons on a proportional basis, the British public would have witnessed the brawling in the corridors of parliament which they descended to in the EU parliament, the gratuitous insults handed out by Nigel Farage and the uncooperative destructive bullying which they engaged in instead of reasoned debate. The British electorate would have seen them for what they were and they would never have gone beyond the status of fringe extremists. In my opinion it is precisely because they were kept out of parliament that they were able to present themselves as embodying a popular true faith which, in fact, nobody subscribed to in the form which they were determined to realize.

The complexity of PR is, I think, overstated. Many countries handle it perfectly well and compared to the complexity of tactical voting is arguably a simplification of the current system. Over time, an understanding of the electoral system would be a normal part of the school curriculum which would go a long way to clarifying its workings — and indeed lay the foundation for future amendments and improvements.

I agree. The best way of dealing with extreme ideas is to see how they stand up to reality in a coalition that needs to find an acceptable compromise between all parties. It also removes the ability to posture as victims of an unfair system.

 

[Deleted member 28]

Noty smug, just factual.

Hasn't helped their cause in the long run has it, I'm sure they'll get in next time but the pressure will be on.

Can't wait.

 

[Once a Wheeler]

Doesn't that pre-suppose that "the British public" actually watch Parliamentary proceedings? A quick Google suggests an audience of approximately 120,000 households. Whilst I am amazed it is that high, it is hardly extensive coverage of the population.

Quite true. However, I cannot believe the main news bulletins would not have featured their flamboyant behaviour and many more people tune in to those.

 

[C R]

You make a fair point but I do disagree with this analysis. Had UKIP been represented in the Commons on a proportional basis, the British public would have witnessed the brawling in the corridors of parliament which they descended to in the EU parliament, the gratuitous insults handed out by Nigel Farage and the uncooperative destructive bullying which they engaged in instead of reasoned debate. The British electorate would have seen them for what they were and they would never have gone beyond the status of fringe extremists. In my opinion it is precisely because they were kept out of parliament that they were able to present themselves as embodying a popular true faith which, in fact, nobody subscribed to in the form which they were determined to realize.

The complexity of PR is, I think, overstated. Many countries handle it perfectly well and compared to the complexity of tactical voting is arguably a simplification of the current system. Over time, an understanding of the electoral system would be a normal part of the school curriculum which would go a long way to clarifying its workings — and indeed lay the foundation for future amendments and improvements.

Indeed, what did the BNP in was getting seats in councils. It showed they were a bunch of good for nothing hooligans and disappeared rather quickly.