First past the post voting system.

[David Hankey]

Given the irregularities of this system is it time to have a more fairer way?

 

No incumbent Government will want to change as it is this system that brought them into power.

 

So, perhaps it is up to us, the little people, to bring about change through pressure on our MPs or by a petition.

 

I'm sure, across the UK, there are 100K people who can get this debated in Parliament.

[Electric Yetis]

🤣 totally fine when it benefits the right.

[Spudulike]

Ridiculous seeing Ed Davey and Lib Dems celebrating wildly when their vote share has flat lined since the last election. 

 

The people don't always get what they voted for.

[davieG]

We had a chance with the Con-Lib Government but it was the wrong option and didn't survive the vote.

 

Maybe people should have voted yes and pushed for a better option once it was up and running.

 

In all my years of being able to vote and I've moved up to 11 times I've rarely ever been in a situation where my vote would make the slightest difference.

[leicsmac]

I've long since thought there should be a move from FPTP. I still think it now.

 

Maybe not to direct PR, but some of the continental STV systems would absolutely be worth considering.

 

NB. Just for an additional level of complexity, the past few years has shown that perhaps different issues require different systems for decision and policymaking upon them.

[FoxyPV]

PR is the way forward. 

 

I think the UK is only one of two countries in Europe still using FPTP.

 

Aside from providing better representation, it also makes election planning and the count centres much more fun

[Foxdiamond]

Would this lead to extremist parties holding balance of power in the future?

[David Hankey]

I probably should have used the word anomalies rather irregularities.

 

For example the SNP who received 0.7K votes have 9 seats, Reform who received 4.1M votes only have 4 seats and the LibDems 3.5M have 71 seats!!

[Zear0]

In 2017 when Conservatives got 42.4% and Corbyn's Labour got 40%, not sure we'd have had a particularly stable government with that mix of ministers. 

 

I also look at the state of the EU parliament, the Dutch, Israelis and don't exactly fancy having the extremists having disproportionate sway over the centrists to form a government. 

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

On the one hand the relationship between vote share and number of seats seems unfair and a tad absurd at times, but on the other hand you massively reduce the risk of a handful of populous cities deciding the fate of the entire country. And on top of that, with FPTP you have a reasonable likelihood of forming a majority government which means you can actually do things when you’re in power. 

[davieG]

13 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

In 2017 when Conservatives got 42.4% and Corbyn's Labour got 40%, not sure we'd have had a particularly stable government with that mix of ministers. 

 

I also look at the state of the EU parliament, the Dutch, Israelis and don't exactly fancy having the extremists having disproportionate sway over the centrists to form a government. 

I doubt it would have been that,  The Tories would have needed to bring on board some of the other parties of which there would likely to have been quite a few to choose from. Failing that Labour would get the chance. It comes down to who can form a Government.

[davieG]

3 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

handful of populous cities deciding the fate of the entire country

That can happen with FPTP. The majority party is not always the one with the most votes/support.

[Vacamion]

28 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Would this lead to extremist parties holding balance of power in the future?

 

Some countries have a de minimis amount (eg 5% of the vote) that you need to get above before you get any representation.

 

It didn't stop AFD and Die Linke in Germany, though, which is what happens when extremism gains in popularity.

 

 

[ajthefox]

15 minutes ago, davieG said:

That can happen with FPTP. The majority party is not always the one with the most votes/support.

Trump became president with circa 3  million fewer votes (2% smaller share) than Hilary.

 

I know the US system is different but still.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

27 minutes ago, davieG said:

That can happen with FPTP. The majority party is not always the one with the most votes/support.

But the point is they elect only a representative of their respective constituencies. London could potentially have a disproportionately large effect on the election if percentage of the national vote translated directly into seats. Even if the population of a given constituency increases dramatically, or the demographic make-up shifts significantly, or voters for whatever reason align over a particular issue or candidate, they still only elect a single representative.

 

8 minutes ago, ajthefox said:

Trump became president with circa 3  million fewer votes (2% smaller share) than Hilary.

 

I know the US system is different but still.

This is exactly the same idea though.  Without such a system , States with very large populations which tend to vote a certain way (e.g California) could have a disproportionately significant effect on the outcome of an election. 

Edited 5 July 2024 by MarshallForEngland

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

 

This is exactly the same idea though.  Without such a system , States with very large populations which tend to vote a certain way (e.g California) could have a disproportionately significant effect on the outcome of an election. 

Yep, and with the current situation, the states with smaller populations in the middle can dictate policy like Jim Crow to the larger ones which then just have to at best watch them enact it, and at worst actively participate in it.

 

There does need to be a bulwark against "tyranny of the majority", there's more than enough examples of that, but it's difficult to find a balance and imo it really is individual issue-dependent in order to be enacted fairly, which makes it even more complex.

[CosbehFox]

I've seen more stuff about FPTP today than I did in 2011. 

 

There is validity to the claim to replace it but I fear we end up with the type of governments and coalitions as displayed across Europe. Which frankly don't function 

[izzymuzzet]

I am somewhat torn.

 

Clearly FPTP leads to lots of people feeling disenfranchised and disengaged from politics.

 

On the other hand it allows the electorate to punish bad governments very effectively. If voters want to hand out a beating, as they have in this election, FPTP provides the opportunity to do that in a way more representative systems don't.

[goose2010]

personally i think the first thing they need to address is getting people to actually vote! 

 

The turn out for a General Election was shocking. 

 

Something needs to be done

[Lako42]

If it helps that slimy made up character Farage happy I don't want it. 

[when_you're_smiling]

2 hours ago, David Hankey said:

Given the irregularities of this system is it time to have a more fairer way?

 

No incumbent Government will want to change as it is this system that brought them into power.

 

So, perhaps it is up to us, the little people, to bring about change through pressure on our MPs or by a petition.

 

I'm sure, across the UK, there are 100K people who can get this debated in Parliament.

‘You lost, get over the referendum!’

 

(I did vote in favour of AV in 2011).

[HighPeakFox]

I'll play nice and admit I have always thought our voting system arcane and in need of reforming. However, the point some have made that we're only going to have the idea promoted now because the right have been caught out being a total mess, is also valid. Labour, Greens and LDs have got wise and figured out how to maximise their appeal - Starmer won't give two hoots about vote share, he/they knew what they were doing (with the exception of a few seats, where they cocked up).

[Mark_w]

3 hours ago, Spudulike said:

Ridiculous seeing Ed Davey and Lib Dems celebrating wildly when their vote share has flat lined since the last election. 

 

The people don't always get what they voted for.

They’re about the only party whose vote share is roughly in line with their representation in the commons this time aren’t they? 

[Dunge]

I always say the same thing about replacing FPTP: Be careful what you wish for.

 

For years it benefited the Conservatives, primarily to the detriment of the left. Now it’s to the detriment of the right. It’ll be interesting to see who changes their mind on it.

[ramboacdc]

You won't get it changed. It was part of the coalition agreement in 2010 an was watered down to that alternative vote system because the tories were worried it would win. You won't get another vote on it just because the right of center now want it.