The Election Results Don't Match the Voters - TLDR Explains
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ต.ค. 2024
- TLDR Pin Badge Store: www.tldrnews.c...
Survey: forms.gle/gihG...
In this video, we discuss the results of the 2019 general election further as well as examining the system of election used in the UK. The results of the First Past the Post system don't seem to be pleasing a percentage of the electorate, so other alternative systems are being proposed. We talk about what they could have meant for this election and ask you what you think.
Follow TLDR on Facebook: / tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Twitter: / tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Instagram: / tldrnewsuk
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Learn About Our Funding: tldrnews.co.uk...
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk...
TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We want to give you the information you need, so you can make your own decision.
TLDR is a super small company, run by one person with the help of some amazing volunteers. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing on Patreon. Thanks!
Looking through the comments it seems that a number of people think this video is in some way bias towards a specific ideology.
If the system were to change to PR then smaller parties from both sides of the aisle would benefit - the Brexit Party, the Lib Dems and the Greens would all pick up a significant number of additional seats.
In fact as we mentioned towards then end of the video parties across the political divide are calling for changes. In fact the Brexit Party's manfiesto contains some of the most radical constitutional changes.
Essentially my point is that highlighting the way the electoral system works isn't bias towards either side. Parties from both sides would benefit. Parties from both sides advocated for it.
You're more than welcome to disagree with PR, but to say that it's only being suggested because Labour lost is untrue. The Brexit Party have more to gain from PR than Labour do and that's why their manifesto is full of constitutional changes.
I'm enjoying the new high sodium version of TLDR... The only downside to this more entertaining content, is that it's less educational.
@Influence08 Yes? It's stupid regardless who wins
The problem with your failure of an attack on your electoral system is that if the electoral system would be different, the campaigns would be different, resulting in different votes, therefore associating the current numbers of votes with a different electoral system is ill advised at best, or flat out dishonest at worst. I'm not sure whether you're incompetent, or malicious, but judging by that you claiming you're being swamped with accusations of pro-uklabour party bias, while me not seeing that (instead, I find a lot of people complaining a missing link to a survey, which I don't exactly understand, since it's literally the second line at the time of writing of this comment saying "Survey:*link*") I'm slowly veering towards dishonesty.
oh, tldr news, when will you understand that "biased" is conservative talk for "not biased towards meeee"
Sadly, we had a vote on P.R. a few years ago, and it was turned down by the voters. I agree we do need to shift to a P.R. system.
TLDR: Uses a skull and crossbones to represent "more extreme" parties
Me: "I for one welcome our new Pirate Party overlords"
Hey now, in my country the Pirate party is one of the biggest parties...
Ho ho ho. Too. Funny.
There's literally a Pirate party in Germany
I want to join the Pirate Raiding Party. Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrggggghhhh!
Oh wait. That's not what you meant. Uh. Never mind. Heh heh heh heh.
@@respublica4373 where do you live? Somalia? XD (jk, it's Sweden, or some other Nordic nation right?)
It must be added that people have voted with first past the post in mind, meaning that under a different voting system votes for smaller parties would increase, this means that the current system is less rapresentative than data might suggest
EDIT:
my intention is not to say one system is better or one is worse, I'm not even british so I have no way of knowing what would work for the UK, I just wanted to say that the data in the video doesn't reflect the fact that changing the voting system also changes how people approach voting
I don't think, that so many people would vote for different party, if there was a different system.
@@kOubrecht see it like this.
Why would you vote for a party thaf YOU KNOW wont ever win a seat were you are.
Even if your there biggest supporter.
So you either dont vote at all, because whats the point.
Or you vote for the party that your the least against... to maybe keep the one you hate out.
@@kOubrecht For sure they would. It's the reason Lib Dem and Brexit Party have such a strong number of MEPs. People know that every single vote counts. Even if your whole constituency is 60-70% one party, your vote can still get another party representing you.
Also worth noting though, there'd be a significant amount of people that didn't vote for any party cos they're in an area that is 80% one party, for example if you're area is voting 80% Labour every year you might not bother going to the polls to vote Labour cos you know(/think) that they're going to win in your area anyway so why bother voting for them so it wouldn't just be minor parties gaining votes from a reworked system
Lib Dems would have got at least one extra vote from me under PR
In NZ the MMP system has never resulted in one party winning an absolute majority, it encourages parties to work together, find a middle ground as well as be more proportional
Yer but Winston Peter's and NZ first with only 7.2% of the vote became King maker. So a party with 7.2% of the vote chose the PM. I'm not in favor of first past the post but I dont like NZs system either.
I like Australias system, everyone gets two single transferable votes one for the House of Representatives (House of commons) with signal member constituencies and the 2nd vote is for the Senate (House of Lords) elected by Proportional representation from party lists.
Mathew Harty i think that majorities are more healthy for a culture. People get angry when nothing they voted for gets done ever because everything has to be a compromise.
Too bad it didn't stop the National party (ill-advisedly) bleating like sheep that "the election was stolen" from them, simply because they got the largest proportions of votes xD
That's not how it works under MMP National!!
Regardless of one thinks of that, as you say MMP encourages working together and better proportionally represent the electorate
It doesn’t always means that it’ll better though. Thailand has a similar voting system, but the parliament is still very divided, just about a week ago the opposition coalition staged a walkout and halted the government.
@@jjosephs6521 I also do like the Australian system. Thank you for pointing out that disadvantage with MMP, i forgot to point out that when I wrote the comment. (I haven't really thought this through properly) It's also important to have minority groups represented in government and MMP can help that particularly if the government doesn't have anyway else to do that
The voting behavior would have changed as well with a proportional system. I know plenty of people that voted a certain way because their vote wouldn't matter otherwise. (mainly labour or conservative)
Also, the behavior of MPs wouldn't be the same if they get the seat through proportional system. Every MPs will have to follow a party line no matter how terrible the decisions or the orders are because the party is the one choosing who get to be an MP.
So, basically people can only vote for party and party choose who get to be an MP. This ultimately gave party leader a power of dictatorship within a party and MP is no longer has to take care of people in their constituency because MP seat won't be link to them.
True, but proportional representation would be awful for local politics. We use FPTP because it is the best compromise between streamlined National and representative local policy. Our MPs represent the majority vote of the people in their constituency and it prevents population centres such as cities from disproportionately affecting results on the national scale.
It’s not a perfect system but there are definitely drawbacks to PR that people often overlook.
@@Bushflare You could reform the other part of your parliament into a chamber that represents the regions, like in the US the senate presents the states. This way, you'd still have a corrective for that.
Also: I'd like to see some data on how important that "local representative" thingy really is. Isn't the reality that most people don't vote the person, but because they are in the party the people want to support?
Local representatives might have been important in the 1800s, but now you can work in London and live 100 miles away.
@@Bushflare You could vote regional but then give than compensate the seats got by the bigger parties with just more seats for smaller parties, so at the end its representative regional and also proportional to the vote of the people
You're forgetting that in a PR system smaller parties would've got more votes because there wouldn't be need for tactical voting anymore.
Isn’t that the goal anyway?
Go check out the history of the Israeli Knesset... they've NEVER HAD A MAJORITY w/out a coalition... Here in the US, we have to make our coalitions before the voting, which means moar principle and less strategy.
I'm a Republican, which is the third party ever since 1864... we buried the fuckin' Whigs.
Exactly
It's simple . Count the votes fairly . All the BS in the world is just for cheating .
The reason why they will never do this is because it doesn’t benefit them to do so
We had a referendum to change it in 2011. 13 million people said no.
Russian Bot, UK Division ahhh yes when the country was civilised
@@saudiprince6532 Which system are you advocating for?
@@RuleBritannia1987 When the options are "this" or "basically this but you get to rank candidates from your constituency" it's no wonder nobody cared.
Saudi Prince It doesn’t work for the country, either.
Germany has a pretty cool system where you cast two votes; one for a party and one for a candidate. In Sweden we vote for a party with a list of candidates, but have the ability to select one candidate lower on the list to vote that candidate up. So in both systems there are a proportional party representation but the voters also have the ability to select their favourite candidate.
Most (if not all?) European countries have proportional representation. The UK is the odd one (as per usual).
The two vote system has two issues: Parties making party politics for the second vote, instead of making it clear that this is a vote for local representative in Berlin (see FDP campaigns for reference what I mean). The "Überhangmandate" are are mess in its own right and there where proven cases, where less party votes would be lead to more party seats because of the math of the Überhangmandate. And also see FDP for an example on how the second vote can screw over proportional representation in favor of party politics (If the FDP would have campaigned for their candidate, that would be fine. But they as a party had the party slogan "First Vote CDU, Second Vote FDP" - and that is antidemocratic nonsene).
How on earth has Angela Merkel been the chancellor for so long then? It's felt like over a decade
Yeah but that's gonna work properly, and we can't have that in Britain.
Btw. ich bin Deutscher, daher auch die Erfahrung mit dem Wahlsystem.
The only other EU country that doesn't have a system that is somewhat proportional is France.
@@Qualltoxy
Yup, unfortunately. But at least the election is on two turns.
Australia uses Single Transferrable Vote, and I'm pretty happy with it. It means you can vote for who you genuinely want in power, without having to second-guess the result or vote tactically.
Edit: Soz we use preferential instant-runoff voting to elect the lower house, my bad.
Australia's preferential voting system still at the end of the day benefits the two big parties. For example in the last Federal Election the Greens got 11% of the National vote in the House of Representatives but only got 0.66% of the seats. The Senate system is much better though
@@Petreon360 just adding to that, the National party got just over 8% of the vote, netting them 23 seats
so they polled less and received 23x as many seats as the greens?
the issue with the current system isnt in preferential voting - its in the division of electorates (and then obviously the influence of major donors and media)
It is still not as good as PR though. STV means two-party system. Every general election ends up with a single party majority in Australia.
Our system in Australia works well because the upper house is done different to the lower house. So we have a bit or an each way bet. Meaning that we're likely to get a Majority in the Lower house, but it's rare in the upper. The UK with their house of lords don't get this chance. In addition our Govenor General has the guts to sack the government as the ultimate safety valve.
Also writing from Australia here. I feel that some form of proportional representation is best _however_ the preferential method we use here for our _single-member_ electorates is still _way_ better than what they do in the UK. The candidates that win are those preferred by the majority in any given electorate. If proportional representation is too daring for the UK then they could at least consider preferential.
When you change the system, the voters also change the way they vote.
... which would even kick the smaller parties to better results.
If you want to know more about this topic and why FPTP is the worst electoral system imaginable, you should have a look at CGP Grey's series on different voting systems. (They are explained by using a made-up "animal kingdom" to avoid any real world analogies.)
@Adam Filinovich But it fits so well to UK's status of democracy.
Let all the other nations improve from century to century, UK will stay static.
Yup, get rid of the spoiler effect so they actually vote how they feel rather than being shoehorned into one of two ill fitting boxes.
North Korea is an excellent example!
In Ireland we use single transferable vote and we haven't had a majority government in about 50 years , which is more amazing when you realize that we've only had a parliament for 100 years
And despite CJ Haughey, I would contend that the Irish political system actually works better than the British one. It's more focused on consensus and doesn't have massive shifts in policies after an election with a change of government.
@@nastysimon also referenda on major issues helps
This is a good thing in ireland, the Dáil is actually representing the people there's still big enough parties that will usually be in government but you also have small parties and even independents who get in to represent the people
UK had a referendum for single transferable vote in 2011 and rejected it - only the losing politicians want PR not the people.
@@davidthomas5261 parties that benefit from PR want it , those that don't oppose it ,the conservatives in the UK have been in government for a decade but have never won the popular vote , if there was PR they would at the very least have had to be in a coalition for this whole time and they value staying in power above everything else so they obviously don't want it
Just gonna put this out there: Norway and Finland regularly have hung parliaments and coalition governments and they are regularly rated the HAPPIEST places on the planet!
Thats because its too cold to argue....
Not really applicable to the UK tbh
Hung parliaments are the greatest strength of a "democracy"
There's no proof to say those two pieces of information are related
we fought and won WW2 under a hung parliament! Hung parliaments are not the problem. The problem is the maturity of the MP's
Hung parliament = consensus-based democracy why does the UK attach such a negative connotation to decisions not being made by just one party?
Flamin' Cat because the country needs to come together after being divided by brexit it now needs a stable government that is able up function properly
Mostly because of things like what has been happening during Brexit where politicians don't discuss or work together at all and instead kick and drag their stubborn heels in temper tantrums that last 3 years
@@richardhills6952 Hung parliament is not a term invented for Brexit. along with that how would you imagine people coming together for a decision like this? " I voted for party X but since party z won thanks to the system I will still be in a position, thanks to their decision making that will be terrible for me". Yeah, sure
People get angry when they never get anything they ever vote for. Pr actually removes choice from voters and puts it all in the hands of a few professional politicians that decide who works together. In pr you get what you want less of the time because you don’t decide policy even if you vote for the king makers.
As well as what people have said in this thread, in the UK party voters often consider it a betrayal should their party enter into a coalition with another party.
I'd remind you that it wouldn't be "Hung Parliaments" anymore, it'll be the norm and coalitions would be perfectly normal, like it is in most European countries.
Like in Scotland!
In Spain no one knows who their MP is and all the parties, including the small ones, show a loathsome disdain for their voters. They have had years of bitter discussions in trying to arrive at a workable government and people are even more pissed off about their politicians than they are in the UK. The far right Vox party has substantial representation in the Cortes.
@@jasonpreater6220 It's worth pointing out that, while Spain's system is more proportional than the UK, it's not a PR system.
@@jasonpreater6220 That’s hardly (solely) due to the electoral system.
Governments can be just as dysfunctional under FPTP systems (look at the UK and US...) and other PR-governed countries don’t necessarily have Spain’s current problems
Also, while the notion of having a specific MP based in where you live is one of the more solid arguments for FPTP, the problem with safe seats means that “your MP” may not give a toss about your concerns if you happen not to be part of the solid voter bloc in your constituency, which is also a big criticism of FPTP.
This “knowing your MP” concept is simply less relevant in PR systems, as the main concern of voters tend to be with a party, rather than a single, local MP. However, the local aspect is not entirely lost, as most PR systems tend to combine geographically defined seats with “bonus seats”, with the latter reflecting all those votes that “wouldn’t count” in a FPTP system.
As for Vox being present in the Cortes, are you saying that a system where the views of voters aren’t being represented is totally fine - as long as it’s happening to political parties you don’t like? And no, I don’t like Vox either.
Yes because it works so well in Germany.
A really important effect of this that you don’t address is that people would vote differently in a proportional system. The Greens, for example, would get more seats based on their current share of the vote and they would probably *also* see an increase in that share of the vote, as people would no longer feel that it was a ‘wasted’ vote.
The Colonel There’s no legitimacy in an electoral system that is skewed against whichever parties happen to trigger us. There’s also a very real possibility that far right parties will be emboldened by PR, but that’s the price of truly representative democracy. You can’t deal with radicalism by brushing it under the carpet. Right now we have a landslide administration which is nonetheless a minority party. Whether you or I like the Conservatives under Johnson is immaterial, the fact is, nearly 60% of the electorate don’t.
@The Colonel Under FPTP every government is effectively a fringe government. You say that there are compromises in every democratic system, but if you have a zero-sum game "winner takes all" system, as the UK (and almost nobody else) does, there IS no need for compromise. If anything, post-war politics in the developed world show that PR does more to push governments to the centre than FPTP does.
In GE2019, 57% of the UK electorate has been reduced to the role of impotent and bemused spectatorship because a political party that simply has no meaning to them have won an artificial landslide due to the peculiarities of our electoral system. This isn't necessarily a criticism of either Johnson or the English Conservative party per se; this situation would be just as alarming if the Labour Party had again assumed power under similar circumstances, as they did in each of their election victories in the 2000's. British politics operates under the illusion of consensus.
The UK has gone back and forward between governments that are either futher to the left or (mostly) the right than any of our world peers, and this has been to the detriment of the UK. In the rest of the democratic world beyond the US and UK, PR has created an effective centre-ground that is largely social democratic, and the UK and US are now floundering because of their over-factionalised approach to political parties, and a fixation with a failed monetarist ideology that presumes that markets alone create morality, better infastructure and social cohesion. In the Anglo-Saxon world political affiliations have become part of people's identity; in the rest of the world, politicians occupy a merely technocratic role that governs from the centre, utilising - but light-touch regulating - open markets, which we know to be empirically necessary.
The political writer Alexis de Tocqueville once noted that effective politics and effective politicians should largely be dull; in the Anglo-Saxon world, we've become too addicted to the politics of spectacle as a source of meaning and identity.
@The Colonel 1. The rise of populism in Europe has been overstated by the UK press; 2. The notion of a left-wing dominance in European Politics is illusory; the EU is neoliberal and light-touch free markets won the ideological war three decades ago; even the Scandinavian countries have liberalised their markets and reduced their tax burden. 3. As disagreeable as political correctness is, there is simply no such thing as cultural marxism. Postmodernism and dialectical materialism are antithetical to each other. it is a tautological buzzword that has no meaning whatsoever.
The local constituency link is a myth. I suspect that most MP's are parachuted into their constituency and only live there once elected. My MP having been parachuted in spends most of his time in london and his "local office number" is now a london one, where he hangs out with his bit of stuff on the side.
Well my MP is really awesome, almost always responds to letters, has weekly surgeries where anyone can talk to her, and actually represents us in parliament.
Maybe you should vote in a new MP.
We had a Tory MP once. We're in Lancashire, he lived in Scotland, and I can't remember the guy's name.
One answer to to this is to have meaningful residency requirements such as a minimum of 3-5 years having your primary residence in the district before you can run for office. Carrier politicians would hate it but it would be better for the people.
Being local doesn't necessarily solve the problem. The SNP MP who just got elected in my constituency was previously our MP from 2015-2017, and she was an awful representative of the local area despite living just down the road. Sometimes politicians are just incompetent lmao
Sam Burton-King it’s not her fault your neighbours are voting for her and not somebody else
This is nothing new, as long as I can remember we've discussed changing our voting system after every election. Even had a referendum on it in 2010.
The referendum failed because they wanted to change it to another shitty system. It was deliberate, they didn't want to change the system and they knew perfectly well people would vote against the one they suggested.
@@starlinguk Im still upset about it lol
@@starlinguk the system they were changing it too would've been better. It's just the government put out a shit ton of what basically amounted to propaganda because they didn't want the system to change.
@@starlinguk I read up on the 2011 vote to AV (is still better than FPTP but not by much), and for that vote Labour abstained from either side because they found that the Tories had snuck in a clause which allowed them to change constituency boundaries, which essentially meant that if AV was adopted they could gerrymander the votes), and the entire vote was poisoned by the Tories lmfao
@@CM-db5cg FPTP serves the big two parties the best, so of course they were against it. The only reason we have what we call a "two party system" is an artifact of the travesty that is FPTP. Any system that wastes as many votes as is mentioned in this video is not worthy of being called a democratic system
Here in canada, first past the post is an absolute mess and i hate it. We were promised electoral reform and never got it
because the current leader is not prepared to lose his grip on power...
Let’s acknowledge for a moment the difficulties in changing voting systems in democracies. Let’s also acknowledge the importance of continuing to advocate ALL PARTIES on the issue. If you want to know why Canada didn’t get much movement on electoral reform.....ask the CPC- they have the most to lose from proportional systems (because they have the most to gain from status quo) and therefore refused to budge. But let’s just blame PM Trudeau, that’s better.
john Stewart lol. It’s the CPC who get the majority of the benefit in the current system and therefore they have the most to lose. But nice try blaming PM Trudeau, but the facts don’t support you. Especially when you look at how the CPC all but blocked movement on the issue.
@@bartwilson2513 Since the CPC won the popular vote in 2019 they stand to gain the most from a purely PR system then? Although I suppose the Liberals would enter into a formal coalition with the NDP.
If you want to see the worst part of FPTP, watch the US presidential primaries...and how little of a percentage is needed to get *all* electoral votes in the primary :(
And this is why the Westminster system is the least democratic of all "democratic" systems.
Because they dislike the result.
Kaz Walker No the issue is not that People dislike the result, the issue is that votes don’t count. Walter is objectively right
@@kazwalker764 You'd be complaining if Labour had won. You can't just accept non-democratic practices because your favourite won. That's bordering on fascism.
@@starlinguk Hah, quite a bit of projection in your post... I live in a country that has FPTP (Canada), and my preferred party lost because of it, but won the popular vote.
I still think Canada should keep the FPTP system so that rural voters are fairly represented. I even live in one of the largest cities and was raised in one.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Leftist idiot.
@@starlinguk
I get what you’re trying to say but:
1: FPTP is non-representative on a national scale, but representative on the local scale. It is not non-democratic.
2: It is nowhere even close to Fascism.
Check out the Dutch voting system. We have a proportional system.
Many countries have, the only reletively uncommon thing about the system is that it doesn't have an election threshold.
I am an expat in The Hague (South-Holland). The last elections of the Prov. Of South-Holland (The Hague, Rotterdam) were won by the fascist FvD, second was the more moderate right VVD, but they were clearly also campaigning to get the far right-wing voters. And not to talk about little reactionair Christian parties who also got some percent of the votes. It is a madhouse. A political system like in the UK, would even be a bigger disaster here.
@@mrid5850 There isn't a formal election threshold in the Netherlands, true. However, for the national election you still need to get 1/150 of the total amount of votes cast to get a seat in parliament. So there is an unofficial threshold.
@@PGraveDigger1 True, though this is the case with every proportional voting system in an indirect democracy as you always have to divide the total number of votes cast by the amount of seats in parliament. Don't get me wrong, I like the fact that there isn't a electoral threshold, it makes it just that bit more democratic. Though it is a shame that some smaller parties like FvD can come into parliament. But that's democracy as well, appearantly there is a demand for such a party so it is only democratic that those people also get a voice.
@@luxembourger how is it a madhouse? It is simply a representation of what people want. Think of the UK Labour party as an example: there was little to no consensus within the party on brexit but there was little room to split.up into separate parties as would have happened in NL. If there had been proportional voting, pro-brexit or anti-brexit MPs would have been able to feasibly split from their parties and form a government together, based on whichever stance has a majority: MPs are nor locked into parties and parties are not locked in quite as much. Flexibility is the result, not a stalemate per se
Here’s the thing: You don’t vote for the Conservatives or Labour,. You vote for Mary Smith, who happens to be a Conservative, or Bill Jones, who happens to be Labour. It’s entirely possible that Mary Smith wins your constituency of Bumblefuck East because she’s such a great person, but that dastardly Bob Green, the Conservative candidate in Bumblefuck West, is someone you wouldn’t piss on if he were on fire.
So combining vote totals by party is very misleading.
That was true four hundred years ago, but due to televisions and other forms of mass media and the increasing organisation and power of parties, the parties and their leaders are far more prominent in the public consciousness, so a constituency based system is less reflective of popular will and practical reality.
Im dutch so I seriously don't know, but do people really vote that way? Do they put more emphasis on their MP or on the party?
Can,t agree with you at all and neither would just about every other representative democracy on the planet .
The Colonel Exactly. All those northerners who went blue last week talked about how “metropolitan” Labour had become. I happen to think that was a pretty invalid reason to change their votes, but there you have it.
Well a PR system would accelerate Labour’s movement in that direction quite rapidly. Ditto the Tories, who are, as the northerners will soon learn, more “metropolitan” still.
If the country’s not homogeneous, and people are determined to make an issue of geographic differences, constituencies are essential to keep national parties responsive to that trend. Otherwise only myopic regional parties have a chance.
Speederzzz Well, two MPs were recalled by their constituents this year, triggering by-elections. One of those by-elections returned a different candidate from the same party. The other switched parties by a narrow margin, but switched back in the general election. In both cases party loyalty remains a going concern. So why bother recalling an MP if personality is irrelevant?
Where is the link to the survey?
It is on the comunity tab
@@danielastorga2296 Thanks for pointing it out. Looked for it in the description at the time before it was added.
So, from that the "votes per seat" metric, the SNP is seriously over represented for its voters.
Yes, but why is that your only take away? Lib dems are seriously underrepresented. So are the brexit party.
@@drummingtildeath its not my only take away, but it is the obvious conclusion that comes out of the metric and it is not even discussed.
The SNP being "over-represented" and the Libs being "under-epresented" are two sides of the same coin.
The argument that PR will make everything better is flawed.
@@RickiMcKay where's the flaw?
The fact that the SNP are over represented at present is not a flaw with PR, it's a flaw with FPTP.
FPTP favours regional parties.
Yes it is because the Scottish constituencies are disproportionate to English ones. It's so to satisfy Scottish desire for higher representation (Scotland 5 milion inh, England 55 milion inh) as otherwise Scottish MP would never be able to pass anything in HoS. Actually if the representation of Scotland was to be reduced Scotland would probably outright leave the Union and perhaps they should in the end.
I think that there is also a huge difference on how a voter thinks when seats are awarded proportionally. If you support a smaller candidate in your area that has no chance of winning, it still makes sense voting for him. Whereas if the winner gets all, you can sit at home or spoil because the only difference you make is that the winner gets unmeasurably lower proportion.
Election Reform is very important.
In a Democracy the point is for everyone to be heard and listened too.
proportional representation is awful it has been destroying my country for the last decade with terrible coalition govts and is not democratic at all actually it excludes rural communities and other minorities from having a say
Which nation is that?
Why don't you mention Sinn féin and Alliance party as the "Others". The balance of power in NI has changed for the first time ever.
thanks for bringing that up man
Same in Scottland. For a unionist party the Tories sure push their union apart...
Maybe he keeps that for another video. This is huge thing cuz separatist parties have never had majority before.
I'm just heartbroken that SNP didn't get a clear majority.... Us Jacobites have no choice but to invade again.
We'll be led by our Bonny Prince Patrick Stewart and his adopted son Jon "Leibowitz" Stewart.
That haven't really talked about the results at all outside of England. It is a little annoying.
There is one thing that I think that we need is an independent electoral commission, separate from parliament and able to stand up to governmental pressure.
Also this regulator needs serious enforcement powers and penalties as well.
@@simonburling3762 And how will this make parliament more representative?
@@Quintinohthree By being a neutral referee to enforce the rules certainly will help representation by preventing big party bullying. Also some of the other proposals need to be made law.
@@simonburling3762 A neutral referee can't change the rules that perpetuate an unrepresentative parliament, they can only enforce them.
Ah, then you must have misunderstood. By voting Boris Johnson into power with a large majority, you have given up all independent institutions, and employee and environmental protection. Expect politically appointed judges, making it illegal to contradict the government, making it illegal to leak information, and redistricting the map to maximize conservative wins in future elections. The people around Johnson are smart enough to cement their hold onto power into law, use Brexit to get rid of anything standing in their way, and blame the EU and immigrants for any negative consequences.
Labour doesn't understand the working class anymore.
To think that people rejected the AV referendum by over 60% back in 2011...
What What yeah I supported it (it’s not as fair as STV would be, but it’s a step in the right direction) and I haven’t yet heard one argument against it except for either “It was a LibDem or Green rig to get them more seats” or “but it’s not real PR”. Technically those are both true but they aren’t actually compressions to choose FPTP over AV.
Only 10% bothered to turn out I think.
I've been campaigning for a change to the FPTP system for quite a few years now. Those of you in the UK looking for an organisation linked to pressuring the government to change the way we elect our MP's should check out Electoral Reform UK, where we push towards implementing the Single Transferable Vote (we are open to other systems though!)
I love it when people who live under a parliamentary system make fun of the electoral college we have in the US. "ThEy WoN wItHoUt WiNnInG a MaJoRiTY?!?!?!?!? LoL." Who's laughing now?
The electoral college is also ridiculous.
You also have no voter ID which leads to massive cases of voter fraud, and electoral college means that a couple of large cities on the East and West coast don't get to decide the future of the entire country, especially when those areas have most cases of voter fraud,
@@seithroil True. Let me clarify that I all I mean to say is that we are not the only place with a nonsensical system.
@@barrymurphy3379 Agreed. As a center-left voter, it makes my blood boil every time the Democrats rail against voter ID laws.
Barry Murphy ahhhh the voter fraud conspiracy. Someone drank the Kool-Aid.
The Netherlands hasnt had a 1 partij majority in our parliament since 1891 as far as I can see. Every single government since then has been a government formed from a coalition of parties. I dont mean to nationalistically ignorant but the Netherlands is a pretty damn great place... Theres also plenty of other countries who continually have coalitiok governments and are doing really well... So the entire argument of hung parliaments being a problem is bs.
You're assuming British politicians have the same inclination to work together as the Dutch. Have you been asleep for the last 3 years?
Totally agreed. Im really fond of coalition governments myself. Greetings from a German neighbor.
@@charlieg1029 no, not at all, but we created a climate for working together because we had to. Imagine if you guys had done the same. Sure its not going to be effective immediately because youve built up a culture of hostility in your politics but youve got to break through that. Right now you live in an elected dictatorship where 1 party holds both the executive and the lawmaking power. Thats a massive imbalance of influence. The Netherlands is not perfect in this, theres plenty of things wrong with our balance of power but at least there is some scrutiny and control between the executive and lawmaking powers. You dont have any of that.
I wonder how well they would work together if you ever decided to leave the E.U?
@@ChrisWalter our political parties? In a similar manner as now. There would be debate, some topics would be devisive and there would be a lot of attempts to try and get a coalition of parties to support a 'Nexit' mandate. Though, afterwards the Netherlands would fail as a country, we rely too much on trade with the EU. Either we crash out and destroy our economy or we lose all influence in the EU and become its bitch.
Don't really see how you can say the "discussion about electoral reform has really begun" - when there was a referendum on changing the voting system in 2011.
Sure electoral reform is a positive thing - but it is not a new thing.
A vote that failed because most people didn’t care about it at the time. These days I’m hearing far more ordinary people talking about electoral reform, it’s not just political wonks
@@WhichDoctor1 Don't forget that it wasn't proportional representation that was being offered, we were fobbed off with the "alternative vote" as it was called, no one wanted it so not surprising no one cared about it.
In that vote the libdems layed down and let the conservatives walk all over them telling lies.
The information from the government was that AV was okay but the best way to remove a government you didn't like was with the current system.
Just because there was a vote doesn't mean there was a discussion. Look at the EU referendum.
There has already been a referendum on this. PR was rejected when the question was asked during the coalition government that preceded Dave Cameron's.
Nicole K It was on AV as the new system which is definitely not the choice many want in terms of PR. Also the campaign was a bit of a mess when you look into the campaign itself.
@@keeleyreynolds8351 The Lib Dems were rewarded for their coalition with the Tories by being annihilated in 2015, hardly a good advert for coalitions.
Russian Bot, UK Division Of course it isn’t a good advert in that regard, but it was Cameron fulfilling their want for a PR voting system referendum by giving them (possibly) the most unwanted PR system. But we also have to remember the coalition government did serve a full five years in government, which by that time was technically a full term under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
AV is not PR, nor did it claim to be. Please don’t lie. PR has never been tested in a UK referendum.
"hung parliaments" are kinda the point of proportional representation, it actually encourages parties to work together, instead of against one another.
Because the effect generally seen from such a situation is that it becomes extremely hard for a government to get things done. A party who holds the majority could put a policy to vote and effectively be blocked with very few rebel MP's from their own side. This is seen in a lot of the previous Brexit votes and has resulted in the likes of Ken Clark being ousted from the Conservative party.
@@jameslewis2635 The Netherlands hasn't had a party get a majority of the seats in parliament since 1891. We've had proportional representation since 1919. In my opinion, the last 100 years (ignoring WW2) were pretty great for us.
@@jameslewis2635 On the other hand in systems where one party needs to have majority it pretty inevitably leads to extreme polarization of politics, and cooperation is seen as taboo.
On the other hand, recent real world experience casts doubt on that idea. Brexit was all about that situation where parties would have been encouraged to work together, but it didn't really work. They didn't really work together, instead working against each other for years of deadlock.
@@volkris Kind of proves my point. UK uses FPTP system, so parties aren't encouraged to work together on an institutional basis. As such even something of as huge national importance as handling Brexit properly was hijacked by the polarized political system.
I would almost guarantee if UK had an election system where parties had been forced to work together in coalition governments then Brexit would already have been done, or would never have happened at all.
RE: Online voting in the survey - see Tom Scotts videos on electronic voting. One of the worst ideas you could possibly suggest for elections imo.
Electronic/online voting is fine, ASSUMING that you have paper backups that are actively counted as well. As it stands, paper ballots alone are also less accurate and safe then a combination. Lost ballot boxes, fires. Having 2 systems to cross reference makes everything a whole lot better.
@@deefdragon You can't cross-reference systems which are not of themselves reliable. Electronic voting is inherently unreliable, while paper voting can be made almost perfectly reliable. In the end you must rely on paper.
@@deefdragon And congratulations, you've just invented the world's most expensive pencil.
Why bother with the online bit if the ballot is automatically printed? Just use the paper version.
@@Quintinohthree that thing goes invalid when you smeared some ink at others folding it lol (at least in my country)
also the losing party will ALWAYS call for a paper recount. The electronic vote is really a shitty idea, however you look at it.
Single Transferable Vote is the way forward imo..
There's a great series of videos from CGP Grey explaining the whole concept
We've had four elections in nine years because of hung parliaments, the Commons has done virtually nothing since 2016 because of hung parliaments, the Coalition government of 2010-15 resulted in Lib Dem annihilation at the ballot box, we had a referendum in 2011 to change FPTP to AV rejected by 13 million voters.
Of course with a DIFFERENT SYSTEM the results would be DIFFERENT. but if we had a DIFFERENT SYSTEM
1: People would have VOTED DIFFERENTLY
2: The campaign would have been FOUGHT DIFFERENTLY
Is this bad somehow?
@@svenwillett1750 not at all, but trying to say "the majority of the country didn't vote for them, we need proportional rep" is just silly since you're equating two different systems and the results would have been completely different
@@Flame1500 oh okay
@@Flame1500 however the election would almost certainly have seen greater representation of smaller parties in a more proportional system, as the current system encourages tactical voting
Anthony Bracuti i agree, i honestly dont mind FPTP cause otherwise we would just have hung parliament after hung parliament. and let’s not forget that the uk voted on having electoral reform and a change in the voting system in 2011 and of the 40% that decided to vote, the overwhleming majority voted to stay with FPTP
Poor timing of the video, makes it look like sour grapes.
Pretty much
When should the release a video examining the actual voter preferences vs the actual election results? Before the election?
This is just an analysis of voting systems. If it makes you feel better just pretend they are animals being voted on for the jungle council....
QUEEN LION INTENSIFIES
@@dstinnettmusic But I am not ill?
Don't I remember that Labour saying they wanted to introduce PR during their past government? We have it in Scotland and it was introduced by a party who knew they would be worse off, yet did it because its fair.
First past the post is disgustingly undemocratic
Your original premise is wrong. If Labour had achieved the Conservatives percentage they would have achieved a majority of 160. The electorate doesn't want to reform the system as demonstrated in 2011. Why? The electorate wants a government to lead not the mess that we have had since 2017 which would be the result of a proportional system. Which would also wipe out independent MPs completely.
It probably isn't entirely true that you would get the same mess with a proportional system. The reason it was a mess is because parties didn't want to accept a compromise due to the fact that compromises are harshly punished in a FPTP system. In a proportional system this is often not the case. Because parties don't get as harshly punished, compromises become more prevalent, thus not ending up in the same mess as you have had. This is examplified in the many countries that have these kinds of voting systems and where it isn't a mess.
You and all your facts and history, and correct reasoning... You're forgetting that TLDR is hard left. Hence: "butt muh democracy".
I for one, am enjoying the new high sodium videos. 🤣🤤
I would go as far and say that the current electoral system is "undemocratic". Isnt the the definition of democracy that the people decide who is going to govern? That does not work if only a few votes count. In a fair system EVERY vote matters.
This you get when those who are voted into office also make rules how to vote. UK politician like like to use phrases like mother of parliaments and mother of democracy yet UK system is most undemocratic from all democracies, votes are literally thrown into dumpster and there are many inconveniences to outright obstacles to even cast vote.
You know if a remain party had won this video wouldn't have happened.
There is a lot of people in the comments talking about the Australian system. While Australia's preferential voting system is much better than the UK first past the post system, it however still benifts and maintains the two big party duopoly. For example in the last Federal Election the Greens got got 11% of the National vote but only got 0.6% of the seats.
The greens got more seats than they deserved... anyone with even half a brain can see that...
@@johnstewart3846,
LNP: 76,000 per seat.
Labor: 69,000 per seat.
Greens: 1,483,000 - only 1 seat. How exactly does Greens get more seats than they deserve?
sarcasm: - the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
There is no accountability with Proportional Representation. With First Past the Post, I can actively vote to remove an MP from their seat, as I did this last election, helping to turn my seat from red to blue, with PR, I could not do that.
I think Britain can no longer give lessons of democracy to the world. This might have been the case 300 years ago but not now. Sorry guys!
Problem is we are fast becoming a one party nation, and if we allow it to happen then we could be in real danger of becoming a dictatorship.
The UK should switch to STV, with each constituency being a county, and they send as many MP's as they need to.
Keeps the local representation, while providing people with Representatives they can more comfortably interact with.
You didn't put the link to the survey in the description
you can find it on the community tab of the channel page
@@thanksfordoxingpeopleyoutube cheers my guy
Does it make anyone else laugh that the SNP complain about Scotland not being an equal partner yet Scotland is over represented in parliament.
Scotland has 58 MPs, the whole Parliament has over 600, how is that an equal partnership? If your talking only about representation by population its probably fine, of course the whole point of the United Kingdom is that its 4 countries not just 1 and Scotlands issue is the way the Parliament works out is just whoever wins England gets to control all 4 countries even if, as was the case this time, the majority government was almost completely rejected outside of England, losing very hard in Scotland and having no Northern Irish parties that would even consider supporting a Tory government after their betrayal of the DUP
And in addition to that, Scotland has its own parliament. England does not, meaning Scottish MPs ( who are heavily overrepresented in parliament ) can vote on English only matters.
The Scots can cry all their want, reality shows they are in an extremely privileged position.
@@blackchoas yes I'm on about population as we don't have a truly federal system, the scots may have a separate identity but they are a separate state like in the US, I guess the solution would be true federalisation because right now the scots, welsh, and northern Irish have their own assemblies where as England doesn't.
@@hobbabobba7912 yes well sadly the issue in democratic reform is people have plenty of ideas for how any given country might improve but its rather hard to get the political will to reform political systems, and I think the issues you bring up where the equality and fairness of the union for both populations and specific regions are in question is a serious problem to the union in the face of its inability to reform and will continue to fuel nationalists tensions.
Under a proportional representation system, I assume Nigel Farage wouldn't have stood down all Brexit Party candidates in the 317 Conservative-held seats. And since those seats were the areas they likely would have performed better in, the Brexit Party would have won a lot more seats while the Conservatives lost more. They were polling at about 10% before Farage announced he would not contest any Conservative seats, and afterwards their support dropped by about half. I reckon they would have performed about as well as the Liberal Democrats did.
So in that system there would be relatively no chance of any party having a majority, meaning hardly anything would get done because every party would want something different, done wt this moment we would neither stay nor leave the EU and business would stagnate through a lack of forward planning. Or is that wrong?
Parties would need to compromise and build coalitions with other parties to form a majority that then governs.
The result is less black/white and more colorful or grey tones. Less extreme and more moderated.
Less crazy and more stable.
@@joansparky4439 So no one ends up happy and voters feel even more disenfranchised. Well done
@@SamuriLemonX18 No, more people are happy and voters feel and are more enfranchised.
@@Quintinohthree I'm sorry but i have to disagree with that point, it is only my opinion but i feel less people would be happy with what i feel would be total mediocrity and inertia.
@@davidlewis5780 Good luck disagreeing with reality. By and large voters in proportional systems are happier with their electoral systems and feel more represented than in systems which exclusively employ single-member constituencies.
"That doesn't mean Boris Johnson doesn't deserve to be in number ten"
At first I thought you were going to follow that up with "so here are some reasons that *do* mean he doesn't deserve to" but then I noticed there was only two minutes left
The last voting reform referendum was really badly explained and promoted!
I don't think voting reform will happen until 2 parties with 150+ seats work together to get it passed through parliament.
So, never ... :(
Dude, I think we can safely say that Boris doesn't deserve to be there
funny how nobody complained when UKIP got 4millions votes yet only had one MP isn't it ?
I bet you did complain tho lmao
Quite a lot of people complained. Basically every party except for Labour and Conservative and even then many Labour supporters did.
Even though I disagree fundamentally with UKIP, I think it's vastly unfair.
@@thesuomi8550 Nope, but if you need to think that to justify your own feelings now then by all means think it.
as much as I completely disagreed with UKIP (and still do) I will always suggest that was a travesty of 'democracy' that left 4 million people almost voiceless in politics.
Proportional representation brings with it a different set of problems. It concentrates political power in the more populated area, which could lead to issues in more lightly populated areas ignored. This would be exacerbated by the removal of the link between the constiuency and the representative, as you mentioned. I think ranked choice voting, in which the voter ranks their choices from most preferable to least preferable and the candidates with the lowest vote total has their vote redistributed to the others until a candidate gets a majority of the vote, would likely be the most fair change to first past the post.
Most people don't care for their local representative. They vote because of party affiliation, not because they like them soo much. The heck, plenty of MPs don't even really live in the constituency they represent. So who cares if that part is scratched?
But even if you do want to keep it: just reform the house of lords into something like the US senate then.
PS: its inherently undemocratic to give rural areas more voting power then cities. Just like it would be if men had more voting power then women, because they are fewer, or blacks vs. whites etc.
The power is at least, less concentrated than now. And it should be concentrated with the masses
but even under the current system less populated areas get less seats than more populated areas...
Under this system. Monster reigning Looney party would get a single seat.
Well....good.
Do they support Brexit? 😂
@@Samuel88853 just looked it up, they suggested involving Noel Edmonds because he understands Deal or No Deal :P
Why not though? If people are voting for them then they deserve to have a seats. It doesn't matter whether we agree with them or not.
Then that shows you just how bad politics is right now 😂
SNP got 5 times less votes than Lib Dem but 5 more seats. The SNP say that they won by a lot but more people voted for parties that are pro union even though the SNP won like 80% of the seats
Did you limit the Lib Dem votes to just Scotland or are you counting all votes across the UK?
Because then it wouldn't be a valid comparison at all.
@@giglefreakz Why would he just look at Scotland, its called the United Kingdom for a reason.
@@boostav Because this is about Scottish independence, something than only the people of Scotland can declare and vote for.
If the election used proportionate regional lists (1 list each for England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland containing the current equivalent number of constituencies) the result would be:
283 Conservatives
210 Labour
75 Liberal Democrats
26 SNP
17 Green Party
14 Brexit Party
6 DUP
5 Plaid Cymru
4 Sinn Fein
3 Alliance
3 SDLP
2 UUP
2 UKIP
Guys: I really like your content. However, I find your merch advertising overly aggressive. It's been leading me to think twice before playing your videos.
Love how we cry for reform when it doesn't go our way 😂
Shaman 966 people have been arguing for electoral reform for decades. I love how those who benefit the most from this dreadful system say it's perfect.
Lee J just because it's occasionally proportional doesn't make it ok.
I'm not even a labour supporter, nice of you to assume so.
Had you made and released this video BEFORE the results, some may have considered this as a technical unbiased analysis. But like this....no chance. Moreover, I heard the same arguments from losing parties in Italy, France etc. in the past decades. Nothing new under the sun...
The brexit party is pushing for PR more than anyone else, stop whining
I’m not the one whining here...
@@tcas747 he's not whining he's reporting? it's news not a political agenda
So you say your political system is actually not a democracy because it does not reflect the will of the people? Because how can it be that parties need a different number of votes to be represented in parliament? ... and the whole time Nigel fought for Brexit because the EU is undemocratic. yeah, well... (whoever has the damage need not worry about the mockery (old german figure of speech))
First past the post is a dumb and un-democratic system.
In germany we have a system where every region elects their representative just like in britain, but there are about double the seats. The remaining seats get filled such that you get total proportional representation. This may even lead to needing some extra seats sometimes, which is done if needed. I think this system is better because every region still has its representative, while at the same time making sure that every vote counts.
For that reason in germany we always have coalitions governing (at least in modern times). So politicians are forced to compromise, extreme positions usually don't get a majority.
This is why I vote AFD but dont live in Germany full time. It makes me laugh. To be fair, it is because I cant vote for anyone else because they are mainly corrupt corporate puppets but it is rewardind to vote in germany. The UK should have proportional representation. For example, the UK scottish national party have 55 seats but a tiny proportion of votes.
gosh mate, you got such replies.. xD
The best about this: Britains calling the EU (elections) undemocratic :D
If your vote got you representation then you're a happy bunny. Outside of that each of us still needs representation proportional to how we voted. Fast past the post is a winner takes it all scenario. The first thing every new government is redraw the electoral boundaries in their favour. The argument that FPTP produces strong government. The last few years have disproved that.
The First-past-the-post voting systems might be the most undemocratic voting systems in modern democracies.
Solutions
1. use a system where there's still some form of local representation STV or MMP for exemple
2. Extreme parties wouldn't be able to do much because everyone would have to work together.
3. Same as 2. More cooperation isn't usually a bad thing.
As a fan, you say this isn't bias yet we all know why you're talking about it now. This happens in every election.
That doesn’t mean it’s biased, he has talked about the disparity in votes before and is just reporting on it this election, looking at his data snp are clearly the most overrated party, winning 80% of the seat with 40% of the vote!!
he's reporting now because there's recent data
It would be great to see a video about what happens when a MP loses their seat/what happens when a leader loses theirs (i.e Lib Dems)
I am really happy that you made this. Thanks 😊
Also most people aren't voting for who they want to lead the country, they're voting for whoever they think is the least worst out of conservatives and labour
What is it with English speaking elections that they are so backwards? I also don’t understand that local issues get mentioned in the PM’s questions. Why aren’t those dealt by by local governments?
Because local government is part of the Central government
@@tobywalker712 I know, but that is a waste of time. It also disrupts the democratic process with that stupid fist past the post.
No way in a normal democracy a majority should be achieved through a minority in votes.
To those who voted Conservative and support FPTP out of self-interest, remember, it will not consistently be convenient for you. However, it will consistently have the effect of reducing democracy.
It's to little to late I feel. The Tories have in there manifesto that they will redraw constituencie borders and will like lead to very gerrymandered seats. Unless something fundamentally changes the Tories will just keep winning Majorities.
The fundamental change that would work the best is an opposition party people actually like.
bigangryscotsman they're basically going to just rig the next election.
@@Infinitystar225 and the electorate will praise them for it calling it smart politics.
bigangryscotsman probably
@@Infinitystar225
Imagine being so unpopular the only way you can rationalise it is the enemy is cheating.
XD
Under this system all the smaller parties would have more than this makes it look like. A lot of brexit party supporters voted conservative as to not waste a vote
The debate should be only about which system we change to. I favour Single Transferable Vote for many reasons. The two principle ones are that it retains a constituency MP and that it excludes extremist candidates (they are illuminated very early on). It has worked very well for the Irish.
How many more seats do the Conservatives have to win to convince TL;DR that it does reflect the will of the people? Apparently, a 162-seat lead over Labour is not enough.
I agree for an electoral reform BUT on first glance the title of this video makes this seem like a salty response to the Tories winning. You may want to consider being mindful of potential bias. I watch this news channel as I find it to be the most unbiased source out there, please keep it that way.
Agreed
Second this. Especially with the timing. FPTP election systems are flawed, yes, and it'd be great to change them, but you could look at almost any election ever and point out the flaws with the FPTP election system. The most recent election is so politically charged right now, that it doesn't make sense as a neutral observer to start complaining about FPTP skewing. You don't seem neutral when you do it now, not unless you've been complaining about FPTP forever, and you haven't.
No one is unbiased. So instead of pretending to be unbiased, a better example would be to tell your audience about your own biases, try to be as fair as possible under said biases and the audience can be educated accordingly.
I mean they benefitted most from the gamed system whilst Lab, Lib and Green lost out the most. SNP are also big benefitters of the system but that's coz of the small population size of Scotland and it's not as if the scottish vote is taken into account at all anyway. We've consistently voted in SNP for the majority of the seats in the past 3 (maybe 4?) general elections, it's made fuck all difference to how we're treated or valued.
In the 90s the Blair government had an amazing chance to change the voting rules to pr and they didn’t. You reap what you sow
ringodooby labour won't change the electoral system since PR benefits them so much.
I never remember this arguement being pushed when UKIP had millions of votes but zero seats... the "game" is as it is. It is flawed but constituencies need local representation rather than taking the UK as one whole community as it clearly is not.
...mmp...
I actually do remember UKIP and other parties pushing for some kind of electoral reform at some point. Also, there are proportional voting systems that actually take more local results into account, though these are not (and no election system is) perfect. The elections for MEPs show what I'm pretty sure, but not absolutely certain, it a proportional voting system that maintains some form of local representation.
While I think local representation is important, most people don't even know who their MP is, so I don't think it's important enough to stop reform to the system. Perhaps making the house of lords into a proportionally elected assembly (to replace the EU elections we no longer need to do, meaning we still have three main elections- general, council and perfectly proportional for the 'other place') is the way to go, as then you maintain local representation from MPs in the commons.
But the "game" can be fairer. There are better options that also allow for proportional local representation, and help mitigate the effects of gerrymandering. Surely if you believe in democracy, then you believe the representation should be fair and accurate across the board? Because right now it is not.
I think they should rank candidates instead of proportional voting. I wish that was an option in the survey
PR breaks the local link between an MP and the constituency (I understand there are multiple PR models, but your video used a pure % translation so I've assumed the same) making the MPs more likely to be party drones that tow the line at all costs as their re-selection depends on it. The FPTP system has many faults but local accountability and greater discourse within parties are good things that may well be lost under PR. It's also not wise to assume voting under the FPTP system would translate to PR. I think it's more likely that people will vote differently under PR as they know it has a greater impact so the gains made by marginal parties you've assumed in your video are as likely to disappear as they are to deliver greater numbers of seats.
But your concern has long ago been addressed. Single Transferable Vote is proportional; with open lists, it also ensures that a candidate must be individually popular to be elected. Parties draw up lists of candidates, but voters can vote for individual candidates not the parties and so the final order of the party's list (and therefore in which order that party's candidates get elected) is controlled by the voters. Under FPTP, the party decides the candidate… and that's it. Like the party but think the candidate is objectionable (or vice versa)? Tough.
Because you have such power over the choice of winning candidates, you are likely to end up with a representative who closely shares your politics and priorities, and who impresses as a person, and who therefore you can trust to work wholeheartedly on your behalf. Under FPTP, most voters end up with an MP whose politics and priorities they don't support, and this is shown in the often dismissive responses of MPs to constituents’ letters.
In fact, the major drawback is simply the size of the ballot paper - because all the individual candidates in your constituency have to be listed separately so you can rank them as you choose. It also requires voters to do rather more research before voting, though I defy anyone to argue that this is a bad thing. Apologists for FPTP point out that the current ballot paper is very simple. Great, but (a) a piece of paper with the name of the incumbent on it is even simpler, and (b) are they really saying that people can't understand the concept of listing candidates in order of personal preference?
And that’s why this entire format is infuriating.
Or just watch CGP Grey's excellent electoral systems videos. You are welcome :D
This is an incredibly important topic.
*Pat McFadden, a former Labour minister said: “Thursday night was a disastrous result of historic proportions and the only thing that would make it worse is to refuse to learn from it. It’s rare for a Labour* *leader to have such unchallenged command over a campaign. Corbyn and his supporters had complete command of the NEC and party structures, the manifesto, the election strategy and even the timing* *given he voted for an election at this time despite deep misgivings among many MPs. NO ONE got in their way. NO ONE stopped them. THIS was the platform THEY HAD BEEN DREAMING OF fighting an* *Election on for decades. And it led to the worst Labour result since 1935. . . . . . Corbyn and McDonnell have transformed Labour into an Unelectable Cult of Marxist Dreamers*
For any one party to have a majority they would require more than 50% of the national votes, the last time a party managed that was 1931 when the Conservatives had 55% which would still only just be a majority, and history tells us the UK government doesn't really work well with minority governments
Seems proportional representation wouldn't really work with so many parties to choose from
Ranked choice voting 🗳
which form? as in: should all parties/candidates be ranked or should a top 3 be given, will a vote still be counted if someone only votes for 1 party anyway or is the vote then discarded, do all votes count with a different weight (as in: number of first places counts more then number of second places, but it is possible to get placed second by everyone in the country and then still win), or do you prefer the system where peoples votes go to their second choice if their first choice does not get a seat?
@@iwndegraaf1055 you're describing several other systems.
Ranked/single transferable means you rank the candidates in order
If no one gets 50%, they eliminate the weakest candidate and all their votes move to people's second choice until someone does have a majority
@@Joesolo13 thanks for explaining.
doesn't that carry the risk of having to do multiple recounts, making the wait for results take mulitple days after the election?
The reason we have this system is so the more rural areas aren’t consistently ruled by dense urban areas.
Did you get that from the weak arguments list that the Americans use?
@@jannoottenburghs5121 So how is that supposedly a weak argument then?
Janno_O right because if the US was a pure democracy, The coasts would rule the country. Couldn’t think of anything worse than the Midwest being ruled by California and New York voters... especially given the current state of uber-liberal, corrupt cities like NY, LA and SF. The vote in the U.K. will reflect in the US because our political ties and trends are so close. Trump will win by a greater amount than he did previously because the democrats have pushed too far left. It’s inevitable.
@@zteaxon7787 the way SlovesL responded explains it just fine why he just copied it from Americans.
The way he links a US democrat landslide because of the 2 coastlines with the UK is fascinating since it doesn't even results in a Labour majority (like you see in the video)
@@jannoottenburghs5121 I know but the factvthey try and delegitimize a 365 vs 203 election result as if it wasn't clear or uncontested enough is mindboggling. They always were absurd but you can only state the obvious so many times I guess we'll always have to call out the liar even when he has a megaphone on repeat and we'd rather do other things. We should remove them at some point isn't it? Even though they always try to illegitimately remove us and it makes you hesitant to allow such a thing. There's a thing called justice and these people don't define it and we have to abide by it.
Must admit, this voting system is a fairer system, where every vote really does mean each voter is genuinely represented
Please do a video on how the Scottish Parliament elects it's representatives.
In short they combine both FFP and PR in a way that I think brilliantly uses the strengths of both and few of the weaknesses.
What you did not mention is the tactical voting thing. So, without "the first past the post" smaller parties would get probably way more votes.
You know that if the electoral system changed then A) voting patterns would change and B) party structure & policy would change, probably preemptively.
This is a not a small detail, it completely changes the outcomes. Looking at FPP votes in a mature party system and reinterpreting them in proportional terms is either deliberately misleading or lazy.
I do enjoy your work, but this really put me off. It makes me a bit concerned about other times when I take you all at your words on topics I know less about.
I mean that’s a yes and no. Your points are very much true but no one can really say definitely how parties and voters would react to a change especially when that change isn’t really specified (they alluded to about 5 other options in their animation and didn’t say anything more than “more proportional”). The video is basically claiming there is a problem without pushing for a specific solution, which isn’t really bad. After all, in the UK election a little over 45% voters voted for a party with a real “Brexit now” platform and the rest voted for remain/second referendum parties but now Brexit parties have a solid majority despite that.
In short, yes you’re right that directly translating one set of election results into a new system isn’t perfect but it’s also all they can really do given the parameters and it does highlight the main issue of the video (how the “will of the people” can poorly translate into representation in the UK electoral system)
You may be interested in looking into Gell-Mann amnesia. It's basically when you only notice something someone says is wrong or biased because you're familiar with the subject matter, but trust other things they say because you aren't familiar with it.
@@kazwalker764 yes, I'm familiar with it. Unfortunately, my hope to find reliable commentators/explainers overcomes my familiarity over and over again.